Yoma 66b — the Talmud in English

“Appointed” -

from the expression “time” and “appointed time.” From here [we learn] that it is necessary

that he be prepared

[ready] for his mission from the previous day.

And they further expounded:

“Appointed”

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

And even

if the Day of Atonement fell

on Shabbat

they violate Shabbat by taking him to Azazel.

And likewise, his time should not pass

even in

a place where one violates the prohibition of

impurity.

[And below the Gemara will explain in which cases the prohibitions of Shabbat and impurity apply in his sending.]

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

We learned in a beraita:

“A man”—to qualify a non-koen.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

why would we have thought that a non-koen is disqualified from taking him to Azazel? After all, this is not included in the sacrificial service!

And we answer:

You might say,

perhaps you would say:

“Atonement” is written concerning it

in the taking of the goat to Azazel the expression “atonement” is stated. [As it is said: “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 in the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10).] Therefore, its law is like the law of sacrifices that come for atonement, which are valid only through a koen.

It teaches us

the verse teaches us that nevertheless a non-koen is valid.

We learned in a beraita:

“Appointed” -

even on Shabbat.

And we inquire about it:

For what halakhic purpose,

what did the verse come to permit on Shabbat? If it came to permit taking the goat outside the Shabbat boundary, the prohibition of boundaries is rabbinic and not from the Torah!

Rav Sheshet said:

The verse came

to say that if the goat was

the goat

ill, he carries it on his shoulders

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

in accordance with whom,

according to which tanna does it hold?

Not in accordance with Rabbi Natan

[as stated below] but in accordance with the Sages.

For if

the beraita is in accordance with

Rabbi Natan,

there is a difficulty:

for he said

[Rabbi Natan indeed said]

a living being carries itself,

and one who transports it on Shabbat does not violate a Torah prohibition [but only a rabbinic one]! And why did the verse need to permit transporting it on Shabbat?

And we reject this:

Even

if

you say

[you may say] that the beraita holds according to the view of

Rabbi Natan,

nevertheless, an ill goat

is different,

different from a healthy one. For specifically a healthy one carries itself, and one who carries it on Shabbat is exempt, but an ill one does not carry itself; therefore, one who carries it on Shabbat is liable. [And therefore the verse needed to permit transporting it on Shabbat.]

Now the Gemara explains why a special verse is needed to permit transporting the goat on Shabbat. For one must ask: after all, the Day of Atonement has the same law as Shabbat. It is self-evident that everything permitted on the Day of Atonement that falls on a weekday is also permitted on Shabbat!

Rafram said: This is to say -

from this beraita we learn that the laws of

eruv

of courtyards

and

the prohibition of

carrying

from one domain to another apply

to

the matter of

Shabbat

alone.

And there is no

law of

eruv

of courtyards

and

the prohibition of

carrying

from one domain to another

on the Day of Atonement.

And since there is no prohibition of carrying on the Day of Atonement, I would consequently say that it is specifically on the Day of Atonement that falls on a weekday that it is permitted to transport the goat. But on Shabbat it is forbidden, because we do not find that the Torah permitted the prohibition of carrying in the sending of the goat.

We learned in a beraita:

“Appointed” -

even

when he violates

a

prohibition of

impurity.

And we inquire about it:

For what halakhic purpose

how is the prohibition of impurity of the Temple and its sacred things applicable in the sending of 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 sends it became impure

of the goat, he

enters

while he is still

impure into the Temple courtyard and sends it

[for although, without the sending of the goat, it is forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard in impurity, nevertheless the Torah permitted entering for the purpose of sending the goat].

The Gemara brings a beraita [Tosefta 3] that discusses whether it is permitted to transport the goat on one’s shoulders:

They taught in a beraita:

They asked Rabbi Eliezer:

If the goat

became ill, what

is the law, is it permitted

that he carry it on his shoulders?

Rabbi Eliezer did not wish to answer them. Therefore he

said to them:

The goat was healthy and

it can carry me and you

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

They returned and asked him: if

the one who sends it became ill,

of the goat,

what

is the law, is it permitted

that he send it by means of another person

who was not prepared for this from the previous day?

He likewise did not wish to answer this, and

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

That is to say, neither I nor you will need to send it. And why do you need to ask such a thing? They returned and asked him another question: if he

pushed it

[pushed the goat] from the cliff

and it did not die -

what

is its law, must he

go down after it

and kill it?

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

[Judges 5].

And the Sages say

an answer 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 sends it became ill -

he should send it by means of another person.

C. If he

pushed it and it did not die -

he should go down after it and kill it.

Incidentally, since we found in the beraita that Rabbi Eliezer refused to answer what they asked him and answered with other words, the Gemara brings another beraita similar to this one.

They taught in a beraita:

They asked Rabbi Eliezer:

A certain man

what

is he in your eyes, [that is to say, how do his deeds appear to you], will he merit

the World to Come?

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer: perhaps

you did not ask me

about this man,

but about so-and-so -

another man? They returned and 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’s hand?

They returned and asked him:

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 returned and asked him another question:

a mamzer, what

is his law with regard

to inheriting

his father? Is his law like that of a fit son or not?

And he [Rabbi Eliezer] diverted them to another matter, and said to them: perhaps you asked me

what

is his law with regard

to performing levirate marriage

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

what

is the law of a mamzer with regard

to plastering his house.

Is he also obligated to leave a cubit by a cubit unplastered, because of the distress over the destruction, like the rest of Israel, or is he not included in this?

And he diverted 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 impurity and are plastered with lime so that it will be visible that there is a grave there and people will not become impure, or whether his grave does not impart impurity?

And the reason Rabbi Eliezer diverted them to another matter

was not

because he

was digressing in his words

in the manner of a person who does not know how to answer [and in order to evade an answer, he digresses to speak about other matters],

but

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

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

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

which Israel worshipped, all its forms of worship

were equal

for prohibition [because of worshipping idolatry],

why was the death of all those who worshipped it not

equal? For some died by the sword, some died in a plague, and some died from an intestinal disease!

He said to her

Rabbi Eliezer:

There is no wisdom for a woman except at the spindle.

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

And so it

[the verse]

says

[Exodus 35]:

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

[it implies that a woman’s wisdom is in her spinning].

It was stated:

a dispute was stated in the beit-midrash between

Rav and Levi,

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

One

[of them]

said:

Whoever

sacrificed

sacrifices and

offered incense

to the calf died

by the sword,

because one who sacrifices or offers incense to idolatry is punished by stoning. And the sin of the calf occurred before the four forms of execution by a court had been explained to Israel, and therefore they were judged as descendants of Noah, whose form of execution is entirely by the sword. And whoever

embraced and kissed

the calf died

by a death

at the hands of Heaven [in a plague], because one who embraces or kisses idolatry is not put to death by a court.

And whoever merely

rejoiced in his heart

died

of dropsy

from an intestinal disease.

And one said:

Whoever worshipped the calf with

witnesses and warning

[who was seen by witnesses and warned] died by a court-imposed death

by the sword.

And whoever worshipped the calf with

witnesses

and

without warning

was not punished by a court, but

by a death

at the hands of Heaven.

And if

there were not

either

witnesses and warning

he died

of dropsy

an intestinal disease.

Incidentally, since we spoke about the sin of the calf, the Gemara brings 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 said

[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 to him.”

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

Ravina sat

[he sat]

and recited this teaching -

and stated the words of Rav Yehuda in the beit-midrash.

They raised an objection to him

they challenged

Ravina, the sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba:

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

“Who said to his father and to his mother, ‘I have not seen him,’

and his brothers he did not recognize, and his sons he did not know.” That is to say, when Israel sinned with the calf, the sons of Levi assembled to kill those who worshipped the calf [at Moses’ command], and they did not have compassion on their fathers and mothers, their brothers and sisters, and they killed them. From here it follows that there were some members of the tribe of Levi who worshipped idolatry, for their fathers and brothers were Levites!

Ravina answered:

his father

mentioned in the verse, that is,

his mother's father

who was

from Israel

and was not a Levite. And likewise,

his brother

mentioned in the verse, that is,

his maternal brother

and not his paternal brother, who was

from Israel

since his brother's father was not a Levite], and likewise

his sons

mentioned in the verse, that is,

his daughter's sons

whom she bore

from Israel.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they made a ramp for him

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

Rabba bar bar Hana said: They were not Babylonians

who pulled at his hair,

but they were Alexandrians, and because they

were inhabitants of the Land of Israel

hated the Babylonians, they called them by their name.

For they were accustomed to call all lightheaded people and doers of improper things “Babylonians.”

It was also taught so —

they also taught this in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They were not Babylonians, but Alexandrians.

Rabbi Yosei said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda:

May your mind be at ease,

because of

your having put my mind at ease.

For Rabbi Yosei's family came from Babylonia, and it was displeasing to him that they disparaged the Babylonians.

We learned in the Mishna: And they say to him

“Take it and go out.”

The tanna

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

“What is this goat doing here?”

Why is this goat delayed here?

“And the sins of the generation are many!”

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

Mishna:

Important men

of the distinguished [

of the honored ]

of Jerusalem would escort him

the one who sent the goat, when he departed from Jerusalem

until the first sukkah

that they made for the one who sent the goat along the road from Jerusalem to Azazel. And the sukkah was two thousand cubits distant from Jerusalem, which is the Shabbat limit. And there were people in it who had come to dwell there from the eve of Yom Kippur, so that they could continue escorting him from there onward [for the distinguished men of Jerusalem could not continue escorting him farther than two thousand cubits].

And

ten sukkot

they made

from Jerusalem to the cliff

of Azazel.