Yoma 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

“Itti” -

from the language of time and appointed moment. From here it is derived that he must be

prepared

[ready] for his mission from the previous day.

And they expounded further:

“Itti”

means that he must always be sent at his appointed time, and his time must not pass without his being sent.

Even

if Yom Kippur falls

on Shabbat

, Shabbat is desecrated in taking him to Azazel.

Likewise, his time must not pass

even in a

place where one thereby violates the prohibition of

tum’a.

[Below, the Gemara will explain in which circumstances the prohibitions of Shabbat and tum’a apply to his dispatch.]

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

We learned in a beraita:

“A man”—to qualify a non-kohen.

And we challenge this:

Obviously,

why would we think that a non-kohen is disqualified from taking it to Azazel? After all, this is not included among the sacrificial rites!

And we answer:

It might enter your mind

to say that

“atonement” is written with regard to it

—the expression “atonement” is used concerning the taking of the goat to Azazel. As it is stated: “And the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over it, to send it away to Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10). Therefore, its law is like that of offerings brought for atonement, which may be performed only by a kohen.

It teaches us

that the verse informs us that nevertheless a non-kohen is fit.

We learned in a beraita:

“Itti” -

even on Shabbat.

And we inquire about this:

For what halakhic purpose

did the verse come to permit something on Shabbat? If it came to permit taking the goat beyond the Shabbat limit, the prohibition of Shabbat limits is rabbinic and not by Torah law!

Rav Sheshet said:

The verse came

to say that if

the goat was

ill, he carries it on his shoulders

and carries it four cubits in the public domain. And we explain: According to Rav Sheshet’s answer, the beraita

in accordance with whom

does it hold—that is, which tanna’s view does it follow?

Not in accordance with Rabbi Natan

[as will be explained below], but in accordance with the Sages.

For if

the beraita is in accordance with

Rabbi Natan’s

view, there is a difficulty:

He said

[for Rabbi Natan said]:

A living being carries itself,

and one who carries it on Shabbat does not violate a Torah prohibition [but only a rabbinic one]! Why, then, was it necessary for the verse to permit carrying it on Shabbat?

And we reject this:

Even

if

you say

[that the beraita follows the view of

Rabbi Natan,

nevertheless, the case of a goat that is

ill is different

from that of a healthy one. Only a healthy creature carries itself, and one who carries it on Shabbat is exempt; but an ill creature does not carry itself, and therefore one who carries it on Shabbat is liable. [Hence the verse was necessary to permit carrying it on Shabbat.]

Now the Gemara explains why a special verse is needed to permit carrying the goat on Shabbat. One might ask: Yom Kippur has the same status as Shabbat. It is therefore self-evident that everything permitted on Yom Kippur when it falls on a weekday is also permitted when it falls on Shabbat!

Rafram said: This indicates

that from this beraita we learn that the laws of

courtyard eruv

and

the

prohibition of

carrying out

from one domain to another apply

to

the matter of

Shabbat

alone.

There is no

law of

courtyard eruv

or

prohibition of

carrying out

from one domain to another

on Yom Kippur.

Since there is no prohibition of carrying out on Yom Kippur, I would consequently say that it is permitted to carry the goat only on Yom Kippur when it falls on a weekday. But on Shabbat it is prohibited, because we do not find that the Torah permitted the prohibition of carrying out in connection with dispatching the goat.

We learned in a beraita:

“Itti” -

even

when he violates

a

prohibition of

tum’a.

And we inquire about this:

For what halakhic purpose

could the prohibition of tum’at the Temple and its sacred objects apply to dispatching the goat to Azazel, such that the verse had to permit it?

Rav Sheshet said:

The verse came

to say that if the one who dispatches it becomes impure,

he

enters

while still

impure into the Temple courtyard and dispatches it

[although, when not needed for dispatching the goat, it is prohibited to enter the courtyard in a state of impurity, the Torah nevertheless permitted entering for the purpose of dispatching the goat].

The Gemara cites a beraita [Tosefta 3] discussing whether it is permitted to carry the goat on one’s shoulders:

They taught in a beraita:

They asked Rabbi Eliezer:

If the goat

became ill, what

is the law—may one

carry it on his shoulders?

Rabbi Eliezer did not want to answer them. Therefore he

said to them:

The goat was healthy and

it could carry me and you

—me and you [below, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer would not say anything that he had not heard from his teacher, and therefore he refrained from answering them].

They asked him again: If

the one who dispatches it became ill,

the goat,

what

is the law—may one

dispatch it by means of another person

who had not been prepared for this from the previous day?

He also did not want to answer this, and

said to them: “I and you shall be at peace.”

That is, neither I nor you will have to dispatch it. Why, then, do you need to ask such a question? They asked him another question: If one

pushed it

[pushed the goat] from the cliff

and it did not die -

what

is its law? Must one

go down after it

and kill it?

He said to them: “So may all Your enemies perish, O Lord”

[Judges 5].

And the Sages say

the answers to all the questions that were asked of Rabbi Eliezer:

a. If it

became ill -

he carries it on his shoulders.

b. If

the one who dispatches it became ill -

he dispatches it by means of another person.

c. If he

pushed it and it did not die -

he goes down after it and kills it.

Since the beraita mentioned that Rabbi Eliezer refused to answer what he was asked and responded with other statements, the Gemara cites another beraita of a similar nature.

They taught in a beraita:

They asked Rabbi Eliezer:

A certain person,

what

is your opinion of him [that is, how do his actions appear to you]? Will he merit

the World-to-Come?

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer: Perhaps

you did not ask me

about this person,

but about so-and-so -

another person? They asked him another question:

Is it possible to save a shepherd

[can the shepherd save]

a sheep from a lion?

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer: Perhaps

you asked me only about the shepherd,

whether it is permitted to save him from the lion?

They asked him again:

What

[is it proper]

to save

the

shepherd from the lion?

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer: Perhaps

you asked me only about the sheep?

They asked him another question:

What is the law of

a mamzer with regard

to inheriting

his father? Is his law that of a legitimate son or not?

He [Rabbi Eliezer] redirected them to another matter and said to them: Perhaps you asked me

what

is his law with regard

to performing yibbum

with the wife of his deceased brother? They asked him another question:

What

is the law of a mamzer with regard

to plastering his house? Is he also obligated to leave one cubit by one cubit unplastered, in mourning for the destruction, like the rest of Israel, or is he not included in this requirement?

Must he, like the rest of the Jewish people, leave a cubit by a cubit unplastered because of mourning over the destruction, or is he not included in this requirement?

He redirected them to another matter and said to them: Perhaps you asked me only

what

is his law with regard

to plastering his grave,

whether his law is like that of the rest of Israel, whose graves impart ritual impurity and are plastered with lime so that people will see that there is a grave there and not become impure, or whether his grave does not impart ritual impurity?

And the reason Rabbi Eliezer redirected them to another matter

was not

that he

was digressing in his words

as a person does when he does not know how to answer [and, in order to evade an answer, digresses into discussing other matters],

but

he knew how to answer them, yet he did not answer

because he had never said anything that he had not heard from his teacher.

A wise woman asked Rabbi Eliezer: Since the incident of the calf

which Israel worshipped, all its forms of worship

were equal

in prohibition [because they constituted idolatry],

why was their death

not the same for all those who worshipped it? Some died by the sword, some died in a plague, and some died of intestinal disease!

He said to her

Rabbi Eliezer:

There is no wisdom for a woman except with a spindle.

[She has no business investigating the other wisdoms, but only with a spindle ].]

And so

[the verse]

says

[Exodus 35]:

“And every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands”

[indicating that a woman’s wisdom lies in spinning].

It was stated:

A dispute was stated in the beit-midrash between

Rav and Levi

to answer the wise woman’s question [why there was not one form of death for all those who worshipped the calf]:

One

[of them]

said:

One who

sacrificed

offerings and

burned

incense to the calf died

by the sword,

because one who sacrifices or burns incense to idolatry is liable to stoning. But the incident of the calf occurred before the four court-imposed death penalties had been explained to Israel, and therefore they were judged as descendants of Noah, for whom every death penalty is by the sword. And one who

embraced and kissed

the calf died

by a death

at the hands of Heaven [in the plague], because one who embraces or kisses an idol is not executed by a court.

And one who merely

rejoiced in his heart

died

of hadrokkan

, an intestinal disease.

And one said:

One who worshipped the calf in the presence of

witnesses and after a warning

[witnesses saw him and warned him] died by a court-imposed death

by the sword.

And one who worshipped the calf in the presence of

witnesses

but

without a warning

is not punished by a court, but

by a death

at the hands of Heaven.

But if there

were no

witnesses

and no warning,

he died

of hadrokkan,

an intestinal disease.

Since we were discussing the sin of the calf, the Gemara cites a statement of Rav Yehuda concerning this matter:

Rav Yehuda said: The tribe of Levi did not worship idolatry

in the incident of the calf.

As it is stated

[Exodus 32] concerning the calf:

“And Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said: Whoever is for the Lord, to me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves to him.”

This indicates that all the sons of Levi were faithful to the Lord and did not worship idolatry.

Ravina sat

[seated] and

stated this tradition -

and recited Rav Yehuda’s statement in the beit-midrash.

They raised an objection to him

—

the sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba to Ravina:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 33] in praise of the tribe of Levi:

“Who said of his father and his mother: I have not seen him,

and he did not acknowledge his brothers, nor did he know his children.” That is, when Israel sinned with the calf, the sons of Levi gathered to kill those who worshipped the calf [at Moses’ command], and they showed no compassion for their fathers and mothers, their brothers and sisters, killing them. This indicates that some members of the tribe of Levi did worship idolatry, since their fathers and brothers were Levites!

Ravina answered:

his father

mentioned in the verse, i.e.,

his mother's father

who was

from Israel

and was not a Levite. And likewise,

his brothers

mentioned in the verse, i.e.,

his maternal brothers

and not his paternal brothers, whose father was

from Israel

since the father of his brothers was not a Levite], and likewise

his sons

mentioned in the verse, i.e.,

the sons of his daughter

whom she bore

from Israel.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they made a ramp for him

who was dispatching the goat, because of the Babylonians, who would pull at his hair and say to him, “Take [the goat quickly] and go; take it and go.”

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: They were not Babylonians

who pulled at his hair;

rather, they were Alexandrians, and since

the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael

hated the Babylonians, they called them by that name.

For they were accustomed to calling every frivolous person and one who did something improper “Babylonians.”

It was taught likewise —

this was also taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They were not Babylonians; rather, they were Alexandrians.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda:

May your mind be at rest,

because

you have put my mind at rest.

For Rabbi Yosei's family came from Babylonia, and it displeased him that the Babylonians had been disparaged.

We learned in the Mishna: And they say to him

“Take it and go.”

The tannai

taught in a beraita: This is what they would say to him:

“What is this goat waiting for?”

Why is this goat lingering here?

“And the sins of the generation are many!”

For the sins of the generation are numerous, and they are upon the goat.

Mishna:

Distinguished men

of the notables

[of the prominent]

of Jerusalem would escort him

the one dispatching the goat, as he departed from Jerusalem

until the first sukkah

that they had made for the one dispatching the goat along the road from Jerusalem to Azazel. The sukkah was two thousand cubits from Jerusalem, which is the Shabbat limit. There were people there who had come to spend the eve of Yom Kippur there, so that they could continue escorting him from that point onward [since the distinguished men of Jerusalem could not continue escorting him beyond two thousand cubits].

And

ten sukkot

they made

from Jerusalem to the cliff

of Azazel.