Yoma 67b — the Talmud in English

The one who says that they are permitted

to derive benefit from it explains his view as follows: because

it is written [Leviticus 16:22]: “And he shall send the goat

into the wilderness,”

“into the wilderness.”

And this verse is superfluous, and it comes to teach us that the goat is to be ownerless, like the wilderness. [That one may do with it whatever one wishes].

And the one who says that they are forbidden

to derive benefit from it explains his view as follows:

because it is written [there]: “And the goat shall bear upon itself all their iniquities to a land

of isolation,”

“of isolation.”

The word “isolation” indicates severity and prohibition, teaching us that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the goat’s limbs.

And we challenge this:

And the one who says

that the limbs

are forbidden

to derive benefit has a difficulty according to his view:

what does he do with

the phrase “And he shall send the goat into the

wilderness”—what does he derive from it?

What interpretation does he give to this superfluous verse?

And we answer:

He needs it

because another interpretation is derived from it,

as it was taught

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

The sending of the goat into the wilderness is mentioned three times in the Torah: a. “And the goat upon which the lot fell for Azazel shall be kept alive ... to send it to Azazel

into the wilderness” [verse 10]. b. “And he shall send it by the hand of a designated man

into the wilderness” [verse 21]. c. “And he shall send the goat

» [стих 21]. в. «И пошлёт козла

в

into the wilderness” [verse 22].

].

Lest you say that the law of the goat that is sent away applies only in the Tent of Meeting [which is mentioned in the passage], the verse comes

to include

that it also applies in

Nov and Gibeon,

in

Shiloh and in the permanent House

[the Jerusalem Temple].

And we challenge this:

But the other one—

the one who says that the goat’s limbs are permitted to derive benefit from—has a difficulty according to his view:

what does he do with “a land of isolation”

mentioned in the verse [“to a land of isolation”]?

What does he derive from it?

What interpretation does he give to this verse?

And we answer:

He needs it

because another interpretation is derived from it,

as it was taught

in a beraita:

What is the meaning of

the word “isolation” mentioned in the verse?

The phrase “a

land

of isolation” means

a land that is

cut off;

from here it follows that the goat must be sent to a sharp, steep cliff, and not to a slope.

Alternatively: “isolation” means something that is broken apart as it falls—

a land on which the goat is broken apart in its fall, limb by limb.

Alternatively:

“isolation” is stated

to teach this: lest you say that sending the goat

is an

empty act

[a meaningless act]

,

for what atonement can this goat provide, and how can the cliff help?

The Torah therefore says

that it is stated

“I am the Lord,”

meaning:

I, the Lord, have decreed it, and you have no authority to question it .

Rava said: It is reasonable to follow the one who says

that the goat’s limbs

are permitted

to derive benefit, because

it is not

possible that

the Torah would command one to send something that could cause a mishap—that it would command that the goat be sent in a manner that could lead to a mishap, whereby a person might find the goat’s limbs and derive benefit from them without knowing that they came from the goat.

The place to which the goat is sent is described in the Torah by several designations: a. Azazel. b. Wilderness. c. A land of isolation.

The following beraita explains why the mountain is described by all these designations:

The beraita below explains why the mountain is described by all these designations:

The Sages taught:

The word

“Azazel”

mentioned in the verse is interpreted as two words: “strong” and “powerful.” From here

that

the mountain to which the goat is sent must be

strong and hard to climb.

The word “powerful” indicates something hard.

And I

might have been able

to say that it should be sent to a strong and difficult mountain that is

in an inhabited area.

The Torah therefore says—

it is stated

“in the wilderness.”

And from where

do we know that

it refers to

?

The Torah therefore says: “A land

of

isolation”—a land that is cut off. [A mountain cut into a vertical shape].

срезанная земля. [Гора, срезанная отвесно].

Another teaching was taught—

it was taught in another beraita:

“Azazel”

means

the hardest of the mountains, and so

the verse

says [Ezekiel 17:13]:

[Ezekiel 17:13]

“And he took the mighty ones

of the land

.”

[The tannai derived the word “powerful” in “Azazel” from the word “mighty ones” mentioned in that verse].

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

a beraita that derives a different interpretation from the word “Azazel”:

The mountain is called

“Azazel,”

to tell you

that

its act

atones for

those who perform

the acts of

the destructive angels

Uza and Azael,

who sinned through illicit sexual relations [that is, it atones for the sin of illicit sexual relations ].

Earlier we learned in a beraita that one must not question the sending of the goat and say that it is an empty act. The Gemara here cites another beraita of a similar nature:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 18:4]: “You shall perform My ordinances and observe My statutes, to walk in them; I am the Lord your God.” The beraita proceeds to interpret the verse:

“You shall perform My ordinances”—

these are

matters that

even

if

[they had not]

been written, it would be legally obvious

that we would understand on our own

that they should be written.

And these are: idol worship, illicit sexual relations, bloodshed, robbery, and blessing the Name

[a euphemistic expression for blasphemy].

“And you shall observe My statutes”—

these are

matters that the Satan

the evil inclination

challenges,

raising objections to them in order to mislead Israel and make them think that the Torah is not true, saying: What benefit is there in these matters?

And these are:

the prohibition against

eating pork. And the

prohibition against

wearing a mixture of wool and linen. And the

mitzva of

removing the shoe of a levirate widow. And the

law concerning the

purification

of

a person afflicted with tzaraat. And the

mitzva of

the goat that is sent away.

For we do not know the reason for any of all these matters through our own reasoning.

And lest you say: “They are an empty act”

[meaningless]?

The Torah therefore says,

as it is stated at the end of the verse,

“I am the Lord.”

To tell you:

I, the Lord, enacted it

[I decreed them],

and you have no authority to question them.

We learned in the Mishna:

When

does the man who sends the goat

render the garments he is wearing impure

? From when he leaves beyond the wall of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says: From the moment he pushes it over the cliff.

The Sages taught:

The man who sends

the goat to Azazel

renders the garments

he is wearing impure.

But the sender,

the person accompanying

the man who sends

the goat from Jerusalem

does not render his garments impure.

And I

might have been able

to say that

as soon as he leaves beyond the wall of

the

Temple courtyard,

he already renders his garments impure.

The Torah therefore says,

as it is stated [Leviticus 16:26]:

“The man who sends,”

which implies that he is already sending the goat [and the sending begins only from the walls of Jerusalem onward, when they begin accompanying him ].

Alternatively,

perhaps since

“the man who sends” is stated, one might have been able

to say that he does not render his garments impure

until he reaches the cliff,

when he has completed his mission.

The Torah therefore says: “And the man who sends”

with the additional letter “and,” to include the case in which he has not yet completed the sending: he nevertheless renders the garments he is wearing impure.

But since, on the one hand, the verse [“the man who sends”] implies that he does not render them impure until the sending begins, while, on the other hand, the additional letter “and” includes even the case in which he has not completed his mission,

how is this to be understood?

When does he render garments impure?

From when he leaves beyond the wall of Jerusalem; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is stated: “And the man who sends the goat to Azazel shall wash his garments.” From the juxtaposition of the words

“Azazel and shall wash”

it is implied that he does not render his garments impure

until he reaches the cliff

of Azazel.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is stated:

“And the man who sends the goat to Azazel shall wash his garments.”

According to Rabbi Shimon, the sending of the goat means that he pushes it and

throws it headfirst, and

only from that moment

does he render garments impure.

Before that, even once he has reached the cliff, he does not render them impure.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna we discussed the man who sends the goat to Azazel: how the sending was carried out and what its laws were. Now the Mishna returns to the order of the High Priest’s service, after he has handed the goat to the person who would lead it away:

He came

the High Priest

to

the

bull and

the

goat that are burned

[whose law is that they be burned],

cut them open and removed their fats

that were designated to be burned on the altar.

He placed them in a basin,

a bowl from the sacred service vessels,

and burned them on the altar,

as it is stated [Leviticus 16:25]: “And he shall burn the fat of the sin-offering on the altar.” [The Gemara will explain that he had not yet burned them, but had prepared them for burning].

After he removed the fats from the bull and the goat,

he intertwined them.

Four people carried them, holding two poles and walking with one pole beside the other: two people in front and two people behind. They placed the bull and the goat on the poles while they were still whole [apart from the fats that had been removed from inside them as explained above]. They bent them over one another in a form resembling interweaving.

And he took them out,

by means of other people

to the place of burning.

This was a place outside Jerusalem designated for burning sacred offerings, and they burned them there.

The garments of those engaged in the burning become impure. It is stated [Leviticus 16:28]: “And the one who burns them shall wash his garments.” This implies that his garments became impure and therefore he must wash them [that is, immerse them in a ritual bath].

And from when

do those engaged in the burning

render garments impure?

From when they leave beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard.

Rabbi Shimon says: From when the fire catches

[when the fire takes hold]

of most of them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: [After he handed the goat to the man who would send it away, he came to the bull and the goat that were burned], he cut them open and removed their fats, placed them in a basin, and burned them on the altar.

And we are puzzled:

“And burned them”—could that enter your mind?!

Was the High Priest now burning the fats? Surely the burning of the fats was performed on the outer altar, while wearing golden garments. But at this point the High Priest was still wearing white garments, until after he read the passage of the day [as explained below at the beginning of the following chapter]!

And we answer:

Rather, say

that this is what the Mishna said: “He placed them in a basin [in order] to burn them [later]

on the altar,”

and in fact he did not burn them at that time. Rather, after the fifth immersion, when he put on the golden garments, he burned the additional offerings, the fats of the bull and the goat, and the daily offering of the afternoon.

We learned in the Mishna:

He intertwined them.

And we explain:

Rabbi Yohanan said: In the form of interweaving.

A tannai

taught in a beraita:

The one who burned

the bull and the goat

did not cut them

into pieces

as

was done in

cutting the flesh of a burnt-offering

before it was burned. For concerning a burnt-offering it is stated [Leviticus 1:6]: “And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces, and the priest shall arrange it all on the altar.” From here it follows that the burnt-offering was cut into pieces before it was burned, and the cutting was performed after the flaying [as is explicitly explained in the verse].

Rather,

before burning the bull and the goat, the one who burned them cut them into pieces while

the hide was still on the flesh.

And we inquire about this:

From where are these matters

derived? From where did we learn: a. that the flesh of the bull and the goat was cut into pieces; b. that the cutting was done while the hide was still on the flesh?

And we answer:

As it was taught: Rabbi says: It is stated here,

in the passage concerning the bull and the goat, that they have “hide,” “flesh,” and “waste.” As it is stated [Leviticus 16:27]: “And they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their waste.”

And it is stated elsewhere,

concerning the sin-offering bull of the anointed priest, that it has “hide,” “flesh,” and “waste.”

As it is stated [Leviticus 4:11]: “And the hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs, and its innards and its waste. And he shall take the entire bull outside, and burn it.”