הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה — אֲבוּדָה מֵתָה. Everyone concedes that if the animal one designated as a sin-offering became lost, and he designated another animal in its stead and then found the first animal, if he gained atonement through the one that was not lost, i.e., the second one, the one that was lost is left to die.
אֶלָּא לְרַב הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּמַפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת — מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה. However, according to the opinion of Rav, who rules that the remaining goat from the first pair is the one that is sacrificed, that goat was never disqualified, and the extra goat from the second pair was designated to serve the same purpose as the remaining goat. This is like one who designates two sin-offerings as a guarantee, so that if he loses one of them he will still be able to bring the other one. And Rabbi Oshaya said that all agree that if one separated two sin-offerings as a guarantee, he gains atonement through one of them, and the second is left to graze until it becomes unfit. Consequently, even the sin-offering of an individual is not left to die in this case.
כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רָבָא: רַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר מִצְוָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן, מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּמַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי. The Gemara answers: Since Rava said that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the mitzva should be performed with the first animal, when one designates the second animal, it is considered from the beginning to be comparable to an offering separated in order to be lost. In that case, if it is the sin-offering of an individual, the second animal is left to die.
תְּנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תָּמוּת. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן יִרְעֶה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה יָמוּת — מִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג שֵׁנִי. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be left to die. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the second goat of the first pair should be left to graze, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said it should be left to die, he nonetheless gains atonement with the second goat of the second pair.
אֶלָּא לְרַב דְּאָמַר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג שֵׁנִי יִרְעֶה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה יָמוּת — לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַאי מִיכַּפַּר? מִי סָבְרַתְּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג שֵׁנִי קָאֵי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן קָאֵי. However, according to Rav, who said that the second goat of the second pair should be left to graze, and according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be left to die, then according to Rabbi Yehuda he cannot sacrifice either of the two goats: The first goat may not be sacrificed because Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected, and the second goat must be left to die. With which goat will he gain atonement? The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the second pair when he said it should be left to die? Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the first pair. The second goat of the second pair is sacrificed.
וְאִיכָּא דְּקָא מוֹתֵיב הָכִי: וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מֵת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם. There are those who raised this objection from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are brought and lots are drawn.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, רֵישָׁא פְּלִיגִי בְּחַטַּאת צִבּוּר וְסֵיפָא פְּלִיגִי בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי ״וְעוֹד״. קַשְׁיָא. Granted, according to Rav, in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to a communal sin-offering. According to the Rabbis the second animal is left to graze, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it is left to die. And in the latter clause they disagree with regard to whether animals that become disqualified as offerings are permanently rejected. According to the Rabbis they are not rejected and therefore the first goat is sacrificed, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that they are rejected and therefore the first goat is left to die and the second goat is sacrificed. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does the term: And furthermore, in the mishna indicate? Even the Rabbis agree that the remaining goat from the first pair is permanently disqualified. The Gemara comments that indeed, this is difficult.
וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. בִּשְׁלָמָא נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ — דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיתְעֲבִיד מִצְוְתֵיהּ. § It was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat should be left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled. The Gemara asks: Granted, if the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled, the scapegoat should be left to die, as the mitzva of the blood has not yet been performed, as it was not sprinkled in the prescribed manner.
אֶלָּא מֵת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, אַמַּאי יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם? הָא אִיתְעֲבִיד לֵיהּ מִצְוְתֵיהּ! However, if the scapegoat dies, why should the blood of the goat sacrificed to God be spilled? The mitzva of the scapegoat has already been performed. The only essential detail with regard to the scapegoat is the lottery, which has already been performed by the priest. Sending it to Azazel and pushing it off a cliff are carried out by an appointed person and while they are prescribed ab initio, they are not indispensable. After the fact, if the goat dies in some other way, the obligation has been fulfilled.
אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אָמַר קְרָא: ״יׇעֳמַד חַי לִפְנֵי ה׳ לְכַפֵּר״, עַד מָתַי יְהֵא זָקוּק לִהְיוֹת חַי — עַד שְׁעַת מַתַּן דָּמִים שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yannai said that the verse states: “But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10). Until when must the scapegoat be alive? Until the blood of its counterpart is sprinkled, and if it dies before, the blood is disqualified.
תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדוּ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָה — נִשְׁבָּעִין לְגִזְבָּרִין. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 2:1): If residents of a city sent their shekels to the Temple with a messenger, and the shekels were stolen or were lost along the way; if the funds were already collected, i.e., the coins for the new year’s offerings were taken from the chamber before the money was stolen, the messengers take an oath to the treasurers of the Temple that they did not unlawfully use the shekels, but that they were taken unbeknownst to them or by force. This is because once the necessary coins have been removed, all other coins that have been dedicated for this purpose are considered Temple property wherever they are, and their subsequent theft does not change that status. If the messengers take this oath, they are exempt from monetary liability.
וְאִם לָאו — נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. And if the funds were not yet collected when these coins were stolen, the coins are still considered the property of those who dedicated them to the Temple, and therefore the messengers take an oath to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city donate other shekels to the Temple in their stead.
נִמְצְאוּ אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים — אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שְׁקָלִים הֵם, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. If the shekels that were lost are found or the thieves returned them, both these and those are shekels, i.e., they remain sanctified, but they do not count toward the amount due the following year. The next year the members of that city must donate new shekels; they have not fulfilled the second year’s obligation by having given twice the previous year. Rabbi Yehuda says: They do count toward the following year.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה חוֹבוֹת שֶׁל שָׁנָה זוֹ קְרֵיבוֹת לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the obligations of this year are also brought the following year, and therefore it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation for the next year by using the shekels of this year.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, וְכֵן שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן — כּוּלָּן יָמוּתוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶם לִנְדָבָה, שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: Abaye raised an objection to this explanation. It was taught that if the bull and goat of Yom Kippur were lost and one designated others in their stead, and similarly if the goats which atone for a communal transgression of idol worship by instruction of the court were lost and he designated others in their stead, and the original animals were found, all the original animals should be left to die, and cannot be sacrificed at a later time. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: They should be left to graze until they become unfit. Then they are sold, and the money received in their sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the obligations of this year may be brought the following year, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost should be sacrificed the following year, and not left to die. Rava said to him: