Yoma 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

And if the year was intercalated,

the year,

it was intercalated for

the benefit of the

seller,

who could redeem the field until that same month arrived in which the sale had taken place [after thirteen months].

And wherever the Torah states “year,” we derive it from “a complete year,” which is stated with regard to houses in walled cities.

Therefore, according to Rabbi, there is a circumstance in which, until the following Yom Kippur, the goat would not be disqualified by Torah law on account of being a sin-offering whose year had passed: for example, if they consecrated the goat on the eighth day after its birth, which fell on the eve of Yom Kippur, in a regular year [that was not intercalated]. When the following Yom Kippur arrived, the goat would still not have reached 365 days, the number of days in a solar year [and in this circumstance there is no prohibition by Torah law against sacrificing the goat, but the Sages decreed that perhaps one would sacrifice a goat whose year had passed].

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted,

this answer indeed resolves the matter with regard to the

goat,

which is prohibited to sacrifice after its year has passed. But with regard to the

bull,

which is three years old,

what can be said—

why do we not say that it should be sacrificed the following year?

And we answer: The Sages decreed

a decree

that it is prohibited to sacrifice the

bull, because of

[the possibility that] they might also sacrifice the

goat.

And we ask in astonishment:

And

is it

because of a decree that it should die?!

It would have been sufficient to say that the bull should graze [and they should bring another one with its monetary value]!

Furthermore,

even with regard to the goat there is a difficulty: After all,

a sin-offering whose year has passed is sent out to graze

[it grazes until it develops a disqualifying defect, and it does not die]!

For Reish Lakish said: A sin-offering whose year has passed

does not have an intrinsic, complete disqualification. Rather,

we view it

[wherever it is]

as though it were

a valid sin-offering that

is standing in a cemetery,

where the priest cannot enter and sacrifice it. In other words, although a sin-offering whose year has passed cannot be sacrificed, it is not intrinsically rejected altogether

and

therefore it does not die; rather, it

grazes. If so, there is a difficulty: Why did Rabbi Yehuda say that a lost goat should die? After all, if they decreed lest one sacrifice the goat after its year had passed, it would have been appropriate to say that it should graze until it develops a disqualifying defect, as is the law with regard to a sin-offering whose year has passed!

Rather, Rava said

Rather, Rava said

a different answer:

The Sages decreed

a decree

that it is prohibited to sacrifice the bull and the goat in the following year

because

they were concerned about a

mishap,

as follows:

As it was taught in a beraita: One may not consecrate

anything nowadays, because an unspecified consecration is for Temple maintenance. There is no remedy for it when the Temple is not standing [and they were concerned about a mishap, as follows].

Nor may one declare an valuation.

One may not say “My valuation is upon me” nowadays, because one who says this is obligated to bring the monetary amount specified in the Torah as an offering, and there is no remedy for it when the Temple is not standing.

Nor may one declare something cherem.

One may not say, “This object is cherem”

nowadays,

because this beraita maintains that one who says “This object is cherem” [without specifying that it is to be a cherem for the priests] is understood to have designated it for Temple maintenance, and there is no remedy for it.

And if one consecrated, declared an valuation, or declared something cherem

nowadays, then: -

If he consecrated

an animal,

it must be

rendered unfit

[as will be explained below]. And if he consecrated

money or metal

vessels, he shall take

the benefit

to the Salt Sea

so that it will be lost there and no one will be able to benefit from it.

And what is the rendering unfit

that we stated with regard to an animal?

One locks a door before it, and it dies on its own

[because they were concerned that it might lead to a mishap].

And we examine this:

A mishap of what kind—

what mishap were the Sages concerned about [with regard to the lost bull and goat of Yom Kippur, and with regard to consecrated property nowadays]?

If

they were concerned about

a mishap of sacrifice,

that if one kept them he might come to sacrifice them improperly [the bull and goat during the rest of the year, and other consecrated property nowadays], then there is a difficulty:

Even all

sacrifices whose law is that they must

graze, as well!

Let us also decree with regard to them, lest one come to sacrifice them in prohibition! And why did they say that they should graze until they develop a disqualifying defect?

And

if

they were concerned about

a mishap of shearing and labor,

that if one kept them he might come to benefit from their wool after shearing them or might work with them in prohibition, then there is a difficulty:

Even all

sacrifices whose law is that they must

graze, as well.

Let us also decree [lest one come to benefit from them in prohibition through shearing or labor]! And why did they say that they should graze until they develop a disqualifying defect?

And we answer:

Actually,

they were concerned about

a mishap of sacrifice,

lest one sacrifice the bull and goat outside their proper time [and likewise other sacrifices nowadays].

But

with regard to other sacrifices whose law is that they must graze, they did not decree.

Because

those are not fit for sacrifice:

the other sacrifices that graze are not themselves destined to be sacrificed; rather, after they develop a defect, other sacrifices are brought with their monetary value. Therefore,

one is not preoccupied with them

and the owners do not contemplate sacrificing them; rather, they divert their attention from sacrificing them. There is no concern that they might lead to a mishap.

But

this one,

the bull and the goat,

is fit for sacrifice,

as they themselves are fit to be sacrificed, and

one is preoccupied with it,

thinking of sacrificing it. They were therefore concerned that one might come to sacrifice it before the following Yom Kippur arrived. Consequently, they decreed that it should die.

And likewise, other sacrifices nowadays are not disqualified; the only issue is that there is no altar on which to sacrifice them. Therefore, one’s mind remains focused on them constantly, because he thinks: Soon the Temple will be rebuilt and I will sacrifice them. Since his mind is focused on them, he may come to sacrifice them improperly. Therefore, they must die.

And

the decree concerning

the mishap itself is subject to a tannaitic dispute—

the tannaim disagreed as to whether there is such a decree:

One beraita teaches,

a beraita taught: A

Paschal offering that was not sacrificed in

the first Pesaḥ [on the fourteenth of Nisan] is sold to a ritually impure person or to one who was on a distant road, and it

is sacrificed in

the

second Pesaḥ [on the fourteenth of Iyyar]. And if it was not sacrificed

on the second,

it is sacrificed in the following year.

And another beraita teaches,

and another beraita taught: If it was not sacrificed on the second,

it is not sacrificed

in the following year.

Is it not that they disagree concerning a mishap?

Do the beraitot not disagree concerning the decree against a mishap? The one who taught the first beraita [that it is sacrificed in the following year] is not concerned about a mishap, whereas the one who taught the second beraita is concerned about a mishap!

And we reject this:

No,

they do not disagree concerning the decree against a mishap. Rather,

everyone

[agrees] that

we are not concerned about a mishap, and here they disagree concerning the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages

—the two beraitot cited here disagree in accordance with the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages, who disagreed as to which year is meant by the year mentioned in the Torah:

And it is not difficult

[there is no difficulty from one beraita against the other]:

This

the first beraita [which states that if it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ it is sacrificed the following year] follows the opinion of

Rabbi.

He holds that the year mentioned in the Torah is a solar year [which is longer than a lunar year by eleven days]. Therefore, although a Paschal offering whose year has passed is disqualified, there is nevertheless a circumstance in which the Pesaḥ can be sacrificed in the following year [for example, if it was consecrated on the eighth day after its birth, which fell on the fourteenth of Nisan. It follows that on the fourteenth of Nisan of the following year, its solar year has still not passed].

Whereas

this

the second beraita [which states that if it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ it is not sacrificed the following year] follows the opinion of

the Sages,

who hold that the year mentioned in the Torah consists of twelve lunar months from day to day. Therefore, a Pesaḥ from one year can never be sacrificed in the following year, because its year has passed and it has become disqualified.

And we raise a difficulty:

But was it not taught

and we learned [later in the beraitot]

and likewise the money.

The first beraita taught that money set aside to purchase a Pesaḥ, with which no animal was purchased in one year, is used to purchase a Pesaḥ and sacrifice it in the following year. And the second beraita taught that it is not used for a sacrifice in the following year.

But money over which a year has passed does not become disqualified. Why, then, did the second beraita teach that it may not be used for a sacrifice in the following year?

Rather, is it not, learn from it

that

they disagree concerning a mishap

[they disagree]. The second beraita holds that neither the Pesaḥ nor the money may be used for a sacrifice in the following year, because of concern about a mishap!

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that the tannaim disagree concerning the decree against a mishap.

Mishna:

Our Mishna returns to discuss the order of the Yom Kippur service. In the previous chapter [58b], the tanna concluded arranging the order of presenting the blood of the bull and the goat. The tanna now continues and arranges the order of the services performed afterward:

He came

the High Priest

to the goat that was sent away.

It was standing opposite the eastern gate of the Temple courtyard,

and

he placed

both his hands upon it and confessed.

And this is what he would say

in his confession:

Please, O Name,

they have sinned, committed iniquity, and rebelled

before You—Your people, the House of Israel.

Please, O Lord,

Please, O Name,

forgive, please, the sins, iniquities, and rebellions that they sinned, committed iniquity, and rebelled before You—Your people,

the House of Israel.

As it is written in the Torah of Moses, Your servant, saying:

Leviticus 16

“For on this day He shall make atonement for you, to purify you from all your sins; before the Lord you shall be pure.”

And when the priests and the people standing in the Temple courtyard heard the explicit Name

[the letters yod-he-vav-he],

issuing from the mouth of the High Priest,

they would kneel and bow, and prostrate themselves with their faces to the ground. And they would say: “Blessed is the Name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever.”

After the High Priest completed his confession concerning the goat,

they handed it to the person who was to lead it

to Azazel.

And

anyone was fit to lead it,

even a non-priest.

However,

for them

the High Priests

established a

permanent

custom of handing it over only to priests,

and they would not allow an Israelite to lead it.

Rabbi Yosei said: It once happened that a man named

Arsela led it,

and he was an Israelite

[and from this Rabbi Yosei proved that they did allow Israelites to lead it].

And a causeway

[a bridge]

they made for it

for the person leading the goat, and by that causeway he would leave the Temple courtyard and go beyond Jerusalem, so that people could not touch him,

because of the Babylonians, who would pull at his hair

and urge him on,

saying to him: Take

the goat quickly

and go out

from here.

Take

it quickly

and go out,

and do not delay in leaving our iniquities with us any longer.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And this is what he would say [when confessing over the goat]: They have sinned, committed iniquity, and rebelled before You—Your people, the House of Israel.

But he did not say, “the sons of Aaron, Your holy people.”

The High Priest did not mention the iniquities of the priests when confessing over the goat.

Who is the tanna?

Who is the tanna who taught our Mishna [that he did not mention the iniquities of the priests concerning the goat]?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Our Mishna

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

itself.

For if

you wish to establish our Mishna

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

there is a difficulty:

He said

Rabbi Yehuda [above, 61b]:

They have

the priests

atonement through the goat that is sent away.

If so, why did the High Priest not mention the iniquities of the priests in the confession over the goat?

Rather, it must be that our Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda [and follows Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the priests receive atonement only through the sin-offering bull of the High Priest].

Abaye said: Even

if

you say

[that] our Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda’s

opinion, there is no difficulty as to why the High Priest did not mention the priests in the confession over the goat. For,

is it the case

[perhaps]

that the priests are not included among “Your people Israel”

[they are]?! Once he mentioned “Your people Israel” in the confession, the priests are automatically included as well!

We learned in the Mishna:

They handed it to the person who was to lead it

to Azazel. And anyone is fit to lead it.

The Sages taught

a beraita explaining the source for the statement of our Mishna that anyone is fit to lead it:

It is stated [Leviticus 16:21] concerning the goat that was sent away: “And he shall send it with the hand of a designated man into the wilderness.” And the Sages expounded in a beraita:

“A man”—

to include a non-priest as fit,

and a priest is not required.