יומא 64 — parallel

64:1

Raba said: [It was necessary] for the case that he had a sick person in the house, for whom he killed the mother-animal on the Day of Atonement. But is it forbidden in such a case? Does not the Divine Law say: Ye shall not kill it and this is not killing? — 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. - 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 are not rejected [forever], whereas R. Johanan holds: Living animals are rejected [forever]. What is the reason for Rab's view? 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. How can this be compared? There 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. Thus also here. But whence do we know if touching the former? Because it is written: Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them i.e., only as long as a blemish is in them are they not acceptable, but when their blemish passes they are acceptable. And R. Johanan? — The Divine Law stated ‘in them’ 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. 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, 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, 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. And the other one [R. Johanan]? He infers that from [the fact that instead of] ‘bam’ [is written] ‘bahem’. — 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? — 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: There were three baskets each of three se'ahs, 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? - 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 he 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,

—

64:2

but if the second one be very much better, he shall offer it up. Raba said: Our Mishnah points to be in accord with Rab, whereas the Baraitha is in accord with R. Johanan. Our Mishnah is in accord with Rab for it reads: IF THE ONE THAT WAS CAST FOR THE LORD DIED, HE [THE HIGH PRIEST] SHOULD SAY: LET THIS ON WHICH THE LOT FOR THE LORD HAS FALLEN STAND IN ITS STEAD’ [implying] that the other remains as it is. The Baraitha is in accord with R. Johanan, for it reads: As to the second. I do not know whether [it means] the second of the first pair, or the second of the second pair. But from the words ‘shall be set alive’ [I infer: only this one] but not one whose pair has died. How does that follow? — ‘It shall now be set alive’, [and] not the one that has been set [alive] before [but whose pair has died]. We learned: FURTHERMORE DOES R. JUDAH SAY: IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, THE SCAPEGOAT IS LEFT TO DIE; IF THE SCAPEGOAT DIED, THE BLOOD IS POURED AWAY. Now that is quite right according to R. Johanan, who holds living animals are rejected [permanently], — therefore the scapegoat is left to die. But according to Rab, who holds that living animals are not rejected [permanently], why should the scapegoat be left to die? — Rab will answer you: What I say, I say in accordance with the view, not of R. Judah, but of the Sages. It is quite right according to Rab: Therein lies the difference between the Sages and R. Judah; but according to R. Johanan, wherein lies the difference? — Raba said: That is what we have said [above]: The Mishnah points to be in accord with Rab. We learned: FOR A COMMUNITY SIN-OFFERING IS NOT LEFT TO DIE. This [implies] that one of an individual, in such a case, would be left to die. Now that will be right according to R. Johanan, following R. Abba in the name of Rab, for R. Abba said In the name of Rab:

—