משנה: טָרַף בַּקַּלְפֵּי וְהֶעֱלָה שְׁנֵי גוֹרָלוֹת. אֶחָד כָּתוּב עָלָיו לַשֵּׁם וְאֶחָד כָּתוּב עָלָיו לַעֲזָאזֵל הַסְּגָן בִּימִינוֹ וְרֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב מִשְּמֹאלוֹ. אִם שֶׁל שֵׁם עָלָה בִימִינוֹ הַסְּגָן אוֹמֵר לוֹ אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל הַגְבֵּהַּ אֶת יְמִינְךָ. וְאִם בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ עָלָה רֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב אוֹמֵר לוֹ אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל הַגְּבֵּהַּ אֶת שְׂמֹאלְךָ. נְתָנָם עַל שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירִים וְאוֹמֵר לַיי חַטָּאת. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חַטָּאת אֶלָּא לַיי. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד׃ MISHNAH: He scrambled the urn1To make sure that he had no control about which lot he grabbed in each hand. and brought up the two lots; one had written on it “for Hashem2Cf. Chapter 3, Mishnah 9, Notre 144.”, and the other had written on it “for Azazel3Since הָאֶ֥בֶן הָאָֽזֶל (IS. 20:19) is a monolith, עז-אזח is a strong monolith, either a rocky mountain top or a sheer cliff, in the words of the verse (Lev. 16:22) “in a cut (or cut-off) land.””, with the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. If the Eternal’s came up in his right hand, the executive officer said to him, “Sir High Priest, lift you right hand.” But if it came up in his left hand, the head of the serving family said to him. “Sir High Priest, lift your left hand.” He puts them on the two he-goats4Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side. and says, “for Hashem a purification offering”5In Lev. 16:9 the expression וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת׃ cannot mean “sacrificed it as purification offering” since its slaughter is prescribed only in v. 15; it must mean “declare it as purification sacrifice.”. Rebbi Ismael says, it was not necessary to say “a purification offering,” only “for Hashem”6Since both he-goats already were taken as purification sacrifices, v. 5., and they answer, “praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever.”
הלכה: טָרַף בַּקַּלְפֵּי כול׳. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר קַלְפֵּי אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ קַלָּתוֹת. וְלָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ קַלְפֵּי. כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת פּוֹמְבֵּי לַדָּבָר. וְיָבִיא שְׁנֵי חוּטִין. אֶחָד שְׁחוֹר וְאֶחָד לָבָן. וְיִקְשׁוֹר עֲלֵיהֶם וְיֹאמַר. זֶה לַשֵּׁם וְזֶה לָעַזָּאזֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר גּוֹרָ֤ל אֶחָד֙ לַֽיי. שֶׁיְּהֵא נִיכָּר שֶׁהוּא לַיי. וְגוֹרָ֥ל אֶחָד֭ לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃ שֶׁיְּהֵא נִיכָּר שֶׁהוּא לָעַזָּאזֵל. וְיָבִיא שְׂנֵי צְרוֹרוֹת. אֶחָד שְׁחוֹר וְאֶחָד לָבָן. [וְיִתֵּן עֲלֵיהֶם] וְיֹאמַר. זֶה לַשֵּׁם וְזֶה לָעַזָּאזֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר גּוֹרָ֤ל אֶחָד֙ לַֽיי. [שֶׁיְּהֵא נִיכָּר שֶׁהוּא לַיי. וְגוֹרָ֥ל אֶחָד֭ לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃ שֶׁיְּהֵא נִיכָּר שֶׁהוּא לַעֲזָאזֵֽל. וְיִכְתּוֹב עֲלֵיהֶם וְיֹאמַר. זֶה לַֽיי וְזֶה לָעַזָּאזֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר גּוֹרָ֤ל אֶחָד֙ לַֽיי.] שֶׁיְּהֵא מוֹכִיחַ עַל עַצָמוֹ שֶׁהוּא לַיי לְעוֹלָם. וְגוֹרָ֥ל אֶחָד֭ לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃ שֶׁיְּהֵא מוֹכִיחַ עַל עַצָמוֹ שֶׁהוּא לָעַזָּאזֵל לְעוֹלָם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. חֲקוּקִים הָיוּ. HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them7Tie the threads to the horn of the he-goats. and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says8Lev. 16:8., one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them]9Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector. and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them]9Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector. saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they10The lots, boxwood or gold, were used every year and were permanently engraved. were engraved.
וְתַנֵּי כֵן. בִּשְׁתֵּי קַלְפִיּוֹת נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אַחַת שֶׁהַגּוֹרָלוֹת נְתוּנִין בְּתוֹכָהּ וְאַחַת שֶׁשְּׁמוֹת הַשְּׁבָטִים בְּתוֹכָהּ. וּשְׁנֵי פִירְחֵי כְהוּנָה עוֹמְדִים. מַה שֶׁזֶּה מַעֲלֶה וָזֶה מַעֲלֶה זָכָה. בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּגוֹרָלוֹת בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים וּבִכְסָפִים. הָדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ֩ לָהֶ֨ם יְהוֹשֻׁ֧עַ גּוֹרָ֛ל לִפְנֵ֣י יְי בַּמִּצְפֶּה. גּוֹרָ֛ל אֵילּוּ הַגּוֹרָלוֹת. לִפְנֵ֣י יְי אֵילּוּ אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים. בֵּין רַ֖ב לִמְעָֽט׃ אֵילּוּ הַכְּסָפִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. אִילְמָלֵא שֶׁנָּתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא חֵן כָּל־מָקוֹם בְּעֵינֵי יוֹשְׁבָיו לֹא הָֽיְתָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְעוֹלָם. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. שְׁלֹשָׁה חֵינִים הֵן. חֵן אִשָּׁה בְעֵינֵי בַעֲלְהּ. חֵן מָקוֹם בְּעֵינֵי יוֹשְׁבָיו. חֵן מִקַּח בְּעֵינֵי לוֹקְחָיו. רִבִּי אַבָּא בְרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי פַּפַּי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעֻ דְּסִיכְנִין בְשֵׁם לֵוִי. אַף לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה כֵן. הָדָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב וְנָתַתִּ֤י לָכֶם֙ לֵ֣ב חָדָ֔שׁ וגו׳. וְנָֽתַתִּ֥י לָכֶם֭ לֵ֥ב בָּשָֽׂר וגו׳׃ שֶׁהוּא בוֹשֵׂר בְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ. It was stated similarly11Babli Bava batra 122a.: The Land of Israel was distributed by two urns, one containing the lots, the other containing the names of the tribes. Two young priests12Literally: Flowers of the priesthood. were standing, what each of them brought up he won13They simultaneously drew lots before Eleazar the High Priest with Urim and Tummim, which paired territories with tribes.. By three ways the Land of Israel was divided up, by lots, and Urim and Tummim, and by payments. That is what is written14Misquote of Jos. 18:10. Joshua threw them lots before the Eternal at Mispeh. Lots, these are the lots. Before the Eternal, these are the Urim and Tummim. Between large and small15Num. 26:56., these are payments16The nature of these payments is nowhere spelled out. It seems that they were equalization payments so that the value of distributed land per head of the population would be approximately the same for all tribes; Sifry Num. 132; expanded quote in Yalqut Šimony Pinehas.#773.. Rebbi Abin said, unless the Holy One, praise to Him, made every place nice in the eyes of its inhabitants, the Land of Israel would never have been distributed. It was stated thus17Babli Soṭah 47a.: There are three graces. The grace of a woman in her husband’s eyes. The grace of a place in the eyes of its inhabitants. The grace of a buy in the eyes of its buyer. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus, Rebbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Levi: Even in the future the Holy one, praise to Him, will do the same. That is what is written18Ez. 36:26., I shall give you a new heart, etc., and shall give you a heart of flesh, etc. He makes sour the part of others19Everybody will be satisfied with his part. Gen. rabba 34, end..
נָגַע בָּהֶן כְּשֵׁהֵן לְמַטָּה וְנִתְעָֽרְבוּ. אֵין הַשְּׂעִירִים כְמִצְוָתָן. וּמִשֶּׁהֶעֱלָה אוֹתָן נָגַע בָּהֶן וְנִתְעָֽרְבוּ. הַשְּׂעִירִים כְמִצְוָתָן. וּבַעֲלִייָתוֹ נָגַע בָּהֶן וְנִתְעָֽרְבוּ. אָמַר. אִם שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם יַעֲלֶה בִימִינִי יִקְדַּשׁ זֶה שֶׁעַל יְמִינִי. קָדַשׁ. אִם שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם יַעֲלֶה בִשְׂמֹאלִי יִקְדַּשׁ זֶה שֶׁעַל שְׂמֹאלִי. קָדַשׁ. וַאֲפִילוּ אִם אָמַר. אִם שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם יַעֲלֶה בִימִינִי יִקְדַּשׁ זֶה שֶׁעַל שְׂמֹאלִי. קָדַשׁ. אִם שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם יַעֲלֶה בִשְׂמֹאלִי יִקְדַּשׁ זֶה שֶׁעַל יְמִינִי. קָדַשׁ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. בֵּין שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם יַעֲלֵה בִימִינִי בֵּין שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם יַעֲלֵה בִשְׂמֹאלִי. לֹא יִקְדַּשׁ אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁעַל יְמִינִי. לֹא יִקְדַּשׁ אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁעַל שְׂמֹאלִי. לֹא קָדַשׁ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קוֹבְעָן בַּפֶּה. If he touched them when they were down and they became mixed up. The he-goats are not as commanded20Since lifting the lots is a requirement which cannot be waived, the ceremony is invalid and therefore the he-goats are disqualified; a new pair has to be presented and the ceremony repeated.. If after they were lifted he touched them and they became mixed up, the he-goats are as commanded21They remain qualified.. If he touched them while lifting and they became mixed up22This situation is identical with the previous one, the remedy indicated in the sequel applies to every situation in which the High Priest held one lot in each hand and started lifting them., if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. If the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. And even if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified; if the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified23Since all these cases are possibly correct.. But if he said, whether the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand or the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, only that to my right hand side shall be sanctified, only that to my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is not sanctified, since he established it by mouth24The verse requires that the lot determine the fate of the he-goats, but the language in the last case excludes this..
אָֽמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה גּוֹרָלוֹת. גּוֹרָלוֹת שֶׁלְּכָל־דָּבָר. יְכוֹל יִתֵּן שְׁנֵי גּוֹרָלוֹת עַל זֶה וְּשְׁנֵי גּוֹרָלוֹת עַל זֶה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר גּוֹרָלוֹת גּוֹרָ֤ל אֶחָד֙ לַֽיי וְגוֹרָ֥ל אֶחָד֭ לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃ יְכוֹל יִתֵּן שֶׁלְשֵׁם וְשֶׁלְעַזָּאזֵל עַל זֶה וְשֶׁלְשֵׁם וְשֶׁלְעַזָּאזֵל עַל זֶה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר גּוֹרָ֤ל. וְלֹא דָא קַדְמִייָתָא. כֵּינִי. יְכוֹל מִשֶּׁהוּא נוֹתֵן שֶׁלְשֵׁם עַל שֶׁלְשֵׁם וְשֶׁלְעַזָּאזֵל עַל שֶׁלְעַזָּאזֵל יַחֲזוֹר וְיַחֲלִיף. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר גּוֹרָ֤ל אֶחָד֙ לַֽיי. אֵין כָּאן לַשֵּׁם אֶלָּא אֶחָד. וְגוֹרָ֥ל אֶחָד֭ לַעֲזָאזֵֽל. וְאֵין כָּאן לַעֲזָאזֵל אֶלָּא אֶחָד. 25Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(2); Babli 37a. The Torah said, lots. Lots made of anything26They may be made of any material.. I could think that he should put two lots on one and two lots on the other, the verse says, lots, one lot for the Eternal and one lot for Azazel. I could think that he should give the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on one and the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on the other, the verse says, lot. Is that not the previous argument? It should be so: I could think that after he gave the Eternal’s on the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on Azazel’s, he could go back and switch, the verse says, one lot for the Eternal, there is only one for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, there is only one for Azazel.
צִיץ הָיָה כָתוּב עָלָיו קוֹדֶשׁ לַיי. קוֹדֶשׁ מִלְּמַטָּן וְשֵׁם מִלְּמַעֲלָן כְּמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהוּא יוֹשֵׁב עַל קַתֶדְרִין שֶׁלּוֹ. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. אֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּן וְשֵׁם מִלְּמַעֲלָן. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּרוֹמֵי וְלֹא הָיָה כָתוּב עָלָיו אֶלָּא שִׁיטָּה אַחַת קוֹדֶשׁ לַיי. The diadem was inscribed “Holy for the Eternal”, “holy” below and “Eternal” above27The diadem worn by the High Priest when officiating; Ex. 28:36. As explained in the parallels in the Babli (Šabbat 63b, Sukkah 5a) and in Yerushalmi Megillah1:11(71d 1. 57) only the four letters of the Name were in the upper line and קדוש ל on the bottom., like a king who sits on his throne28Greek καθέδριον. τὸ , "small chair".. And similarly, “one” below and the Name above29On the lot was inscribed not only “for the Eternal” but “one for the Eternal”.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome30He reports to have seen the High Priest’s vestment in Rome, Meˋilah 17b. and it was written on it in one line, “Holy for the Eternal”.
וְנָתַ֧ן אַֽהֲרֹ֛ן. אִם נָתַן זָר כָּשֵׁר. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. אִם הֶעֱלָה זָר פָּסוּל. קוּל וָחוֹמֵר. מַה אִם נְתִינָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אִם נָתַן זָר כָּשֵׁר. הָעֲלִייָה שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא. נְתִינָה שֶׁהִיא מְעַכֶּבֶת אִם נָתַן זָר כָּשֵׁר. הָעֲלִייָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת אִם הֶעֱלָה זָר פָּסוּל. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. הָעֲלִייָה מִתּוֹךְ קַּילְפֵּי מְעַכֶּבֶת. אֵין נְתִינָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קוֹבְעָן אֲפִילוּ בַפֶּה. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד הַיּוֹם וְאֶחָד לְמָחָר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד הַיּוֹם וְאֶחָד לְמָחָר. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר גּוֹרָלוֹת. לְמִצְוָה. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּמַצְלִיחַ בַּגּוֹרָל. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּיי. לֹא הִגְרִיל וְלֹא נִתְווַדֶּה כָשֵׁר. אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּר מִצְוָה אַחַת. Aaron shall put8Lev. 16:8., if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified31If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid.. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified32The drawing of lots from the urn by a non-Cohen is invalid and disqualifies the he-goats from being used in any sacrificial way.. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons33Aaron’s sons are not mentioned in the entire Chapter, only Aaron himself. are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons31If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid. are not mentioned, not so much more34Lev. 16:8 mentions that Aaron has to put the lots on the he-goats; that the lots have to be drawn first is an inference, not a separate statement. If the drawing is not written in the verse, Aaron cannot be mentioned in connection with it.? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive35From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission., if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not35From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission. obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive36Babli 39b.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth37For him the drawing of lots is not indispensable; Babli 39b.. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow38Since the entire service is restricted to one day, this can only mean that for R. Joḥanan it is possible to predetermine the he-goat which is to be the purification sacrifice.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots39These sentences have to be switched. For R. Yannai, for whom drawing of lots is indispensable, the lots have to be mentioned. But for R. Joḥanan , for whom the fate of the he-goats can be predetermined, why are lots mentioned at all?? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds40The position of R. Joḥanan is modified. He will agree that using an urn in the service is required. In the case that the High Priest loses the lots which he is lifting, the ceremony does not have to be repeated, the he-goats do not become disqualified, and he can proceed to select the he-goat to be sacrificed following the rules spelled out earlier.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed41Since the objection cannot be answered, practice has to follow R. Joḥanan . Babli 40a..
לַיי. לְרַבּוֹת שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ שֶׁיְּהֵא פָסוּל מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסָּר זְמַן. וְאַתְיָא כַיי דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קוֹבְעָן אֲפִילוּ בַפֶּה. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד הַיּוֹם וְאֶחָד לְמָחָר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד הַיּוֹם וְאֶחָד לְמָחָר. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר גּוֹרָלוֹת. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה לַשֵּׁם. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּרוֹצֶה לְהַגְרִיל. For the Eternal42Lev. 22:26., to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time43A he-goat which is not at least eight days old may not be used on the Day of Atonement. Even though the he-goat sent into the wilderness is not a sacrifice, by the process of drawing lots it is a potential sacrifice and has to be qualified as such. Babli 63b, Sifra Emor Parasha 8(6).. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth44Since for him it might be the choice of the High Priest to select the he-goat as sacrifice, one understands that a separate verse is needed to require both he-goats to be eligible at the same time. But for R. Yannai, for whom only the drawing determines which animal is chosen, it should be obvious that both have to be eligible. Then why is a separate verse needed?. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots45To prohibit that one could take the risk that an ineligible animal be drawn as sacrifice and in this case start again with another pair and a new drawing..
שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּחוּץ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חַייָב. בְּשֶׁקָּרַב הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פָּטוּר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי מְדַמָּתָהּ לַפֶּסַח וְלָא דַמְיָא אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַּנְחוּם. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. פֶּסַח שֶׁעִיבֵּרִ זְמַנּוֹ מֵאֵילָיו הָיָה מִשְׁתַּנֶּה. בְּרַם הָכָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה הוּא מִשְׁתַּנֶּה. מַאי כְדוֹן. מָאן דְּאָמַר חַייָב. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. הַגְרָלָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. אֵין הַגְרָלָה מְעַכֶּבֶת כְּלוּם יֵשׁ כָּאן לַשֵּׁם אֶלָּא אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אֲחוֹי דְרִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה. אוֹ זֶה אוֹ זֶה מִשֶּׁהִגְרִיל חַייָב עַל שֶׁלְשֵׁם וּפָטוּר עַל שֶׁלְעַזָּאזֶל. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וְהוּא שֶׁנָּתַן מַתְּנַת הַפָּר. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נָתַן מַתְּנַת הַפָּר פָּטוּר. שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁלְשָׂעִיר מְעַכֶּבֶת מַתַּן דָּמוֹ שֶׁלְפָּר. If one slaughtered outside46Outside the Temple domain, which is a deadly sin for sacrifices. the two he-goats47There really are three he-goats on that day, the two mentioned in Lev. 16 and the holiday purification offering mentioned in Num. 29:11. The latter is referred to as “he-goat made outside” since its blood is poured onto the altar in the courtyard, where its inner parts are burned. The he-goat chosen as sacrifice by drawing lots is referred to as “he-goat made for inside” since its blood is sprinkled inside the sanctuary (and its body burned outside the sacred domain.) Since there is no reason to treat the holiday purification offering differently from all other holiday offerings, the question asked here must refer to the he-goats subject to drawing lots of which only one is going to be a sacrifice. of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed48It is clear that for “inside” one has to read “outside” since the question is asked about the he-goat whose blood is to be brought inside, and if it was slaughtered in the Temple it cannot be slaughtered a second time outside. If the he-goat for outside was slaughtered, the main ceremony is concluded Lev. 16:24; the remaining he-goats cannot be sacrifices and their slaughter outside the sacred domain is no offense.. Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically49A Pesaḥ sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan is a well-being sacrifice. Babli 63a., but here it changes by slaughter50The he-goat chosen by the lot cannot be changed into the he-goat for outside.. How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive51Since the opinion of Rav Ḥisda is refuted, that the Tannaim refer to two different situations and do not disagree, one has to find the root of the disagreement. The text as it stands seems unintelligible; there seems to be unanimity that here also the mentions of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” have to be switched. If drawing is obstructive, neither of the two he-goats is a sacrifice before the drawing, and slaughter outside cannot be sinful. But if it is not obstructive, each one of the he-goats is a potential dedicated sacrifice and outside slaughter is sinful.. There is only one here for Hashem52Since only one of the he-goats can become a sacrifice, the argument last given is invalid (unless both he-goats are simultaneously slaughtered outside.). Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s53Since the latter he-goat is not a sacrifice.. Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift54As described in Mishnah 3, the blood of the bull has to be brought inside. This is called “the gift of the bull’s blood.”. But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood55The he-goat chosen to be the Eternal’s is slaughtered after the bull, but the bull cannot be slaughtered before the he-goat is chosen and ready to be slaughtered..
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. שָׁחַט אֶת הַפָּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגְרִיל מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. פָּר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר. הַשָּׂעִיר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. שָׁחַט אֶת הַפָּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגְרִיל חַייָב. אִין תֵּימַר. פָּטוּר. נִיתְנֵי. אֵין הַשָּׂעִיר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֵבְדַּיְמִי. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. אֵין הַשָּׂעִיר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר בְּמַתְּנוֹת הַבַּדִּים. אֲבָל בְּמַתְּנוֹת הַפָּרוֹכֶת שָׂעִיר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִיתֵּן מִדַּם הַפָּר עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר עַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable56In the biblical narrative (Lev. 16), first the he-goat has to be selected by drawing lots (v. 8), then the bull has to be slaughtered (v. 11), then first incense (v. 12) and afterwards the bull’s blood (v. 14) have to be brought into the Sanctuary, then the he-goat has to be slaughtered and its blood brought into the sanctuary (v. 15). If the order was reversed and the he-goat selected close to the time of its slaughter, is the ceremony invalid and therefore the slaughter a violation of the prohibition of work on the day of Atonement, and a deadly sin?? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull57Slaughter of the bull is invalid unless the he-goat was selected; slaughter of the he-goat is invalid unless the bull was slaughtered first (and its blood brought inside, Babli 61a).. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams58The blood has to be sprinkled first inside the Holiest of Holies at the place of the Ark in the First Temple, between the beams used to carry the Ark. In the Second Temple, the place was indicated by a stone, but the terminology was not changed. Then it had to be sprinkled in the Sanctuary onto the gobelin separating it from the Holiest of Holies. Babli 40a..