וְאִם נִתְעַבְּרָה — נִתְעַבְּרָה לַמּוֹכֵר. הָתִינַח שָׂעִיר, פַּר מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? גְּזֵירָה פַּר אַטּוּ שָׂעִיר. And if the year was extended and made into a leap year, it is extended for the benefit of the seller, and according to the Sages he has an additional month in which to redeem his house. The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the goat, but with regard to the bull, what is there to say? The bull remains valid even if it is more than a year old. The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat.
וּמִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירָה יָמוּת?! וְעוֹד, חַטָּאת שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ — לִרְעִיָּה אָזְלָא! דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חַטָּאת שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת וְרוֹעָה. The Gemara asks: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? And furthermore, a sin-offering whose year has passed is not left to die but rather goes to graze. As Reish Lakish said: We consider a sin-offering whose year has passed as though it stands in a cemetery, and the priest cannot take it out in order to sacrifice it because he is not permitted to become ritually defiled. Therefore, it grazes until it becomes unfit and is then sold.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה. אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵין מַעֲרִיכִין, וְאֵין מַחְרִימִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה. Rather, Rava said: The bull and goat of Yom Kippur may not be left from one year to the next by rabbinic decree due to a concern that a mishap may occur. As it was taught in a baraita: One may neither consecrate objects, nor valuate, i.e., take a vow to donate one’s value to the Temple treasury, nor dedicate items for sacred use at this time, when the Temple no longer exists.
וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ וְהֶעֱרִיךְ וְהֶחְרִים, בְּהֵמָה — תֵּיעָקֵר. פֵּירוֹת כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים — יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת — יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָאָה לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא עִיקּוּר — נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת לְפָנֶיהָ, וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ. And if one did consecrate, valuate, or dedicate items for sacred use: If he dedicated an animal it is uprooted, i.e., he arranges for it to die quickly. If he dedicated agricultural produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose, he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should redeem them and transport the value of their benefit to the Dead Sea. This baraita indicates that animals that cannot be sacrificed at this time must be left to die so that they are not used improperly. The Gemara explains: And what constitutes uprooting? He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own from hunger.
תַּקָּלָה דְּמַאי? אִי תַּקָּלָה דְּהַקְרָבָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל רְעִיּוֹת נָמֵי! אִי תַּקָּלָה דְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל רְעִיּוֹת נָמֵי! The Gemara asks: What mishap might occur if the bull and goat are left until the next year? If you say it is a mishap of offering the animal as a different offering, a similar concern should exist even with regard to all animals that have been disqualified for use as offerings that one leaves to graze. If it is a mishap of shearing the animal’s wool and working the animal, which would constitute unlawful use of consecrated property, a similar concern should exist even with regard to all animals that have been disqualified for use as offerings that are left to graze. Why are these animals in particular left to die?
לְעוֹלָם תַּקָּלָה דְּהַקְרָבָה, וְהָנָךְ דְּלָאו בְּנֵי הַקְרָבָה נִינְהוּ — לָא טְרִיד בְּהוּ, הָךְ דְּבַת הַקְרָבָה הִיא — טְרִיד בַּהּ. The Gemara answers: Actually, the concern is for a mishap of sacrifice. And those other disqualified animals that are left to graze, which are not fit for sacrifice, he is not preoccupied with, and will not accidentally sacrifice them. This bull and goat, which are fit for sacrifice next year, he is preoccupied with them. Therefore, there is a greater concern that one may sacrifice them as offerings, and they may not be left to graze.
וְתַקָּלָה עַצְמָהּ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא חֲדָא: פֶּסַח שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב בְּרִאשׁוֹן — יִקְרַב בַּשֵּׁנִי, בַּשֵּׁנִי — יִקְרַב לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא יִקְרַב. מַאי לָאו, בְּתַקָּלָה פְּלִיגִי? The Gemara comments: This issue itself, i.e., whether decrees are instituted due to a concern about a possible mishap, is a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in one baraita: A Paschal lamb that was not sacrificed on the first Pesaḥ is sold to someone who was impure on the first Pesaḥ or who was distant from Jerusalem, so that it may be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ. If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, it is sacrificed the following year. And it was taught in another baraita: If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, it is not sacrificed the following year. What, is it not that they disagree about the question of whether a decree was issued prohibiting keeping the animal for an entire year due to a concern about the possibility of a mishap?
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא [לָא] חָיְישִׁינַן לְתַקָּלָה, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי, הָא רַבָּנַן. The Gemara responds: No, these sources do not prove that the tanna’im disputed this issue. It is possible that everyone agrees that we are not concerned about a mishap, and here they disagree about the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis with regard to whether it is possible that the lamb will still be fit for sacrifice the following year. And the apparent contradiction between the baraitot is not difficult. This baraita, which says that the lamb is brought the following year, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. That baraita, which says that the lamb may not be sacrificed the following year, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that by the following year, the lamb will certainly be more than a year old and will therefore be unfit as a Paschal offering.
וְהָתַנְיָא: וְכֵן הַמָּעוֹת! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ — בְּתַקָּלָה פְּלִיגִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. The Gemara challenges this rejection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: And, so too, money that was dedicated for purchasing a Paschal lamb is subject to dispute about whether it may be kept for the following year. In the case of money, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis is irrelevant. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that they disagree with regard to whether a decree is issued due to a concern about a mishap? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר: אָנָא הַשֵּׁם! חָטְאוּ, עָווּ, פָּשְׁעוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָנָא הַשֵּׁם! כַּפֶּר נָא לַחֲטָאִים וְלָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ וְשֶׁעָווּ וְשֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר: ״כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי ה׳ תִּטְהָרוּ״. MISHNA: The Yom Kippur service continues: The High Priest comes over to the scapegoat, places both his hands upon it, and confesses. And he would say as follows: Please, God, Your people, the house of Israel, have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You. Please, God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions that they have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, Your people, the house of Israel, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant, saying: “For on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified” (Leviticus 16:30).
וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעֲזָרָה כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹמְעִים שֵׁם הַמְּפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִפִּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, הָיוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וְנוֹפְלִים עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים: ״בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד״. מְסָרוֹ לְמִי שֶׁהָיָה מוֹלִיכוֹ. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהוֹלִיכוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁעָשׂוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים קֶבַע, וְלֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִין אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹלִיכוֹ. And the priests and the people standing in the Temple courtyard, when they would hear the Explicit Name emerging from the mouth of the High Priest, when the High Priest did not use one of the substitute names for God, they would kneel and prostrate themselves and fall on their faces, and say: Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever. After the confession over the scapegoat, the priest passed the goat to the one who was to lead it to the wilderness. According to the halakha, everyone is eligible to lead it, but the High Priests established a fixed custom and did not allow an Israelite to lead it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהוֹלִיכוֹ עַרְסְלָא, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה. וְכֶבֶשׁ עָשׂוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַבָּבְלִיִּים, שֶׁהָיוּ מְתַלְּשִׁים בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: טוֹל וָצֵא טוֹל וָצֵא. Rabbi Yosei said: That was not always the case. There was an incident where a person named Arsela led the goat to the wilderness, and he was an Israelite. And they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews who were in Jerusalem, who would pluck at the goat’s hair and would say to the goat: Take our sins and go, take our sins and go, and do not leave them with us.
גְּמָ׳ וְאִילּוּ ״בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ״ לָא קָאָמַר. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא אָמַר: יֵשׁ לָהֶם כַּפָּרָה בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. GEMARA: In the confession over the scapegoat, the High Priest confessed the sins of the Jewish people, whereas he did not say: The children of Aaron, Your sacred people, in order to confess the sins of the priests. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this mishna? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, for if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say: The priests receive atonement through the scapegoat, which indicates that their sins must be mentioned in the confession over the scapegoat?
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַטּוּ כֹּהֲנִים לָאו בִּכְלַל ״עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל״ נִינְהוּ? Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, is that to say that priests are not included among: Your people, the house of Israel? Nothing can be proven from the fact that the High Priest did not list every segment of the Jewish people separately.
מְסָרוֹ לְמִי שֶׁמּוֹלִיכוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ — לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזָּר, ״עִתִּי״ — It was taught in the mishna that the priest passed the goat to the one who was to lead it to the wilderness. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: “And he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:21), that the halakhic midrash interprets the word man as mentioned in order to qualify a non-priest for this task. The word appointed indicates