Yoma 131

ואם נתעברה נתעברה למוכר התינח שעיר פר מאי איכא למימר גזירה פר אטו שעיר

And if the year be a prolonged year, the advantage belongs to the seller.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbi, the count always goes according to the number of the days of the solar year, independent as to intercalation or non-intercalation of the extra month, so that the sin-offering need not necessarily have passed its first year by the next Day of Atonement.');">¹</span> That is right as far as the he-goat concerned. But what can be said in the case of the bullock? - The preventive measure attaches to the bullock because of the he-goat.

ומשום גזירה ימות ועוד חטאת שעברה שנתה לרעיה אזלא דאמר ריש לקיש חטאת שעברה שנתה רואין אותה כאילו היא עומדת בבית הקברות ורועה

And because of a preventive measure shall he be left to die? And, furthermore, a sin-offering, whose [first] year is past, is left to pasture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not to die.');">²</span> for Resh Lakish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 97a.');">³</span>

אלא אמר רבא גזירה משום תקלה (דתנן) אין מקדישין ואין מעריכין ואין מחרימין בזמן הזה

said: As to a sin-offering which has passed its year, we look upon it as if it were standing on the cemetery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which no priest is permitted to enter, i.e., the animal must not be slaughtered.');">⁴</span> and it is left t pasture? - Rather, said Raba, is the restriction due to the fear of an offence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stumbling-block'.');">⁵</span> for it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the fear of an offence is taken into consideration.');">⁶</span>

ואם הקדיש והעריך והחרים בהמה תיעקר פירות כסות וכלים ירקבו מעות וכלי מתכות יוליך הנאה לים המלח ואי זה הוא עיקור נועל דלת לפניה והיא מתה מאליה

One may neither consecrate anything, nor vow any 'valuation',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 3.');">⁷</span> nor declare anything as devoted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 28.');">⁸</span> nowadays.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple, things consecrated, valued or devoted in favour of it, since not available for the Sanctuary to which they are properly assigned, must be destroyed.');">⁹</span>

תקלה דמאי אי תקלה דהקרבה אפילו כל רעיות נמי אי תקלה דגיזה ועבודה אפילו כל רעיות נמי

And if one had consecrated or vowed a 'valuation', or declared anything as devoted, if an animal, it should be uprooted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is soon explained.');">¹⁰</span> if fruits, vessels or covers, one should let them rot; if money or metal vessels, they are to be taken to the Salt [Dead] Sea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So MS.M. Cur. edd.: he should take the value of the benefit derived from them to the Salt Sea.]');">¹¹</span> And what does 'uprooting' mean?

לעולם תקלה דהקרבה והנך דלאו בני הקרבה נינהו לא טריד בהו הך דבת הקרבה היא טריד בה

Locking the door before it, so that it die of itself. What kind of offence [is here contemplated]? If an offence in connection with the offering up, that ought then to apply to other cases of pasturing animals also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the offence lies in the possibility that it may be offered up instead of being left to pasture until it acquires a blemish, the same apprehension would be justified with regard to any other animal which is ruled to be left to pasture.');">¹²</span>

ותקלה עצמה תנאי היא דתניא חדא פסח שלא קרב בראשון יקרב בשני בשני יקרב לשנה הבאה ותניא אידך לא יקרב מאי לאו בתקלה פליגי

If an offence in connection with shearing or working it, then that ought to apply to other pasturing animals too? In truth the offence contemplated is one in connection with the offering-up, but with those which are not to be offered up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other cases where animals are ruled to be left to pasture, these animals themselves will never become fit for offering, since they are left to pasture till they become blemished, when they are sold and with the proceeds another animal is bought for offering. Hence he would not be preoccupied with the thought of offering them, as in the case of the animal which is to be offered up on the next Day of Atonement and which he might thus offer up before.');">¹³</span> one is not pre-occupied, whereas with this one, since it is to be offered up, he would be pre-occupied.

לא דכ"ע [לא] חיישינן לתקלה והכא בפלוגתא דרבי ורבנן קא מיפלגי ולא קשיא הא רבי הא רבנן

Now as to the question itself whether we fear the possibility of an offence, Tannas are disputing. For it was taught in one [Baraitha]: A Paschal lamb which was not offered up on the first Passover may be offered up on the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second Passover for those who were far away or ritually unclean on the fourteenth of Nisan. To some such person this lamb may be sold .V. Num. IX,9.');">¹⁴</span> and if not offered up on the second, may be offered up in the following year.

והתניא וכן המעות אלא לאו שמע מינה בתקלה פליגי שמע מינה

And another [Baraitha] taught: It must not be offered up. Is it not then that they dispute touching [the fear of] an offence? - No, all agree we are no apprehensive as to a possible offence; but here they are disputing in the matter at issue between Rabbi and the Sages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra 65b, whether a complete year denotes a solar year or exactly twelve months.');">¹⁵</span> and there is no contradiction [between the two Baraithas]; the one is in accord with Rabbi, the other with the Rabbis [Sages].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [According to Rabbi it would perforce be past its first year on the following Passover, when it would be disqualified for a Paschal lamb, hence it cannot be offered in the coming year; whereas, according to the Sages, it might still be under a year, hence it may be retained for the coming year.]');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בא לו אצל שעיר המשתלח וסומך שתי ידיו עליו ומתודה וכך היה אומר אנא השם חטאו עוו פשעו לפניך עמך בית ישראל אנא השם כפר נא לחטאים ולעונות ולפשעים שחטאו ושעוו ושפשעו לפניך עמך בית ישראל ככתוב בתורת משה עבדך לאמר (ויקרא טז, ל) כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר אתכם מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו

- But was it not taught: The same applies to the money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., the same dispute which is found in connection with the Paschal lamb applies also to money which had been set aside for one year's Paschal lamb, whether it may be used for the next year. Now in the case of money, surely the point at issue between Rabbi and the Sages does not apply.]');">¹⁷</span> Hence rather infer from here that they are disputing in regard to the fear of the offence. - That inference is accepted.

והכהנים והעם העומדים בעזרה כשהיו שומעים שם המפורש שהוא יוצא מפי כהן גדול היו כורעים ומשתחוים ונופלים על פניהם ואומרים ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד מסרו למי שהיה מוליכו הכל כשרין להוליכו אלא שעשו הכהנים גדולים קבע ולא היו מניחין את ישראל להוליכו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>HE THEN CAME TO THE SCAPEGOAT AND LAID HIS TWO HANDS UPON IT AND HE MADE CONFESSION. AND THUS WOULD HE SAY: I BESEECH THEE, O LORD, THY PEOPLE THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL HAVE FAILED, COMMITTED INIQUITY AND TRANSGRESSED BEFORE THEE. I BESEECH THEE, O LORD, ATONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wipe off'.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבי יוסי מעשה והוליכו ערסלא וישראל היה וכבש עשו לו מפני הבבליים שהיו מתלשים בשערו ואומרים לו טול וצא טול וצא

THE FAILURES, THE INIQUITIES AND THE TRANSGRESSIONS WHICH THY PEOPLE, THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, HAVE FAILED, COMMITTED AND TRANSGRESSED BEFORE THEE, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH OF MOSES, THY SERVANT, TO SAY: FOR ON THIS DAY SHALL ATONEMENT BE MADE FOR YOU, TO CLEANSE YOU; FROM ALL YOUR SINS SHALL YE BE CLEAN BEFORE THE LORD. AND WHEN THE PRIESTS AND THE PEOPLE STANDING IN THE TEMPLE COURT HEARD THE FULLY-PRONOUNCED NAME COME FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF THE HIGH PRIEST, THEY BENT THEIR KNEES, BOWED DOWN, FELL ON THEIR FACES AND CALLED OUT: BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS KINGDOM 'FOR EVER AND EVER'THEY HANDED IT OVER TO HIM WHO WAS TO LEAD IT AWAY. ALL WERE PERMITTED TO LEAD IT AWAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., high priests.');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואילו בני אהרן עם קדושך לא קאמר מאן תנא אמר ר' ירמיה דלא כרבי יהודה דאי כרבי יהודה הא אמר יש להם כפרה בשעיר המשתלח

BUT THE PRIESTS MADE IT A DEFINITE RULE NOT TO PERMIT AN ISRAELITE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a non-priest.');">²⁰</span> TO LEAD IT AWAY. R'JOSE SAID: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT ARSELA OF SEPPHORIS LED IT AWAY, ALTHOUGH HE WAS AN ISRAELITE.

אביי אמר אפילו תימא רבי יהודה אטו כהנים לאו בכלל עמך ישראל נינהו

AND THEY MADE A CAUSEWAY FOR HIM BECAUSE OF THE BABYLONIANS, WHO WOULD PULL ITS HAIR, SHOUTING TO IT: 'TAKE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. our sins.');">²¹</span> AND GO FORTH, TAKE AND GO FORTH'. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>But he did not say: 'The sons of Aaron, thy holy people'; which Tanna is of this opinion? - R'Jeremiah said: This is not in accord with R'Judah, for if it were in accord with R'Judah, surely he said: They too, obtain atonement from the scapegoat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 61a.');">²²</span>

מסרו למי שמוליכו ת"ר איש להכשיר את הזר עתי

Abaye said: You might even say that it is in accord with R'Judah: Are the priests not included in 'Thy people Israel'? Our Rabbis taught: A man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XVI, 21.');">²³</span> [means] to declare a non-priest eligible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For taking away the scapegoat into the wilderness.');">²⁴</span> appointed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XVI, 21.');">²³</span>