Yoma 64a

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹלֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְשָׁחַט אִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

The Gemara presents another explanation as to why a verse is needed to indicate that the scapegoat may not be lacking time. Rava said: It is referring to a case where the one who sold the two goats had a critically ill person in his household, and he slaughtered the mother of the scapegoat in order to save the ill person’s life on Yom Kippur. Although the scapegoat is more than eight days old, it is considered lacking time because it is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day.

וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי אֲסִיר? ״לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא! הָא אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא דְּחִיָּיתוֹ לַצּוּק זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ.

The Gemara asks: Is it prohibited in a case like this? The Merciful One stated in the Torah: “And whether it be a cow or ewe, you shall not slaughter it and its young on one day” (Leviticus 22:28), and this act of pushing the scapegoat off the cliff is not a ritual slaughter. Consequently, the prohibition against slaughtering a mother animal and its offspring should not apply. The Gemara answers: They say in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that pushing it off the cliff, which is the manner in which the scapegoat is supposed to be killed, is considered its slaughter.

אִם שֶׁל שֵׁם מֵת, זֶה שֶׁעָלָה עָלָיו וְכוּ׳.

§ It was taught in the mishna that if one of the goats dies after the lottery, a second pair of goats is sought and new lots are drawn. After that lottery, the priest utters a stipulation: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn shall stand in its stead; and if the one to be sent to Azazel died, that goat upon which the lot for Azazel was drawn shall stand in its stead. The second, superfluous goat should graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it will be sold and the money received in its sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering. The Gemara discusses which goat is set to pasture: The one that remains from the first lottery or the one that remains from the second lottery?

אָמַר רַב: שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן — יִקְרַב, שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג שֵׁנִי — יִרְעֶה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן — יִרְעֶה, שֵׁנִי שֶׁבַּזּוּג שֵׁנִי — יִקְרַב.

Rav said: If the goat to be sent to Azazel died, he should sacrifice the second goat of the first pair to God, and the second goat of the second pair should graze until it becomes unfit. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The second goat of the first pair is the one that should graze, whereas he should sacrifice the second goat of the second pair.

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַב סָבַר: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִידְחִין.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rav holds that animals are not rejected. An animal that was consecrated as an offering but later became unfit for sacrifice is not considered disqualified forever. Therefore, although the remaining goat was not eligible to be sacrificed when its counterpart died, once another goat has been paired with it following a new lottery, it is no longer rejected and should be sacrificed. And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that animals are rejected. Therefore, once the remaining goat from the first pair became disqualified, it remains disqualified forever.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? דְּיָלֵיף מִמְּחוּסַּר זְמַן. מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּהַשְׁתָּא לָא חֲזֵי, כִּי הָדַר מִיחֲזֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא. מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא אִיתְחֲזִי כְּלָל. הָכָא נִרְאָה וְנִדְחָה!

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the halakha applicable to an animal that is lacking time. In the case of an animal that is lacking time, is it not true that although it is unfit now, when it again becomes fit, it seems well, i.e., it may be sacrificed as an offering? Here, too, it is no different. The Gemara rejects this answer: Is it comparable? There, when the animal is lacking time, it was never fit to be sacrificed. Here, the animal was fit as an offering and later became unfit and was therefore rejected. Perhaps in this case it is permanently disqualified.

אֶלָּא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַב, דְּיָלֵיף מִבַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר. בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי הַשְׁתָּא, כִּי הָדַר מִיחֲזֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

Rather, the Gemara retracts the first explanation and says that this is the reasoning of Rav: He derives it from the case of an animal with a temporary blemish. The animal is disqualified as an offering as long as the blemish remains, but is eligible for sacrifice once the blemish has healed. In the case of an animal with a temporary blemish, is it not true that although it is unfit now, when it again becomes fit, it seems well, i.e., it may be sacrificed as an offering? Here too, it is no different.

וְהָתָם מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, מוּם בָּם — הוּא דְּלֹא יֵרָצוּ, הָא עָבַר מוּמָן — יֵרָצוּ.

The Gemara asks: There, in the case of an animal with a temporary blemish, from where do we derive this halakha ? As it is written: “Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25), which teaches us: It is when the blemish is in them that they shall not be accepted; but if their blemish passes, they shall be accepted.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״בָּהֶם״, הֵם הוּא דְּכִי עָבַר מוּמָן יֵרָצוּ, הָא כׇּל דְּחוּיִין, הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחוּ — נִדְחוּ.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yoḥanan respond to this proof? The Merciful One limited this halakha by using the term: In them, which indicates that it is they, animals with temporary blemishes, that are accepted when their blemishes pass, but with regard to all other animals that become disqualified, once they are rejected they remain rejected.

וְרַב? הָהוּא ״בָּהֶם״ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ הוּא דְּלָא מִירְצוּ, הָא עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת — מִירְצוּ.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rav answer Rabbi Yoḥanan? That term: In them, should be understood as follows: It is on their own that they are not accepted; but in mixtures with animals that are fit to be sacrificed, animals that have a temporary blemish are accepted.

כְּדִתְנַן: אֵיבָרִים תְּמִימִים בְּאֵיבָרִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן — יַקְרִיבוּ כׇּל הָרָאשִׁין כּוּלָּן, כְּרָעָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן — יַקְרִיבוּ כָּל הַכְּרָעַיִים כּוּלָּן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן — יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

As we learned in a mishna: If limbs from unblemished burnt-offerings became mixed with limbs from blemished burnt-offerings, which are disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them is sacrificed on the altar before they knew of the blemish, they should sacrifice all the heads, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar. Similarly, if the legs of one of them were sacrificed, they should sacrifice all the legs. And the Rabbis say: Even if all of them were sacrificed except for one, that one should be taken out to the place designated for burning disqualified offerings, as it is not assumed that the limbs of the disqualified animal have already been brought.

וְאִידַּךְ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״בָּם״ ״בָּהֶם״. וְאִידַּךְ? ״בָּם״ ״בָּהֶם״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, derive the halakha that the limbs are acceptable if they are in a mixture? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the Torah’s choice of terminology: It could have written: “In them,” as bam , but instead it used the term bahem , with the extra letter heh , and therefore an extra halakha can be derived from this word. The Gemara comments: And the other Sage, Rav, does not expound the difference in terminology between the words bam and bahem , as he does not consider the distinction significant enough to teach a halakha .

וּלְרַב, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִדְחִין, אִי בָּעֵי הַאי נַקְרֵיב אִי בָּעֵי הַאי נַקְרֵיב!

The Gemara asks: According to Rav, although living beings are not permanently rejected, that only explains why the remaining goat of the first pair is acceptable for sacrifice, but why must it be the one to be sacrificed? If he wants this one from the first pair he should sacrifice it, and if he wants that one from the second pair, he should sacrifice that.

אָמַר רָבָא: רַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: מִצְוָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן. הֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אִי נֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּקוּפּוֹת, דִּתְנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין, שֶׁבָּהֶן תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן: אָלֶף בֵּית גִּימֶל. וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן אָלֶף בֵּית גִּימֶל — לֵידַע אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן נִתְרְמָה רִאשׁוֹן, לְהָבִיא הֵימֶנָּה רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁמִּצְוָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן.

Rava said: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The mitzva should be fulfilled with the goat from the first pair. The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yosei indicates that this is his opinion? If we say it is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the containers, as we learned in a mishna: There were three containers, each of which held three se’a , with which they collected coins from the chamber. And the letters alef , beit , and gimmel were written on them. And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Why were alef , beit , and gimmel written on them? In order to know which of them was collected from the chamber first, in order to bring an offering from it first, as the mitzva is performed with the first one.

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאִתְחֲזַי קַמַּיְיתָא לָא אִתְחֲזַי בָּתְרָיְיתָא.

That statement of Rabbi Yosei cannot serve as the source for Rav’s opinion. Perhaps it is different there, in the case of the containers, because at the time when the first container of coins was fit for use, the containers used later were not yet fit for use. Therefore, it cannot serve as a precedent with regard to a case in which both became fit for use at the same time. In the case of the Yom Kippur goats, none of the goats are actually fit for sacrifice until the point in the Temple service when they are supposed to be sacrificed. By that time, lots have already been drawn for the second pair of goats.

אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּפֶסַח, (דִּתְנַן:) הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּסְחוֹ וְאָבַד, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הָרִאשׁוֹן, וַהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹמְדִין — אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יִקְרַב, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן.

Rather, the source of Rav’s opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the Paschal lamb. As we learned in a baraita : With regard to one who separated an animal as his Paschal lamb and it became lost, and he separated another in its stead, and afterward, but before midday on the eve of Passover, the first one is found, and they are both standing before him, the owner may bring whichever of them he wishes. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva should be performed with the first one.