יומא 63 — Soncino English Talmud

¹if someone had slain them outside before the doors of the Temple had been open, he would be free, because the lack of opening is like the lack of a [direct] action. But does R. Hisda adopt the principle of ‘since’? Surely R. Hisda said: If someone had slaughtered the Passover sacrifice outside on any of the other days of the year, then, if he did it in its own name, he is free, but if he did it not in its own name, he is culpable. The reason [that he is culpable] lies in his having slaughtered it not in its own name. But if he had slaughtered it without any indication it is [as if — slaughtered] in its name, and he would be free? Why that? Let us say: Since it would be fit for a sacrifice not in its own name, within the Temple [he should be liable]? Now, how compare? There a removal is necessary, whereas this needs no such removal. Rabbah b. Shimi taught these [two statements of R. Hisda] as [emanating] from Rabbah. He then raises a difficulty from [the one view of] Rabbah against [the other given by] Rabbah; but answers [the difficulty] as we have answered. When R. Dimi [came from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Jeremiah, who said it in the name of R. Johanan: If one slaughtered a Paschal sacrifice outside on any of the other days of the year, whether in its name or not in its name, he is exempt. Said R. Dimi: I have reported this statement in the presence of R. Jeremiah [and queried]: It is all correct [in the case where it was slaughtered] in its name, since it is not fit [for the Temple], but [where it was] not in its name [why should it be exempt]? Surely it would be fit as a sacrifice not in its own name within the Temple? And he said this [in reply]: The removal [of the name of a sacrifice] outside [the Temple] is not deemed [an effective] removal. — When Rabin came [from Palestine], [he said that] R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Johanan: If one had slain a Passover sacrifice outside on any of the other days of the year, whether in its own name or not in its own name, he is culpable. Even ‘in its own name’? But have we not learnt: A sacrifice whose time has not yet come [may be such] either because of itself or because of its owner. Which is a sacrifice whose time has not yet come because of its owner? If the owner, either man or woman, was afflicted with gonorrhoea, or was a woman after child-birth or a leper and had offered up their sin-offering or their guilt-offering outside [before the appointed time], they are free. But if they offered up their whole-offerings or their peace-offerings outside, they are culpable. And R. Hilkiah b. Tobi said: They did not teach thus only if they were offered up in their own name, but if they were not offered up in their own name, they were not culpable. Now at any rate, then, when offered up in their own name, the owners are culpable. But why that? Let us say, Since they are fit to be offered up in their own name within [they should be culpable]?- How compare? There a removal is necessary, but here Passover sacrifice during the rest of the days of the year is a peace-offering. R. Ashi taught: the owner is culpable, as we had stated above. R. Jeremiah of Difti taught he is not culpable, because he is of the opinion that the Passover sacrifice during the rest of the days of the year requires a removal, and the removal outside [the Temple] is not [effective]. Therein he disputes with R. Hilkiah b. Tobi. The Master said: ‘When the lot has been cast, he is culpable in respect of the one [he-goat] cast ‘for the Lord’, and free with respect to the one cast ‘for Azazel’. Our Rabbis taught: What man soever there be of the house of Israel that killeth an ox or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering unto the Lord.15^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:So that the offerings were not fit for Temple use, and thus involve no guilt when offered outside.
^ᵇnote:khtuv either derived from kgh — g and t interchange frequently — thus: it helps — and followed by — ‘because’ since; or tv + ukht ‘look now, if’, i.e., once this is so, that also may be granted; or from the Biblical kth’accepted, agreed that this is so, that also ought to be accepted’, implying that because something is permitted in one case, the permission should be extended to all analogous cases.
^ᶜnote:Besides the eve of Passover, the fourteenth of Nisan, which is the proper date for this sacrifice.
^ᵈnote:Because in this case it is a peace-offering, which should have been slain within the Temple.
^ᵉnote:It could be used within as a peace-offering.
^ᶠnote:[It could not be used within as a peace-offering unless it had been expressly removed at the time of slaughtering from its original purpose as Passover sacrifice, and consequently as long as no such removal had been made it cannot be said to be fit for use within the Temple.] The he-goat offered within as well as the one without are sin-offerings in either situation.
^ᵍnote:[Although a paschal lamb on any other days in the year can be removed from its original purpose and offered as a peace-offering, such a removal is effective only when it is offered within the Temple, but where it is offered outside, the paschal lamb retains its original name and purpose and consequently involves no guilt for having been slaughtered outside.]
^ʰnote:V. Lev. XV, 14, 29; XII, 6, XIV, 10.
^ⁱnote:In the case of sin-offerings or guilt-offerings, which were offered up outside before they were due, no culpability is involved, because they are not acceptable within before their time has come, neither as obligatory nor as freewill-offerings. But burnt-offerings or/and peace-offerings, which are accepted even when not obligatory, are fit to be offered up within even before the appointed time, hence they involve culpability when offered up without. V. Zeb. 112b.
^ʲnote:This exemption applies only when the guilt-offering was offered up in its own name outside, in which case being before its appointed time it would be unfit for the Temple. But if it was offered up for another purpose than that originally designated, e.g., for a burnt — or peace-offering, where it would be acceptable within at any time, there is culpability when offered up without.
^ᵏnote:Without the need of an express removal from its original purpose.
^ˡnote:With reference to the statement reported by Rabin.
^ᵐnote:Before it can be offered as a peace-offering.
^ⁿnote:Who holds that a removal outside the Temple is an effective removal.
^ᵒnote:Lev. XVII, 3, 4.

²From [the word] ‘offering’ I might have assumed that even offerings for the temple repair [are included], which are also called ‘offerings’, in accord with the Scriptural words: And we have brought the Lord's offering, therefore the text reads: ‘And hath not brought it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting’, i.e., whatsoever is fit to be brought to the tent of meeting, if offered up outside, involves culpability; but whatsoever is fit to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, if offered up outside, does not involve culpability. Thus I would exclude only those which are not fit to be offered up at the entrance of the tent of meeting, but I would not exclude [the cow for the sin-offering and] the he-goat-to-be-sent-away, which are fit to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, therefore the text reads: ‘Unto the Lord’ i.e., only those assigned to the Lord, to the exclusion of such as are not assigned to the Lord. But do the words ‘Unto the Lord’ imply exclusion,? I shall raise a contradiction: It may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord, i.e., the fire-offerings. Whence do we know that one may not dedicate it before its time has come? Therefore the text reads: ‘As an offering’. ‘Unto the Lord’, includes the he-goat-to-be-sent-away! Said Raba: There [the meaning is determined] by the context, and here too [its meaning is determined] by the context: There ‘Unto the entrance implies inclusion, therefore ‘Unto the Lord’ implies exclusion; here ‘An offering made by fire’ implies exclusion, hence ‘Unto the Lord’ has inclusive meaning. Now the only reason then is that the Divine Law included it, but if it had not done so I would have assumed that the he-goat-to-be-sent-away could be dedicated before its time. But the lot does not determine except such [an animal] as is fit ‘for the Lord’? — Said R. Joseph: This is in accord with Hanan the Egyptian, for it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says: Even if the blood is in the cup, may he bring its mate and pair them. But admitted that Hanan does not accept the opinion concerning ‘rejection’ you surely did not hear that Hanan does not accept the opinion as to the necessity of casting the lots? Perhaps he [the high priest] would have to bring [two] and cast lots [afresh]? — Rather, said R. Joseph, this [Baraitha] is in accord with R. Simeon, for it was taught: If one of them died, he brings another one without casting lots, this is the view of R. Simeon! Rabina said: The reference [in the Baraitha] is to a case in which one of them became blemished and was redeemed with another one. But whence will you say that a blemish renders it [the scapegoat] invalid? As it was taught: Nor make an offering by fire of them, this refers to the pieces of fat. From here I could infer only as to all the pieces. Whence do we know that it applies also to parts thereof? Therefore the text reads: ‘Of them’. ‘The altar’ i.e., the sprinkling of the blood. Unto the Lord, that includes the he-goat-to-be-sent-away. Now it was necessary [for the Scripture] to write [disqualifying a scapegoat], the blemished animal and one whose time has not yet come. For if the Divine Law had written only about the animal whose time has not yet come, I would have assumed there [it is disqualified] applies because its time has not yet come, but in the case of one blemished whose time had come, I might have assumed that [the disqualification does] not [apply]. And if the Divine Law had written about the blemished animal alone, I might have assumed the reason [for its being disqualified] there lies in repulsiveness, but with the animal whose time has not yet come, and where there is no repulsive feature, one might have assumed [the law] does [not] apply, hence it was necessary [to write about both].^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵖnote:Num. XXXI, 50.
^ᵠnote:The red heifer. Tosaf. supports Rashi's elimination of this reference to the red heifer, because the latter was not brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, hence is logically excluded from the present discussion.
^ʳnote:Lev. XXII, 27.
^ˢnote:Only from the eighth day are they acceptable as offerings.
^ᵗnote:I.e., that an offering cannot be dedicated before the eighth day.
^ᵘnote:This shows that ‘Unto the Lord’ implies inclusion.
^ᵛnote:The he-goat-to-be-sent-away is not ‘for the Lord’, but fit to be brought unto the entrance of the tent of meeting. So ‘Unto the Lord’ excludes whatsoever is not assigned for the Lord. In the other passage ‘An offering made by fire’ excludes, of course, the goat, which is to be hurled from the precipice, whereas ‘Unto the Lord’ is complimentarily inclusive, hence the goat must not be offered up before it is eight days.
^ʷnote:I.e., before it is eight days old.
^ˣnote:V. Tem.6b.
^ʸnote:And that implies a minimum age, hence invalidation before its time.
^ᶻnote:Zeb. 34b.
^ᵃᵃnote:Even if the blood of the he-goat to be sprinkled up within is in the cup, when the he goat-to-be-sent-away dies, no new casting of the lots is necessary according to Hanan, but, as is assumed at present, one may simply bring another he-goat from outside and pair it and appoint it for Azazel even without lots. Thus we see that Hanan does not hold the principle that the lot does not determine etc.; and consequently the he-goat-to-be-sent-away need not necessarily have reached its proper time hence a scriptural verse is necessary to teach that it must do so.
^ᵃᵇnote:He does not accept the view of R. Judah in our Mishnah that the scapegoat is to be rejected as unfit on account of the mishap to the other.
^ᵃᶜnote:Leaving the one, upon whom the lot ‘for the Lord’ now falls, to pasture until it acquires a blemish, whilst obtaining atonement through the blood of the first. At any rate, however, casting the lots is necessary, hence one whose time had not yet come would be invalidated, because the lot determines only what is ‘fit for the Lord’, i.e. whose time has come.
^ᵃᵈnote:Which requires a special text to teach that the he-goat-to-be-sent-away must be of minimum age.
^ᵃᵉnote:Where the he-goat-to-be-sent-away suddenly became blemished, its successor obtained by means of redemption needs no lot to determine its purpose, and, since no list was required, there is no implied obligation as to proper minimum age.
^ᵃᶠnote:With reference to blemished animals. Lev. XXII, 22.