Yoma 65a — the Talmud in English

Everyone agrees

Rabbi and the Rabbis agree]

that if atonement was achieved through

the later sin-offering

which was not lost

which had never been lost], then the

lost one dies.

But according to

the words of

Rav, that the “second” mentioned in our Mishna [which is to graze until it becomes blemished] means the second one of the second pair, which was never lost and never rejected, if so, a corresponding case with an individual’s sin-offering would be when he sacrificed the lost one, while the second one [which had never been lost] remains.

And it is implied from the Mishna that an individual’s sin-offering of this kind dies.

And this is difficult: even Rabbi, who holds [in the case of a sin-offering that was lost, for which another was designated, and the first was found and sacrificed] that the second dies, nevertheless here in our Mishna [in the case of the goat on Yom Kippur whose fellow died], even if the law of the goat were like the law of an individual’s sin-offering, Rabbi would agree that the second one of the second pair would not die.

This is difficult: Even Rabbi, who holds [with regard to a sin-offering that was lost, for which another was designated, and then the first was found and sacrificed] that the second must die, would nevertheless concede here, in our Mishna [with regard to a Yom Kippur goat whose counterpart died], that even if the halakha of the goat were the same as that of an individual’s sin-offering, the second goat of the second pair would not die.

And the reason for the matter is:

Because everyone agrees concerning the law of a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one that it was not stated as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that it dies, unless there was rejection in it [that there was no possibility of sacrificing it], such as when it was lost, and therefore the Rabbis said that if he achieved atonement through the lost one, its fellow, which was not lost, does not die.

And why does Rabbi hold that its fellow, which was not lost, dies? [After all, it had never been lost!] Because since they designated it in place of the lost sin-offering, it is as though it itself had been lost.

But in the case of a goat whose fellow died [which according to Rav is not subject to the law of rejection], immediately, at the time when he cast lots for the second pair, it turns out that the first goat was fit for sacrifice, [for it already had a mate]. And

it is thereby

and this is]

like one who designates two sin-offerings

for the same sin

for responsibility,

so that if one is lost, he sacrifices its fellow:

And Rabbi Oshaya said: If one designated two sin-offerings

for responsibility,

he achieves atonement through one of them, and the second grazes

even according to Rabbi. And it does not go to death, because it itself was never lost, and it was not designated in place of a lost sin-offering.

And similarly, in the case of a goat whose fellow died, at the time of the casting of lots both goats are fit for sacrifice. Therefore, even if the law of the goat were like the law of an individual’s sin-offering, everyone agrees that it would not be subject to the law of death!

And we answer:

Since Rava said

above that

Rav adopts the view of Rabbi Yosei, who says: The mitzva is with the first,

if so,

from the outset it is like one who designated [an offering] for loss.

At the time when he designated the second one [of the second pair], it was clear that he would not be able to sacrifice it as a sin-offering, and it is therefore like a lost one.

And since from the time of designation it is like a lost one, therefore, if its law were like the law of an individual’s sin-offering, the law of a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one would have been stated with regard to it: that it dies.

And the Gemara continues to discuss the words of our Mishna according to the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan:

We learned—

we learned in the Mishna: And the second one shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and its value shall fall for a free-will offering [but it does not die, because a communal sin-offering does not die].

Rabbi Yehuda says: It dies.

It is implied from the words of our Mishna that that “second one” about which the Rabbis said that it shall graze until it becomes blemished, Rabbi Yehuda said concerning it that it dies.

Granted,

the words of the Mishna are understandable

according to

the view of

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the “second one” mentioned by the Rabbis means

the

second one of the first pair,

which

shall graze.

And

according to Rabbi

Yehuda,

it

dies. According to this, it is understandable that

he achieves atonement through the second one of the second pair.

But according to Rav, who said

that the second one mentioned by the Rabbis means

the

second one of the second pair,

which

shall graze, and

according to

Rabbi Yehuda

it

dies,

if so, there is a difficulty:

Rabbi Yehuda certainly holds that living creatures can be rejected, and if so, it is certainly impossible to achieve atonement through the second goat of the first pair; and since Rabbi Yehuda says [in the first clause] that the second goat of the first pair [about which the Rabbis spoke] dies, if so,

according to Rabbi Yehuda, through what does he achieve atonement

through which goat would they achieve atonement? For it is implied from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that both of them will die!

And we reject the difficulty:

Do you think,

are you [the one asking the difficulty] convinced that

Rabbi Yehuda,

who said “it dies,” was referring to the words of the Rabbis, and

is referring to the second one of the second pair [and spoke about the second one of the second pair]?!

For one can say that

Rabbi Yehuda,

who said “it dies,”

is referring to the second one of the first pair

he spoke about the second one of the first pair]. And although the Rabbis spoke about the second one of the second pair, this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to them:

A. Concerning what you said, that a communal sin-offering does not die, I disagree and hold that a communal sin-offering dies.

B. And Rabbi Yehuda further said: It is not the one about which you said that it shall graze that I hold dies; you said that the second one of the second pair shall graze. I hold that the second one of the first pair dies [because living creatures can be rejected], and he sacrifices the second one of the second pair.

The Gemara brings that there are amoraim who raised the first difficulty above in another formulation:

We learned in the Mishna: And Rabbi Yehuda further said: If the blood [of the goat of the name] was poured out, the goat sent away shall die,

and above we raised from here a difficulty against Rav’s view that living creatures cannot be rejected: for Rabbi Yehuda said that the goat sent away shall die, even though it is alive!

And we answered that Rav agrees that Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that living creatures can be rejected, and only according to the Rabbis [in Rav’s view] can living creatures not be rejected.

And again we raised the opposite inference from the Mishna, that, on the contrary, the Mishna proves the view of Rav and not the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan. [As will be explained immediately below].

And there is one who raises the difficulty in this manner:

And there is one who initially raised the difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan, and this is how he raised it:

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda further said: If the blood [of the goat of the name]

was poured out, the goat sent away shall die; if the goat sent away died, the blood shall be poured out.

And it is difficult: what did Rabbi Yehuda come to add here? After all, Rabbi Yehuda already said earlier that the second goat dies, because a communal sin-offering dies!

Indeed,

granted,

it can be reconciled

according to

the words of

Rav,

that Rabbi Yehuda disputes the Rabbis in two matters: A. In

the first clause they dispute

[they disagree]

concerning a communal sin-offering:

the Rabbis said that a communal sin-offering does not die, while Rabbi Yehuda disputes this and says that it dies.

B.

And

in

the final clause they dispute

[they disagree]

concerning the law of living creatures:

the Rabbis said that the second one of the first pair is sacrificed, [and the second one of the second pair grazes], because living creatures are not rejected. Rabbi Yehuda disputes this and says that living creatures are rejected, and it is impossible to sacrifice the second one of the first pair. [Rather, the second one of the first pair dies, and the second one of the second pair is sacrificed].

But

however]

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who says that even according to the Rabbis the second one of the first pair is rejected [because living creatures are rejected], if so, it is still difficult:

What is “and Rabbi Yehuda further

said”? What did Rabbi Yehuda come to add by this?

And we conclude: indeed, this difficulty

is difficult.

What is the meaning of “and Rabbi Yehuda further

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Yehuda further said:

If

the blood was poured out [of the goat of the name],

the goat sent away shall die.

And if

the goat sent away died, the blood shall be poured out.

The Gemara explained above that Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that living creatures are rejected; and since the second goat of the first pair is not fit for sacrifice at the time when its fellow dies, the law of rejection takes effect upon it, and it dies.

And here the Gemara discusses the matter itself: why is the second goat of the first pair not fit for sacrifice at the time when its fellow dies?

Granted,

it is understandable that if

the blood was poured out

of the goat of the name, the law of rejection takes effect and

the goat sent away shall die, because

its mitzva has still not been performed.

For they have still not performed the mitzva of the sprinklings with the blood, and they are required to slaughter another goat,

and bring its blood. And it is impossible to bring a goat of the name by itself without casting lots; rather, they are required to bring two goats and cast lots for them.

of the goat for the Lord, the law of rejection takes effect and

It follows that the first goat is rejected [and Rabbi Yehuda holds that since it was rejected for a time, it is rejected forever, because living creatures are rejected], and therefore it dies.

because

But,

if the goat sent away died, why why]

shall the blood be poured out?

After all, it is unnecessary to bring another goat in its place, for its mitzva has already been performed.

For the obligatory mitzva of the goat sent away has already been completed, namely, the mitzva of the casting of lots! For the mitzva of sending it to Azazel is not indispensable, because specifically services performed by the High Priest in white garments are indispensable,

whereas the sending is performed by an appointed man

who is not the High Priest].

shall the blood be poured out?

There is no need to bring another goat in its place, since

And the mitzva of confession is also not indispensable according to Rabbi Yehuda, as is brought in a beraita [above, 40b].

And since the mitzva of casting lots has been completed, and it is unnecessary to bring another goat to Azazel, if so, it is clear that it is unnecessary to bring two and cast lots for them; and why did Rabbi Yehuda say that the law of rejection takes effect upon the goat of the name, and the blood shall be poured out? And we answer: The school of Rabbi Yannai said: The verse says [Leviticus 16:10]: “And the goat upon which the lot came for Azazel shall stand alive before the Lord to atone for it.” Until when shall

the goat sent away

be required to be

standing

alive?

Until the time of the giving of the blood of its fellow [the goat of the name], as it is stated: “to atone for it.”

And atonement is the giving of the blood [through the giving of the blood the owners achieve atonement].

And from here: if the goat sent away died before the giving of the blood of its fellow, the atonement of the blood is of no effect, and it is necessary to bring another goat to Azazel. And it is impossible to bring it without casting lots; therefore it is necessary to bring two new ones,

and according to everyone the blood shall be poured out, because everyone agrees that slaughtered sacred animals are rejected.

required to be

standing

alive?

Until the time of the placing of the blood of its counterpart [

the goat for the Lord], as it is stated: “to make atonement for it.” And atonement means the placing of the blood [through which the owners achieve atonement]. It follows that if the goat sent away dies before the blood of its counterpart is placed, the blood does not effect atonement, and another goat for Azazel must be brought. It cannot be brought without casting lots; therefore, two new goats must be brought, and according to everyone the blood must be poured out, because everyone agrees that slaughtered sacred animals can be rejected.

We learned in our Mishna that if one of the goats died, the other grazes until it becomes blemished, and according to Rabi Yehuda, it dies.

The sugya before us discusses the goat of Yom Kippur that was lost, whose law is that it grazes until it becomes blemished. And it explains why it is impossible to offer it in the following year.

And this sugya opens with the law of communal offerings that were brought every year from the shekels that Israel brought in that year, as follows:

It is a positive commandment from the Torah for every man of Israel to give half a shekel every year. And from the shekels they brought the communal offerings.

They gave the shekels to the chamber that was in the courtyard, and there were there more shekels than were needed for the communal obligatory offerings.

And three times a year they made withdrawals [separated] of money from the chamber for the communal offerings, on behalf of all those who contributed the half-shekel, and thus all the contributors were considered partners in the offerings that came from the withdrawal of the chamber.

And they also made a withdrawal on behalf of one who sent the half-shekel by the hand of a messenger, and his shekel was lost, and it was not known to the owner at the time of the withdrawal of the chamber that it had been lost. So that he too would be a partner in the communal offerings.

We learned there

We learned in tractate Shekalim [2:1]:

The inhabitants of a city who sent their shekels

by the hand of a messenger to bring them to the Temple,

and they were stolen or lost:

If

already

the withdrawal was made [

the

withdrawal

of the chamber had been separated] — the owners are not obligated to weigh another half-shekel, for the withdrawal was also made on behalf of one who sent his shekel and it was lost and he did not know of it; it follows that it is the sacred funds that lose because the shekels were lost, and not the owners.

Therefore,

the messengers swear

the messengers

to the treasurers

the oath of custodians that they were not negligent in guarding, and they are exempt from paying the sacred funds.

But if not,

that the withdrawal of the chamber had not yet been made, since the inhabitants of the city learned [before the chamber was withdrawn] that their shekels had been lost, they are obligated to bring other shekels; it follows that the inhabitants of the city are the ones who lose because the shekels were lost.

Therefore,

the messengers swear

the messengers

to the inhabitants of the city

the oath of custodians that they were not negligent in guarding, and they are exempt from paying.

And the inhabitants of the city weigh

shekels

others in their place.

If they were found

the lost shekels

or the thieves returned them,

then

both these and those —

both the first shekels and the latter shekels —

shekels

of the sacred funds

they are, and they do not

the shekels that were found

count for them

for the owners toward the obligation of the half-shekel of the following year. Rather, they must weigh again

for the following year.

Rabi Yehuda says: They count for them

for the owners toward the obligation

of the following year.

And we raised the question:

What is the reason [

what is his reason]

of Rabi Yehuda?

Rava said: Rabi Yehuda holds that obligations

that were set aside for the needs

of this year may be offered in the following year.

Abaye objected —

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a beraita:

It was taught in a beraita:

The bull [

the sin-offering of the High Priest]

and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost and others were set aside in their place, and likewise the goats

the sin-offerings of the community that sinned through

idolatry

upon the instruction of the court

that were lost and others were set aside in their place,

then

all of them shall die —

the words of Rabi Yehuda [

who holds that a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one dies].

Rabi Elazar and Rabi Shimon say: They shall graze until they become blemished, and they shall be sold, and their proceeds shall fall

to

communal freewill elevation-offerings

and they shall not die, because

a communal sin-offering does not die.

And we learned in the beraita that Rabi Yehuda said that the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost shall die, and we do not say that they may be offered in the following year! And this is difficult for Rava’s words, [who said that the opinion of Rabi Yehuda is that obligations that were set aside in this year may be offered in the following year]!

He said to him

Rava offered an answer to Abaye: