כג רבא אמר לא נצרכא כגון שהומם בו ביום וחיללו על חבירו
23 The text, however, states: And hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of the meeting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4.');"><sup>39</sup></span> [We therefore argue as follows]: In respect of whatever is fit for the door of the tent of the meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to be offered up on the altar.');"><sup>40</sup></span> one may become liable on account of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple court; but in respect of whatever is not fit for the door of the tent of the meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dedications for Temple repairs because they are blemished.');"><sup>41</sup></span> one cannot become liable on account of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple court. Shall I therefore exclude these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dedicated animals for Temple repairs.');"><sup>42</sup></span> but not the Red Heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the cow for expiation'.');"><sup>43</sup></span> and the scapegoat, since they are fit for 'the door of the tent of the meeting'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they are unblemished, as both a red heifer and a scapegoat must be unblemished for their several purposes.');"><sup>44</sup></span> Therefore the text states: 'Unto the Lord'; [the law concerning slaughtering outside the Temple court applies] only to those designated as 'unto the Lord',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually offered up on the altar.');"><sup>45</sup></span> but these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The red heifer and the scapegoat.');"><sup>46</sup></span> are excluded, for they are not designated 'unto the Lord'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore see that the text, 'Unto the Lord' implies exclusion and yet above you say the text 'Unto the Lord' is intended to include.');"><sup>47</sup></span> - Said Raba: There we go according to the context [and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');"><sup>48</sup></span> here we go according to the context]. There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with slaughtering outside the Temple court.');"><sup>49</sup></span> since the text, 'Unto the door of the tent of the meeting' includes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All unblemished animals to incur guilt for slaughtering them outside the Temple court.');"><sup>50</sup></span> therefore the text, 'Unto the Lord' in that connection excludes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It can only be to exclude something and we therefore exclude the cases of the scapegoat and the red heifer.');"><sup>51</sup></span> Here, however, as the text 'by fire' excludes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only in respect of an offering which is burnt is there liability for dedicating a blemished animal, and that in respect of a sacrifice which is not burnt and is dedicated in its blemished state, one does not incur any guilt for its dedication. I might therefore have thought that a scapegoat, since it is not burnt, is in the same category.');"><sup>52</sup></span> therefore the text, 'Unto the Lord' in that connection includes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a scapegoat, so that if one dedicates it in its blemished state one is guilty of transgressing the prohibitory law of 'Ye shall not offer it'.');"><sup>53</sup></span> The reason then why a blemished scapegoat is not brought is because Scripture says, 'Unto the Lord'. But if Scripture had not included [the case of a scapegoat] by means of the text, 'Unto the Lord', I might have thought that it was permissible to bring a blemished scapegoat. But consider: The lot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which determines which goat was to be offered on the altar, and which the scapegoat, which was sent to Azazel.');"><sup>54</sup></span> designates only such as are fit 'for [the Lord]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two animals must be unblemished. For since we do not know on which will fall the lot 'for the Lord' and on which 'for Azazel', then necessarily both must be fit, as either may be destined 'for the Lord'.');"><sup>55</sup></span> - Said R'Joseph: This represents the opinion of Hanan the Egyptian. [For it has been taught:] Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if there was blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the goat 'for the Lord',');"><sup>56</sup></span> in the cup,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sprinkling of the blood not having yet taken place and the scapegoat was either lost or became blemished.');"><sup>57</sup></span> he brings another [goat]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a scapegoat.');"><sup>58</sup></span> to pair with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the slaughtered goat. This obviously must be without casting lots, since he cannot do so as the animal 'for the Lord' has already been slaughtered. Now just as according to Hanan one can bring a second animal for the scapegoat without casting lots, so it might be assumed he can bring it in a blemished condition. The special text therefore, 'Unto the Lord' is necessary to inform us that this is not so.');"><sup>59</sup></span> Granted that you can understand from Hanan the Egyptian that there is no rejection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That although the goat 'for the Lord' has been already slaughtered, since the sprinkling had not yet taken place, it is not denied as having suffered a disability in the process of the ritual, thus becoming rejected from the altar. We can consequently proceed with the selection of another animal for the scapegoat. The first Tanna, however, will hold that the blood is poured out, since there was a break in the ritual.');"><sup>60</sup></span> can you Understand that there is no casting of lots? Perhaps he brings two new goats and casts lots?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps the casting of lots still takes place in the following manner. He brings two fresh animals and casts lots as to which shall be 'for the Lord' and which for the scapegoat. The animal which is designated 'for the Lord' he leaves to pasture until blemished, and the other one, on which the lot for Azazel has fallen, he brings and pairs it with the slaughtered goat. Now since he must cast lots, the second animal, in order to become a scapegoat, must be unblemished.');"><sup>61</sup></span> Rather said R'Joseph: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view that without the text 'Unto the Lord' I might have thought that a scapegoat could be brought even in a blemished state.');"><sup>62</sup></span> will represent the view of R'Simeon, for it has been taught: If one [of the two animals] died, he brings the other without casting lots.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 40a, 63b, I might therefore have thought since lots are not required in these circumstances, there is no need that the scapegoat should be unblemished. The Scriptural text 'Unto the Lord' therefore teaches us that it is not so.');"><sup>63</sup></span> Raba says: [The text]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Unto the Lord'.');"><sup>64</sup></span> is not required save for the case where e.g. , [the scapegoat] became blemished on that day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the lots had been cast.');"><sup>65</sup></span> and he redeemed it for another [animal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was also blemished and there would be a penalty for the dedication.');"><sup>66</sup></span>