Yoma 126

אי קרבן שומע אני אפילו קדשי בדק הבית שנקראו קרבן כענין שנא' (במדבר לא, נ) ונקרב את קרבן ה ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו כל הראוי לפתח אהל מועד חייב עליו בחוץ כל שאינו ראוי לפתח אהל מועד אין חייבין עליו בחוץ

From [the word] 'offering' I might have assumed that even offerings for the temple repair [are included], which are also called 'offerings', in accord with the Scriptural words: And we have brought the Lord's offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 50.');">¹</span> therefore the text reads: 'And hath not brought it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting', i.e., whatsoever is fit to be brought to the tent of meeting, if offered up outside, involves culpability; but whatsoever is fit to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, if offered up outside, does not involve culpability.

אוציא אלו שאין ראוין לפתח אהל מועד ולא אוציא פרת חטאת ושעיר המשתלח שהוא ראוי לבוא אל פתח אהל מועד ת"ל לה' מי שמיוחדין לה' יצאו אלו שאין מיוחדין לשם

Thus I would exclude only those which are not fit to be offered up at the entrance of the tent of meeting, but I would not exclude [the cow for the sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The red heifer. Tosaf. supports Rashi's elimination of this reference to the red heifer, because the latter was not brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, hence is logically excluded from the present discussion.');">²</span> and] the he-goat-to-be-sent-away, which are fit to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, therefore the text reads: 'Unto the Lord' i.e., only t assigned to the Lord, to the exclusion of such as are not assigned to the Lord.

ולה' להוציא הוא ורמינהו (ויקרא כב, כז) ירצה לקרבן אשה לה' אלו אישים

But do the words 'Unto the Lord' imply exclusion,? I shall raise a contradiction: It may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27.');">³</span>

מנין שלא יקדישנו מחוסר זמן ת"ל קרבן לה' לרבות שעיר המשתלח

i.e., the fire-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only from the eighth day are they acceptable as offerings.');">⁴</span> Whence do we know that one may not dedicate it before its time has come?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that an offering cannot be dedicated before the eighth day.');">⁵</span>

אמר רבא התם מענינא דקרא והכא מענינא דקרא התם דאל פתח לרבות לה' להוציא הכא דאשה להוציא לה' לרבות

Therefore the text reads: 'As an offering'.' Unto the Lord', includes the he-goat-to-be-sent-away!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that 'Unto the Lord' implies inclusion.');">⁶</span>

טעמא דרבי רחמנא הא לא רבי הוה אמינא שעיר המשתלח קדוש במחוסר זמן והא אין הגורל קובע אלא בראוי לשם

Said Raba: There [the meaning is determined] by the context, and here too [its meaning is determined] by the context: There 'Unto the entrance implies inclusion, therefore 'Unto the Lord' implies exclusion; here 'An offering made by fire' implies exclusion, hence 'Unto the Lord' has inclusive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The he-goat-to-be-sent-away is not 'for the Lord', but fit to be brought unto the entrance of the tent of meeting. So 'Unto the Lord' excludes whatsoever is not assigned for the Lord. In the other passage 'An offering made by fire' excludes, of course, the goat, which is to be hurled from the precipice, whereas 'Unto the Lord' is complimentarily inclusive, hence the goat must not be offered up before it is eight days.');">⁷</span> meaning.

אמר רב יוסף הא מני חנן המצרי היא דתניא חנן המצרי אומר אפילו דם בכוס מביא חבירו ומזווג לו

Now the only reason then is that the Divine Law included it, but if it had not done so I would have assumed that the he-goat-to-be-sent-away could be dedicated before its time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before it is eight days old.');">⁸</span> But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tem.6b.');">⁹</span>

אימר דשמעת ליה לחנן המצרי דלית ליה דחויין דלית ליה הגרלה מי שמעת ליה דילמא מייתי ומגריל

the lot does not determine except such [an animal] as is fit 'for the Lord'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that implies a minimum age, hence invalidation before its time.');">¹⁰</span> - Said R'Joseph: This is in accord with Hanan the Egyptian, for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 34b.');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רב יוסף הא מני רבי שמעון היא דתניא מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי רבי שמעון

Hanan the Egyptian says: Even if the blood is in the cup, may he bring its mate and pair them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the blood of the he-goat to be sprinkled up within is in the cup, when the he goat-to-be-sent-away dies, no new casting of the lots is necessary according to Hanan, but, as is assumed at present, one may simply bring another he-goat from outside and pair it and appoint it for Azazel even without lots. Thus we see that Hanan does not hold the principle that the lot does not determine etc.; and consequently the he-goat-to-be-sent-away need not necessarily have reached its proper time hence a scriptural verse is necessary to teach that it must do so.');">¹²</span> But admitted that Hanan does not accept the opinion concerning 'rejection'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not accept the view of R. Judah in our Mishnah that the scapegoat is to be rejected as unfit on account of the mishap to the other.');">¹³</span>

רבינא אמר כגון שהומם וחיללו על אחר

you surely did not hear that Hanan does not accept the opinion as to the necessity of casting the lots? Perhaps he [the high priest] would have to bring [two] and cast lots [afresh]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leaving the one, upon whom the lot 'for the Lord' now falls, to pasture until it acquires a blemish, whilst obtaining atonement through the blood of the first. At any rate, however, casting the lots is necessary, hence one whose time had not yet come would be invalidated, because the lot determines only what is 'fit for the Lord', i.e. whose time has come.');">¹⁴</span>

ומנא תימרא דפסיל ביה מומא דתניא (ויקרא כב, כב) ואשה לא תתנו מהם אלו החלבים

- Rather, said R'Joseph, this [Baraitha]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which requires a special text to teach that the he-goat-to-be-sent-away must be of minimum age.');">¹⁵</span> is in accord with R'Simeon, for it was taught: If one of them died, he brings another one without casting lots, this is the view of R'Simeon! Rabina said: The reference [in the Baraitha] is to a case in which one of them became blemished and was redeemed with another one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the he-goat-to-be-sent-away suddenly became blemished, its successor obtained by means of redemption needs no lot to determine its purpose, and, since no list was required, there is no implied obligation as to proper minimum age.');">¹⁶</span>

אין לי אלא כולן מקצתן מנין ת"ל מהם מזבח זו זריקת דמים לה' לרבות שעיר המשתלח

But whence will you say that a blemish renders it [the scapegoat] invalid? As it was taught: Nor make an offering by fire of them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to blemished animals. Lev. XXII, 22.');">¹⁷</span>

ואיצטריך למיכתב בעל מום ואיצטריך למיכתב מחוסר זמן דאי כתב רחמנא מחוסר זמן משום דלא מטי זמניה אבל בעל מום דמטי זמניה אימא לא ואי כתב רחמנא בעל מום משום דמאיס אבל מחוסר זמן דלא מאיס אימא לא צריכא

this refers to the pieces of fat. From here I could infer only as to all the pieces. Whence do we know that it applies also to parts thereof? Therefore the text reads: 'Of them'.' The altar'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to blemished animals. Lev. XXII, 22.');">¹⁷</span> i.e., the sprinkling of the blood Unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to blemished animals. Lev. XXII, 22.');">¹⁷</span> that includes the he-goat-to-be-sent-away. Now it was necessary [for the Scripture] to write [disqualifying a scapegoat], the blemished animal and one whose time has not yet come. For if the Divine Law had written only about the animal whose time has not yet come, I would have assumed there [it is disqualified] applies because its time has not yet come, but in the case of one blemished whose time had come, I might have assumed that [the disqualification does] not [apply]. And if the Divine Law had written about the blemished animal alone, I might have assumed the reason [for its being disqualified] there lies in repulsiveness, but with the animal whose time has not yet come, and where there is no repulsive feature, one might have assumed [the law] does [not] apply, hence it was necessary [to write about both].