Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 6, scan section 38

not be postponed in favor of another goat to be sought out), and R. Johanan says, that such are postponed. What is Rabh's reason ? Because he deduces it from the too early time ; as he was unfit only as long as he had no fellow, he is fit henceforth. What comparison is this ? In that case the he-goat was not yet TRACT YOMAH (DAY OF ATONEMENT). 89 fit for anything, but here he has been already postponed. Why not continue to be postponed ? Therefore we must say: Rabh deduces it from a temporary blemish. After the blemish has passed away, he is fit ; so here, his unfitness is considered tem- porary. According to Rabh's theory (that a living thing is not post- poned), why only the second of the first pair and not as well of the second pair, say, then, he can choose which he likes? Said Rabha : Rabh holds as R. Jose that it is a merit to use the first (as mentioned at the end of the preceding chapter). Rabha said : It seems to us, that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabh, and a Boraitha is in accordance with R. Johanan. In our Mishna, it is stated: If the Lord's he-goat dies, the one on which the lot has fallen for the Lord shall substitute him ; from this we infer that the other one continues to be as it has been. A Boraitha is according to R. Johanan, as we have learned: It is said in the Mishna*: The second should be allowed to graze. We do not know whether the second of the first or second pair. As it is written [Lev. xvi. 10]: " Shall be placed alive." Placed alive ^ not the one whose fellow is dead. How can that be inferred ? " Shall be placed alive," signifies that it shall be placed alive now. But the one whose fellow had died has been left alive already. An objection was raised from the following sentence in our Mishna : " R. Jehudah said also: If the blood of the Lord's he-goat had been spilled, the scapegoat should be put to death; if the scape- goat had died, the other one's blood should be poured out." It is right according to Rabh, who says that, according to the first Tana, living things are not postponed, and the second of the second pair is to be left to graze ; and what R. Jehudah says of its being put to death refers to the second of the first pair. It is right according to Rabh, who says that according to the first Tana a living thing is not postponed, as it is said in the Mishna, " also said R. Jehudah." That is to say, he differs on two points: first, whether a sin-offering for the congregation is put to death (he says, it shall be put to death), and whether a living thing is postponed. R. Jehudah says, it is postponed, and shall be put to death, and the second of the first pair shall be put to death. But according to R. Johanan, who explains that the first Tana means to say the second of the second pair * This is according to Rashi's explanation, although it is unusual for a Boraitha to mention a Mishna. 90 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. (shall be sacrificed), but of the first shall be put to death, because a living thing can be postponed, consequently R. Jehudah differs from the first Tana only on one point, on the congregational offering. Why does the Mishna say, " and also " ? This diffi- culty remains. (From this we see, the Mishna is according to Rabh, not R. Johanan.) ' ' If the blood has been spilled, the scapegoat should be put to death.'' It is right that if the blood has been spilled, the scape- goat should be put to death, because the duty with the blood has not been fulfilled yet ; but if the scapegoat has died, why should the blood be poured out ? The duty (of drawing the lots, and of slaughtering the first) has been fulfilled already. Why need the blood be poured out ? Said the disciples of R. Janai: Because it is written [ibid,]: " Shall be placed alive before the Lord, to make an atonement for him." That means he (the scapegoat) shall be alive till the atonement with the blood (of the other goat) has been made (and when he has died before, the blood must be poured out). We have learned in a Boraitha about the Mishna in Shekalim, IL, a. " If the inhabitants of a town sent their Shekalim," etc., as far as, "and nothing is credited to next year's account" (pp. 7, 8). R. Jehudah, however, said, they may be credited to next year's account. What is the reason of R. Jehudah ? Said Rabba: R. Jehudah holds, the duties to be paid this year may be paid the next year. Abayi objected: From the following Tosephtha: The bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atone- ment, if lost, and the he-goats offered for idolatry, if lost, and substituted by others and then recovered, then all should be put to death. So says R. Jehudah. If the duties of this year can be paid the next year, they could be left for the next year ? Rabh answered : You want to compare the he-goats for idolatry to con- gregational sacrifices. The latter are quite different. This is as R. Tebi said in the name of R, Joshiah : It is written [Num. xxviii. 14] : " This is the burnt-offering of the new moon for every month throughout the months of the year." The Torah says: Proclaim it a new month, and also bring a sacrifice from the new products (Rosh Hashana, p. 9). This would be right in case of the he-goat, for it comes from the congregational funds ; but the bullock, which is from the high-priest's, what can be said to it ? And, secondly, what R. Tebi said in the name of R. Joshiah is only a merit, but not a duty, as R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel [ibid., ibid.], that if it was done it is acceptable ? TRACT YOMAH (DAY OF ATONEMENT). 91 Therefore says R. Zerah : The reason is, that the lot cannot de- termine during this year for the next year. Let him draw lots the next year ? It is a precautionary measure, lest it be said that the lot does determine during one year for the next year. All this is right of the he-goat ? But why should the bullock, for which no lots are drawn, be put to death ? It is a precau- tionary measure, lest one should deal with the he-goat as one would with the bullock. Shall he then be put to death for a precautionary measure against what itself is a precautionary measure ? Therefore, says Rabha: It is a precautionary measure, lest there should be a mistake. What mistake can be made ? That of sacrificincrthem o (if left to graze). Then this apprehension ought to exist in all cases where animals are left to graze (till they get a blemish and are sold) ? If that of shearing their wool, or using them for work, the same fear ought to exist in all cases where invalid sacrifices are left to graze ? The mistake of sacrificing them is meant, but for others there is no intention to sacrifice them at any time, as they are left to graze until they get a blemish ; therefore a mistake cannot come to pass. But here, as the he-