Yoma 127

רבא אמר כגון שהיה לו חולה בתוך ביתו ושחט אמו ביום הכפורים

Raba said: [It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse disqualifying a scapegoat that has not reached its proper time.');">¹</span> was necessary] for the case that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was the purveyor to the community of these animals.');">²</span>

וכי האי גוונא מי אסיר (ויקרא כב, כח) לא תשחטו אמר רחמנא והא לאו שחיטה היא הא אמרי במערבא דחייתו לצוק זו היא שחיטתו

had a sick person in the house, for whom he killed the mother-animal on the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case of a dangerously ill person the slaying of an animal for food or remedial purpose is permitted. Raba suggests the case that the purveyor of the he-goat had, on the Day of Atonement, slain its mother for the patient. But in view of the prohibition (Lev. XXII, 28:) Whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day, the he-goat would thus become an animal that was wanting in time all the Day of Atonement, after the lot had been cast.');">³</span> But is it forbidden in such a case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To use the young as scapegoat.');">⁴</span>

אם של שם מת זה שעלה עליו וכו'

Does not the Divine Law say: Ye shall not kill it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 28.');">⁵</span> and this is not killing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition is now interpreted to refer to the technical ritual slaying, whereas the scapegoat is being hurled down the precipice.');">⁶</span>

אמר רב שני שבזוג ראשון יקרב שני שבזוג שני ירעה רבי יוחנן אמר שני שבזוג ראשון ירעה שני שבזוג שני יקרב

- In the West [Palestine] they said: Hurling it down from the [mountain] peak, that is its killing. IF THAT 'FOR THE LORD' DIED, etc. : Rab said: The second of the first pair is to be offered up, the second of the second pair should be left to pasture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until it acquires a blemish.');">⁷</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי רב סבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין ורבי יוחנן סבר בעלי חיים נידחין

- R'Johanan said: The second of the first pair should be left to pasture, the second pair should be offered up. In what principle do they differ? - Rab holds: Living animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are temporarily invalidated, they can still be used by means of the substitution of another animal as pair.');">⁸</span>

מאי טעמא דרב דיליף ממחוסר זמן מחוסר זמן לאו אע"ג דהשתא לא חזי כי הדר מיחזי שפיר דמי הכא נמי לא שנא מי דמי התם לא איתחזי כלל הכא נראה ונדחה

are not rejected [forever], whereas R'Johanan holds: Living animals are rejected [forever]. What is the reason for Rab's view?

אלא היינו טעמא דרב דיליף מבעל מום עובר בעל מום עובר לאו אע"ג דלא חזי השתא כי הדר מיחזי שפיר דמי הכא נמי לא שנא

He infers it from those whose time has not yet come: An animal whose time has not yet come, although it is as yet unfit, when it later becomes fit again, will be quite in order. Thus also here.

והתם מנא לן דכתיב (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם מום בם הוא דלא ירצו הא עבר מומן ירצו

How can this be compared? There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it was wanting in time and thus was never rejected.');">⁹</span>

ור' יוחנן מיעט רחמנא בהם הם הוא דכי עבר מומן ירצו הא כל דחויין הואיל ונדחו נדחו

it was never fit at all. Here it was once fit and then rejected? - Rather is this the reason of Rab's view: He infers it from an animal afflicted with a passing blemish: An animal afflicted with a passing blemish surely although now unfit, yet when it is fit again, is quite in order.

ורב ההוא בהם בעינייהו הוא דלא מירצו הא ע"י תערובות מירצו

Thus also here. But whence do we know if touching the former?

כדתנן איברים תמימים באיברים בעלי מומין ר"א אומר אם קרב הראש של אחד מהן יקריבו כל הראשין כולן כרעיו של אחד מהן יקריבו כל הכרעיים כולן וחכ"א אפילו קרבו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן יצא לבית השריפה

Because it is written: Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 25.');">¹⁰</span> i.e., only as long as a blemish is in them are they not acceptable, but when their blemish passes they are acceptable.

ואידך נפקא ליה מבם בהם ואידך בם בהם לא דריש

And R'Johanan? - The Divine Law stated 'in them'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 25.');">¹⁰</span> i.e., only these are acceptable after the blemish has passed, but all other animals rejected [through temporary unfitness] once they have been rejected, stay rejected.

ולרב נהי נמי דבעלי חיים אינן נדחין אי בעי האי נקריב אי בעי האי נקריב

And Rab? - The words 'in them' signify that only as long as they are in their natural form are they not acceptable, but as soon as they are mixed up with others, they are acceptable; as we have learnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 77b.');">¹¹</span> if the members of unblemished [whole-offerings] were mixed up with the members of blemished [animals], R'Eliezer says: If the head of one of them had been offered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the confusion of the other members with the members of the whole-offerings had been noticed.');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא רב סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר מצוה בראשון הי רבי יוסי אי נימא רבי יוסי דקופות דתנן שלש קופות של שלש שלש סאין שבהן תורמין את הלשכה וכתוב עליהן אלף בית גימל ותניא אמר רבי יוסי למה כתוב עליהן אלף בית גימל לידע איזה מהן נתרמה ראשון להביא הימנה ראשון שמצוה בראשון

the heads of all may be offered; if the legs of one of them had been offered, the legs of all may be offered. The Sages, however, say: Even if all the members with exception of one have been offered, this one must go forth to the place of burning.

דילמא שאני התם דבעידנא דאתחזי קמייתא לא אתחזי בתרייתא

And the other one [R'Johanan]? He infers that from [the fact that instead of] 'bam' [is written] 'bahem'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that the Divine Law used the longer word 'bahem' instead of the shorter 'bam', which has the identical meaning, this inference is attempted. The rival view ignores this variation as not intended for additional inferences.');">¹³</span>

אלא רבי יוסי דפסח (דתנן) המפריש פסחו ואבד והפריש אחר תחתיו ואחר כך נמצא הראשון והרי שניהן עומדין איזה מהן שירצה יקרב דברי חכמים רבי יוסי אומר מצוה בראשון

- And the other one [Rab]? - He does not expound from 'bahem' instead of 'bam'. But according to Rab, granted that animals cannot be rejected for ever, if he wishes let him offer this, and if he wishes let him offer the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the law here is stated to require only the first.');">¹⁴</span> - Raba said: Rab holds to the view of R'Jose, who said: The command attaches properly to the first. - Which [view of] R'Jose are you referring to? Shall I say, You say [the view of] R'Jose concerning the baskets, for we have been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹⁵</span> There were three baskets each of three se'ahs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 144 eggs.');">¹⁶</span> in which they took up terumah out of the shekel-chamber, and on each of them was inscribed: Alef, Beth, Gimel. And we have been taught: R'Jose said: Why is Alef, Beth, Gimel inscribed upon them? So that one may know out of which of them the terumah was taken up [out of the shekel-chamber] first, to use it first, for the command properly applies to the first! - But perhaps it is different there because at the time when the first is to be used, the others are not ready for use yet?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But here although the lots had been cast, the goat could not be slain until after the blood of the bullock had been sprinkled. In the interim the he-goat with it had died, two others were brought in, and when the time for slaying the goat had come, the latter was already in readiness.');">¹⁷</span> - Rather is it R'Jose['s view] concerning the Passover sacrifice, for it was taught: If someone has separated his Passover sacrifice and it is lost, and h thereupon puts aside another one in its place, and afterwards the first one is found again, so that both are standing [ready to be used], then he can offer up whichever he prefers; this is the view of the Sages. R'Jose holds the commandment attaches properly to the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 59b.');">¹⁸</span>