Parallel
יומא 40
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
. But according to the version that they are disputing on R. Judah's view it would again be quite right according to him who holds it is dispensable, for then [the authority for this teaching] would be R. Judah; but according to him who considers it indispensable [the question is asked]: Who [will be the authority] for this [teaching]? Read: It is a command to place [the lots on the bullock's head]. Come and hear: It is a command to cast the lots and to make confession. But if he had not cast the lots or made confession, [the service is] valid. And should you reply that here, too’ [you would read] ‘to place [the lot on the bullock's head]’, say then the second part: R. Simeon said: If he has not cast the lots, the service is still valid, but if he has failed to make confession, it is invalidated. Now what does ‘If he has not cast the lots’ mean? Would you say it means, ‘He has not placed the lots’, this would imply [would it not] that R. Simeon holds the casting of the lots is indispensable? But surely it was taught: If one of the two [bullocks] died, he brings the other without [new] casting of lots — these are the words of R. Simeon? — R. Simeon did not know what the Sages meant [with the Phrase ‘lo higril’] and thus he said to them: If by ‘hagralah’ you mean casting of the lots itself, I dispute with you on one matter, but if by ‘hagralah’ you mean the placing of the lots then I disagree with you on two counts. Come and hear: With regard to the sprinkling of the blood within the veil, [the regular service of] the bullock is indispensable for the service of the he-goat [to be valid]; but the regular service of the he-goat is not indispensable for the service of the bullock to be valid. Now, it is quite right that the regular service of the bullock is indispensable for the he-goat, e.g., if he performed the rites of the he-goat before those of the bullock, he has done nothing. But that [the regular service of] the he-goat is not indispensable to the bullock, what does it mean? Would you say [it means] that if he sprinkled the blood of the bullock in the Hekal before the sprinkling of the he-goat within [the veil]? But surely Scripture says ‘statute’! Rather must you say [it means that] if he sprinkled the blood of the bullock within, before the casting of the lots [it is valid]. Now since the order is not indispensable [is it not to be inferred that] the casting of the lots itself is not indispensable! — No, [it means that] he made the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the altar before sprinkling the blood of the he-goat in the Hekal and this [teaching] is in accord with R. Judah, who says that anything done in the white garments outside [the Holy of Holies] is dispensable. But does it not state ‘with regard to the sprinklings within’? Rather: It is in accord with R. Simeon who holds the casting of the lots is dispensable. Or, if you like, say: Still I say it is in accord with R. Judah, and although the order of the service is not indispensable, the casting of the lots is indispensable. And they follow their own principle. For it was taught:
—
[With reference to] It shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him — how long must it stay alive? Until the blood of its fellow-sacrifice is sprinkled, this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Simeon holds: Until the confession [of sin]. Wherein do they differ? — As it was taught: ‘To make atonement over him’ — Scripture speaks of atonement through blood, thus does it also say: And when he hath made an end to atoning for the holy place, just as there it refers to atonement by blood, so does it refer here to atonement by blood this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Simeon says: ‘To make atonement over him’ — Scripture speaks of atonement by words [confession]. Come and hear: The disciples of R. Akiba asked him: If it [the lot ‘for the Lord’] came up in the left hand, may he turn it to the right? He replied: Do not give all occasion for the Sadducees to rebel! The reason, then, [of his negative answer] is so as not to give an occasion for the Sadducees to rebel, but, without that, we would turn it, yet you said that the casting of the lots is indispensable, and since the left hand has determined its destination, how can we turn it? — Raba answered: This is what they said: If the lot had come up in the left hand, may one change it and the he-goat to the right? Whereupon he answered: Give no occasion to the Sadducees to rebel. Come and hear: If [Scripture] has said: The goat, ‘upon which it [the lot] is’ I would have said he must place it thereon. Therefore it says: ‘[on which it] fell’, i.e., once it has fallen upon it, he no more need [place it on its head]. Now in respect of what [was this said]? Would you say: In respect of a command, which would imply that the placing of the lots is not even a command! Rather must you say it means that it is in respect of indispensability; hence we learn that the casting is indispensable, and the placing of the lot [upon the head] is dispensable. Raba said: This is what he means: If it had said: ‘Upon which it is’, I would have said: let him leave it there until the time for the slaughtering; therefore it says: [upon which it] fell, to intimate that once it had fallen upon it, it needs nothing else. Come and hear: And offer him for a sin-offering i.e., the lot designates it for the sin-offering, but the naming [alone] does not designate it a sin-offering. For I might have assumed, this could be inferred a minori: If in a case where the lot does not sanctify, the naming does sanctify, how much more will the naming sanctify where the lot also does so sanctify? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And offer him for a sin-offering’ [to intimate] it is the lot which designates it a sin-offering, but the naming does not make it a sin-offering.
—