יומא 40:2 — Soncino English Talmud

[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.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:With reference to the he-goat that is to be sent away. Lev. XVI, 10.
^ᵇnote:[In accordance with his view that confession is not indispensable so that if the he-goat died after the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock (rite vii) before the confession over the he-goat (rite viii) the service is valid.]
^ᶜnote:Infra 65a.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. 20.
^ᵉnote:Tosef. III, 2, the version in the Talmud is somewhat modified.
^ᶠnote:The substitution of Sadducees for ‘Minim’ (Judeo-Christian heretics) is undoubtedly due to the censors’ dislike of any word that may appear as even an implied attack on the Church. The heretics will claim this manipulation an ‘additional proof’ of the Pharisees’ doing with the law whatever pleased them. Thus they would be helped to rebel, arguing at once in favour of their heresy and against the Pharisees.
^ᵍnote:For the Lord, even before the lot was actually placed on the he-goat.
^ʰnote:If the lot ‘For the Lord’ came up in the left hand so that the he-goat standing opposite the priest at his left hand was thereby designated a sin-offering for the Lord, that on the right being designated for Azazel, may he exchange the he-goats and the lots so that whereas the lot decided which is which, the manipulation will have afforded him the comfort of knowing that without formally changing the lots, the ‘right one’ will be designated for the Lord.
^ⁱnote:Intimating that it lies there for a considerable time.
^ʲnote:That once the lots are cast nothing more is necessary.
^ᵏnote:I.e., there is no longer any command to be fulfilled after the’ casting of the lots.
^ˡnote:Surely this is impossible!
^ᵐnote:I.e., that once the lots are cast there is nothing else deemed indispensable for determining the destination of the he-goats.
^ⁿnote:A refutation of R. Johanan.
^ᵒnote:The verse serves to indicate that once it ‘fell upon it’ there is not even a command to be placed there, as a sign or assurance that it will be offered up for the purpose designated.
^ᵖnote:Lev. XVI, 9: And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it for a sin-offering.
^ᵠnote:By the high priest. The above verse, in which the offering-up follows immediately ‘upon which the lot fell’ indicates that the coming up of the lot decides the matter, not the naming by the priest.
^ʳnote:As with the sacrificial couples of birds, where either owner or priest by verbal statement makes the designation, where, however, the casting of lots would be useless.