Yoma 66a — the Talmud in English

And if the year was intercalated,

the year,

it was intercalated for the

benefit of the

seller,

who is able to redeem the field until that month arrives in which the sale took place [after 13 months].

And every place where “year” is stated in the Torah, we learn it from the expression “a complete year,” which is stated concerning houses of walled cities.

Therefore, according to Rabbi, there is a circumstance in which until the following Yom Kippur the goat will not be disqualified by Torah law because of a sin-offering whose year has passed: for example, they consecrated the goat on the eighth day after its birth, which fell on the eve of Yom Kippur, in a regular year [which is not intercalated]. And when the following Yom Kippur arrives, the goat will still not have reached 365 days, the number of days in a solar year [And in this manner there is no prohibition by Torah law against offering the goat, but the Sages decreed lest one offer a goat whose year had passed].

And we raise an objection:

That works well

This answer indeed answers concerning the

goat

, which is forbidden to offer after its year has passed. But concerning the

bull

, which is three years old,

what is there to say

—why do we not say that it should be offered in the following year?

And we answer: The Sages decreed

a decree

that it is forbidden to offer the

bull on account of

[lest] they also offer the

goat.

And we wonder:

And

why

should it die because of a decree?!

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

Furthermore,

even concerning the goat there is a difficulty: after all,

a sin-offering whose year has passed goes to grazing

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

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

does not have a complete disqualification in its body; rather,

we regard it

[wherever it is]

as though it were

a valid sin-offering that

is standing in a cemetery

and the koen cannot enter there and offer it. That is to say, although it is impossible to offer a sin-offering whose year has passed, there is no complete rejection in its body [rather, it was disqualified because they delayed offering it]

and

therefore it does not die, but

grazes. And if so, there is a difficulty: why did Rabbi Yehuda say that a lost goat should die? After all, if they decreed lest one offer the goat after its year, it would have been fitting to say that it should graze until it develops a disqualifying defect, in accordance with the law of a sin-offering whose year has passed!

Rather, Rava said

Rather, Rava said

another answer:

The Sages decreed

a decree

that it is forbidden to offer the bull and the goat in the following year

because of

concern for

a mishap,

as follows:

For it was taught: One does not consecrate

anything at this time, because unspecified consecration is for the maintenance of the Temple. And there is no remedy for it at a time when the Temple is not standing [and they were concerned for a mishap, as follows].

Nor does one make valuations.

One does not say “My valuation is upon me” at this time, because one who says this is obligated to bring money to the consecrated property according to the valuation fixed in the Torah, and there is no remedy for it at a time when the Temple is not standing.

Nor does one declare property herem.

One does not say “This object is herem”

at this time,

because this beraita maintains that one who says “This object is herem” [and did not specify that it should be herem for the koanim], unspecified heramim are for the maintenance of the Temple, and there is no remedy for it.

And if one consecrated, made a valuation, or declared herem

at this time, then: -

If he consecrated

an animal,

it is

to be rendered nonviable

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

money or metal

vessels, he shall take

the benefit

to the Salt Sea

so that they will be lost there and people will not be able to benefit from them.

And what is the rendering nonviable

that we stated concerning an animal?

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

[because they were concerned lest a mishap come about through it].

And we consider it:

A mishap of what sort—

what mishap were the Sages concerned about [concerning the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and concerning consecrated property at this time]?

If

they were concerned for

a mishap of offering,

that if he delays them he may come to offer them improperly [the bull and goat during the rest of the year, and other consecrated property at this time], then there is a difficulty:

even every

sacrifice whose law is

to graze, as well!

Let us also decree concerning them lest they come to offer them in prohibition! And why did they say that they should graze until they develop a disqualifying defect?

And

if

they were concerned for

a mishap of shearing and labor,

that if he delays them he may come to benefit from the shearing of their wool, or he may work with them in prohibition, then there is a difficulty:

even every

sacrifice whose law is

to graze, as well.

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

And we answer:

Actually,

they were concerned for

a mishap of offering,

lest one offer the bull and goat not at their proper time [and likewise other sacrifices at this time] .

But

concerning other sacrifices whose law is to graze, they did not decree.

Because

these are not fit for offering

, the other sacrifices that graze are not destined to be offered themselves; rather, after a defect occurs in them, other sacrifices are brought with their monetary value. Therefore,

he is not preoccupied with them

, the owners do not contemplate offering them, but divert their attention from offering them. And there is no concern lest a mishap come about through them.

But

this one,

the bull and the goat,

is fit for offering

, as they themselves are fit to be offered;

he is preoccupied with it

with the thought of offering it, and they were concerned lest he come to offer it before the following Yom Kippur arrives. Therefore, they decreed that they should die. [

And likewise other sacrifices at this time: they have no disqualification except that there is no altar on which to offer them. Therefore, his mind is upon them at all times, because he thinks: Soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and I will offer them. And since his mind is upon them, he will come to offer them improperly. Therefore, they should die ].

And

the decree of

the mishap itself is subject to a tannaitic dispute—

the tannaim disagreed whether there is such a decree:

For one beraita taught

, one beraita taught: A

Paschal offering that was not offered in

the first Passover [on 14 Nisan] is sold to an impure person or to one who was on a distant journey, and

is offered in

the

Second Passover [on 14 Iyar]. And if it was not offered

on the Second [Passover],

it is offered in the following year.

And another beraita taught,

and another beraita taught: If it was not offered in the Second Passover,

it is not offered

in the following year.

Is it not that they disagree concerning a mishap?

Is it not concerning the decree of a mishap that the beraitot disagree—that the one who taught the first beraita [that it is offered in the following year] is not concerned for a mishap, whereas the one who taught the second beraita was concerned for a mishap?!

And we reject this:

No,

they did not disagree concerning the decree of a mishap. Rather,

everyone

[agrees] that

we are not concerned for a mishap, and here they disagree concerning the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis—

the two beraitot that we brought disagree in the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis, who disagreed concerning which year is mentioned in the Torah:

And it is not difficult

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

This

the first beraita [which says that if it was not offered in the Second Passover it is offered in the following year] holds in accordance with the view of

Rabbi.

The year mentioned in the Torah is a solar year [which is longer than a lunar year by 11 days]. Therefore, although a Paschal offering whose year has passed is disqualified, nevertheless there is a circumstance in which it is possible to offer the Paschal offering in the following year [for example, they consecrated it on the eighth day after its birth, which fell on 14 Nisan. It follows that on 14 Nisan of the following year its solar year has still not passed].

Whereas

this

the second beraita [which says that if it was not offered in the Second Passover it is not offered in the following year] holds in accordance with the view of

the Rabbis,

that the year mentioned in the Torah is twelve lunar months from day to day. Therefore, a Paschal offering of one year is never offered in the year after it, because its year has passed and it is disqualified.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

and surely we learned [later in the beraitot]:

And likewise the money.

In the first beraita they taught that money set aside to purchase a Paschal offering, with which they did not purchase one in one year, is used to purchase a Paschal offering and it is offered in the following year. And in the second beraita they taught that it is not offered in the following year.

But money over which a year has passed is not disqualified, so why did they teach in the second beraita that it is not offered in the following year?

Rather, no; learn from it

that

they disagree concerning a mishap

[they disagreed]. And the second beraita maintains that neither the Paschal offering nor the money is used in the following year, because of concern for a mishap!

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that the tannaim disagreed concerning the decree of a mishap.

Mishna:

Our Mishna returns to engage with the order of the Yom Kippur service. In the previous chapter [58b], the tannai concluded arranging the order of the sprinkling of the blood of the bull and the goat. And the tannai continues and arranges the order of the services performed afterward:

He came

the High Koen

to the goat that was sent away.

It was standing opposite the eastern gate of the courtyard,

and

he leaned his

two hands upon it and confessed.

And this is what he would say

in his confession:

Please, O Name,

they have sinned, committed iniquity, and transgressed

before You, Your people, the House of Israel.

Please, O Lord,

Please, O Name,

please forgive the sins, iniquities, and transgressions that Your people,

the House of Israel, have sinned, committed iniquity, and transgressed before You.

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

Leviticus 16:

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

And the koanim and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name

[the yod-hei-vav-hei],

which emerged from the mouth of the High Koen—

they would kneel and bow down, and fall upon their faces. And they would say: “Blessed is the Name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.”

And after the High Koen completed his confession over the goat,

they handed it to the one who was taking it

to Azazel.

And

all are fit to take it

, even non-koanim.

But they made

for them

the High Koanim

a custom of

permanence

—to hand it over only to koanim,

and they would not allow Israelites to take it.

Rabbi Yosei said: It once happened that a man named

whose name was

Arsela, and he was an Israelite

[and from this Rabbi Yosei proved that they also allowed Israelites to take it ].

And a ramp

[a bridge]

they made for him

for the one who was taking the goat, and by that ramp he would leave outside the courtyard and outside Jerusalem, so that they would not be able to touch it,

because of the Babylonians who would pull at its hair

and hurry him along,

saying to him, “Take

the goat quickly

and leave

from here.”

Take

it quickly

and leave,

and do not delay our iniquities with us any longer.

Gemara:

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

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

And the High Koen did not mention the iniquities of the koanim when he confessed over the goat.

Who is the tannai?

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

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Our Mishna

Our Mishna

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

It is so because

it. 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 koanim

atonement through the goat that was sent away.

And if so, why did the High Koen not mention the iniquities of the koanim in the confession over the goat?

Rather, it is necessarily the case that our Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda [and maintains in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, that the koanim receive atonement only through the sin-offering bull of the High Koen].

Abaye said: Even

if

you say

[you may say] that our Mishna is in accordance with

Rabbi Yehuda,

there is no difficulty as to why the High Koen did not mention the koanim in the confession over the goat: for,

is it on account of

[lest]

the koanim are not included among “Your people, Israel”

[are they]?! Since he mentioned “Your people, Israel” in the confession, the koanim are automatically included in this!

We learned in the Mishna:

They handed it to the one who was taking it

to Azazel. And all are fit to take it.

The Sages taught

a beraita explaining the source of our Mishna’s statement that all are fit to take it:

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

“Man”—

to qualify a non-koen

; a koen is not required.