Yoma

All agree that if he had obtained atonement through [the animal that] had not been lost, [the animal that] had been lost must be left to die;1 but according to Rab it would be as if someone has set aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee [that one of them should be available if the other be lost],2 and R. Oshaia said: If someone had set aside two sinofferings for the purpose of guarantee, he gains atonement through one of them and leaves the other to pasture? — Since Raba said that Rab followed the view of R. Jose,3 who holds the commandment properly attached to the first, it is as if it4 had from the very beginning been set aside [in substitution] for the one that was lost. We learned: R. JUDAH SAYS: IT SHALL BE LEFT TO DIE. It is quite right in the view of R. Johanan who said that the second of the first pair must be left to pasture [that is, according to the Rabbis]5 and [it is this one which] according to R. Judah be left to die,6 so that he obtains atonement through the second one of the second pair; but if the view of Rab who said that the second of the second pair must be left to pasture, and [it is this one which] according to R. Judah must be left to die, then according to R. Judah7 through which can he obtain atonement? — Do you understand that R. Judah refers to the second of the second pair? R. Judah refers to the second of the first pair.8 Others framed the [above] question [against Rab]9 in the following manner: Furthermore did 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 it is in order according to Rab: In the first part [of the Mishnah] they are disputing about the sin-offering of the community, and in the latter part about [the rejection of] living animals,10 but according to R. Johanan: What does ‘Furthermore signify?11 — This difficulty remains.12 FURTHERMORE SAID R. JUDAH: IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, THE SCAPEGOAT IS LEFT TO DIE. It is quite right that when the blood was poured away the scapegoat must die, because the command with it had not been fulfilled, but when the scapegoat died, why should the blood be poured away; surely the commandment therewith had been fulfilled? — The School of R. Jannai said: Scripture said: [The goat] shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement,13 i.e., how long must he stay alive? Until the time that his fellow's blood is sprinkled. We have learnt elsewhere: If the inhabitants of a town sent their shekels14 and they were stolen or lost, then, if terumah15 has been taken up already, they16 swear an oath before the Temple treasurers; and if not they swear an oath before the people of the town; and the people of the town must pay the shekels anew. If they were found again or the thieves restored them, then both are taken as shekels17 and they do not count as prepayment for the dues of the next year. R. Judah says: They count for the next year.18 What is the reason of R. Judah's view? — Raba said: R. Judah holds that obligatory offerings of one year may be brought up in the following year. Abaye raised the following objection against him:19 If the bullock or the he-goat of the Day of Atonement were lost and he had set aside others in their place, also, if the goats offered up for idolatry [were lost] and others were set aside for them, then they must all be left to die, this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon hold: They shall be left to pasture until they become blemished, when they should be sold and the money realized for them should go for freewill-offerings, for the sin-offerings of the community must not be left to die.20 — He [Raba] answered: lost animal was found, then according to Rabbi he obtains atonement with whichever he chooses and the other is left to die. The Sages, however, hold that it is left to pasture, as the law which requires that a sin-offering, the owner of which has obtained atonement by another, is to be left to die applies only if it was found after the atonement rites had been performed, but not if found before the atonement (V. Tem. 23a). Now in connection with this R. Abba said that there is no disagreement between Rabbi and the Sages where the atonement was obtained through the one which had not been lost, i.e., through the second, all agreeing in such a case that the first one is left to die. (In accordance with the established old law that if a sin-offering had been lost and the owner obtained atonement through another, when it is found again it is left to die). The dispute concerns a case where atonement was obtained through the first, after it had been lost and found again, Rabbi holding that what is set aside in substitution for that which had been lost is subject to the same law as the lost animal itself and hence must be left to die, whereas the Sages do not share the view. Now in our Mishnah on the view of R. Johanan, who holds that the second of the first pair is left to pasture, it rightly gives as reason ‘For no community sin-offering is left to die’; for had it been of an individual it would be left to die, since the atonement is being obtained through the one which had suffered no mishap, and had never been rejected.] rejected, how could the Mishnah state by implication that if it had been the sin-offering of an individual it would under similar circumstances be left to die? Not only would this not be the case according to the Sages, who rule that whatever is set aside in substitution for that which had been lost is not subject to the same law as the lost animal itself (v. previous note), seeing that he has obtained atonement through the one that had been rejected; but even according to Rabbi (v. ibid) it would not have to be left to die, since the second of the second pair has never been set aside as substitution for the one that had been lost, seeing that its predecessor is still alive. It was merely set aside as a companion to the other which had to be brought in place of the one (the first goat cast for Azazel) that had died. But since living animals cannot be permanently rejected, he should in such a case be able to offer either, just as in the case where one sets aside two offerings as a guarantee for each other.] die.] Rabbis, is left to pasture, since R. Judah perforce is of the opinion that living animals are permanently rejected as has been established, supra 64b.] rejected.] pair for sacrifice; whilst the Rabbis hold that it is offered, R. Judah holds that it is left to die.] first pair, whereas R. Judah (as has just been explained) holds that the second in the first pair is left to die and the second in the second pair is offered up. shekel-chamber in the Temple from which public sacrifices were bought, v. Shek. III, 1ff following year, otherwise he would not have ruled that this should be left to die, which contradicts the view just expressed.