Yoma 40bיומא מ׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Yoma 40b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
40bמ׳ ב

(ויקרא טז, י) יעמד חי לפני ה' לכפר עליו עד מתי יהיה זקוק לעמוד חי עד שעת מתן דמו של חבירו דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר עד שעת וידוי דברים

The verse states: “But the goat on which the lot came up for Azazel shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10). The verse indicates that the goat must remain alive until a certain time. Were it to die beforehand, it would have to be replaced. Until when is the goat for Azazel required to stand alive? Until the time of the application of the blood of its counterpart, i.e., the goat for God; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: It must remain alive until the time of the verbal confession over it.

במאי קא מיפלגי כדתניא לכפר בכפרת דמים הכתוב מדבר וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא טז, כ) וכלה מכפר את הקדש מה להלן בכפרת דמים אף כאן בכפרת דמים דברי רבי יהודה

With regard to what do they disagree? As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states that the goat should remain alive “to make atonement” (Leviticus 16:10). This indicates that it must remain alive until it effects atonement. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon dispute which atonement the verse is referring to. The verse speaks of atonement through the application of the blood of the sin-offering goat. And similarly it states: “When he has made an end of atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). Just as there the reference is to atonement through blood, so too here the verse is referring to atonement through blood. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ר' שמעון אומר לכפר עליו בכפרת דברים הכתוב מדבר

Rabbi Shimon says: “To make atonement over it”; the verse speaks of atonement through speech, i.e., the verbal confession that is recited over it.

ת"ש שאלו תלמידיו את רבי עקיבא עלה בשמאל מהו שיחזור לימין אמר להן אל תתנו מקום לצדוקים לרדות

Come and hear a proof that the drawing of lots is not indispensable. A baraita teaches: Rabbi Akiva’s students asked him: If the lot for God was drawn by the High Priest’s left hand, what is the halakha with regard to whether he may transfer the lot to his right hand? He said to them: Do not give the heretics an opportunity to dominate. If it is allowed, they will adduce this as proof of their claim that the halakhot are not absolute, and the Sages have the power to change them as they see fit.

טעמא דאל תתנו מקום לצדוקים לרדות הא לאו הכי מהדרינן ליה והא אמרת הגרלה מעכבא וכיון דקבעתיה שמאל היכי מהדרינן ליה

The Gemara infers: The only reason Rabbi Akiva provided to disallow it was so as not to give heretics an opportunity to dominate, which implies that if not for this reason, it would be permitted to transfer the lot to the right hand. How could this be true? Didn’t you say that the drawing of the lots is indispensable? And, consequently, once the designation of the goat has been defined by the drawing of the left hand, how then could we transfer the lot to the right hand? Perforce, the designation is not created by the actual drawing, and as such it is not indispensable.

אמר רבא הכי קאמרי עלה הגורל בשמאל מהו שיחזירו לו ולשעירו לימין אמר להם אל תתנו מקום לצדוקים לרדות

The Gemara explains the baraita can be understood in a way in which it does not provide a proof: Rava said: This is what Rabbi Akiva’s students are saying: If the lot was drawn by his left hand, what is the halakha with regard to whether he may transfer it, the lot, and its associated goat to his right side. He said to them: Do not give the heretics an opportunity to dominate. Accordingly, there was never any suggestion of changing the designation of the goats. Therefore, no proof can be brought concerning the indispensability of the drawing of the lots.

ת"ש אילו נאמר את השעיר אשר עליו הייתי אומר יניחנו עליו ת"ל עלה כיון שעלה שוב אינו צריך

Come and hear a proof that the drawing of lots is indispensable. A baraita teaches (Sifra, Aharei Mot 2:4): If the verse had stated only: “The goat upon which the lot” (Leviticus 16:9), I would have said the intention is that he must physically place the lot upon it. Therefore, the verse also states: “On which it came up” (Leviticus 16:9), indicating that once the lot has come up from the receptacle, it is not necessary to do more, i.e., the lot does not have to be physically placed upon the goat.

למאי אילימא למצוה מכלל דהנחה מצוה נמי לא אלא לאו לעכב ושמע מינה הגרלה מעכבא הנחה לא מעכבא

The Gemara clarifies: To what does the baraita refer when it says it is not necessary to actually place the lot upon the goat? If we say it means that it is no longer necessary to do so even as a mitzva, then, by inference, one must conclude that the placement of the lot upon the goat is not even a mitzva. This is problematic. Since it is clearly part of the Yom Kippur service, it must at least be a mitzva. Rather, is it not that when the baraita teaches that the placing of the lot is not necessary, it means only that the placing of the lot is not indispensable? And conclude from it that the drawing of lots is indispensable, but the placement of the lot upon the goat is not indispensable.

אמר רבא הכי קאמר אילו נאמר אשר עליו הייתי אומר יניחנו עליו עד שעת שחיטה ת"ל אשר עלה כיון שעלה שוב אינו צריך

Rava rejects the proof: Rava said: This cannot serve as a proof, since this is what the baraita is saying: If the verse had stated only: “The goat upon which the lot,” I would have said that the intention is that he should physically place the lot upon the goat, and the lot should remain upon it until the time of its slaughter. Therefore, the verse also states: “On which it came up,” indicating that once the lot has come up from the receptacle and been placed upon the goat for even one moment, it is not necessary to do more, i.e., the lot does not have to remain on the goat anymore. Understood in this way, it cannot be determined from this baraita whether or not the placement is indispensable.

ת"ש (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטא'

Come and hear a proof that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the drawing of the lots is indispensable. A baraita in the Sifra teaches: The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שקידש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם

The baraita continues: A verse is needed to teach this halakha, as I might have thought to come to the opposite conclusion. Is there not an a fortiori inference as follows: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not consecrate the animals with a specific designation, e.g., a woman who has given birth and must bring two birds, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, nevertheless a verbal designation of the animals with the required status does consecrate them, so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does consecrate the animals, is it not logically right that verbally designating the animals with the required status should consecrate them?

ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

In contradiction of this reasoning, the verse states, with regard to the goat: “He shall offer it for a sin-offering” to indicate that the lottery makes it a sin-offering; verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.