יומא 66:2 — Soncino English Talmud

[means] that he must be prepared [from the previous day]; ‘appointed’ [means] that [it is to send away]; even on the Sabbath ‘appointed’, even if in a state of uncleanness. [You say]: ‘Man [means] to declare a non-priest eligible’, but that is obvious? — You might have thought that since [the term] Kapparah [atonement] is written in connection therewith, therefore he informs us [as above]. — ‘Appointed’, i.e., even on the Sabbath. What does this teach? — R. Shesheth said: It is to say that if it is sick, he may make it ride on his shoulder. According to whose view is this? Not according to R. Nathan, for R. Nathan said: A living being carries itself! -You may even say that this is in accord with R. Nathan: when it is sick it is different, however. Rafram said: This is to say that [the laws of] ‘erub and carrying out apply on Sabbath, but do not apply on the Day of Atonement. ‘Appointed’, i.e., even in a state of uncleanness. What does that teach? — R. Shesheth said: It is to say that if he who is to carry it away became unclean, he may enter in impurity the Temple Court and carry it away. R. Eliezer was asked: What about his carrying it on his shoulder? — He said: He could carry you and me. If he who is to take it away became sick, may he send it away through someone else? — He said: I wish to keep well, I and you! If he pushed it down and it did not die, must he go down after it and kill it? — He said to them: So perish all Thine enemies, O Lord. But the Sages say: If it became sick, he may load it on his shoulder; if he pushed it down and it did not die, he shall go down and kill it. They asked R. Eliezer: ‘What about So-and-so in the world to come’? — He replied, ‘Have you asked me only about this one’? ‘May one save the lamb from the lion’? — He said to them: ‘Have you asked me only about the lamb’? ‘May one save the shepherd from the lion’? — He said to them: ‘Have you asked me only about the shepherd’? ‘May a mamzer inherit’? — [He replied]: ‘May he marry the wife of his brother who died without issue’? ‘May one whitewash his house’? — [He replied]: ‘May one whitewash his grave’? — [His evasion was due] not to his desire to divert them with words [counter-questions], but because he never said anything that he had not heard from his teacher. A wise woman asked R. Eliezer: Since with regard to the offence with the golden calf all were evenly associated, why was not the penalty of death the same? — He answered her: There is no wisdom in woman except with the distaff. Thus also does Scripture say: And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands. It is stated: Rab and Levi are disputing in the matter. One said: Whosoever sacrificed and burned incense died by the sword; whosoever embraced and kissed [the calf] died the death [at the hands of Heaven]; whosoever rejoiced in his heart died of dropsy. The other said: He who had sinned before witnesses and after receiving warning, died by the sword; he who sinned before witnesses but without previous warning, by death; and he who sinned without witnesses and without previous warning, died of dropsy. Rab Judah said: The tribe of Levi did not participate in the idolatry, as it is said: Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp. Rabina was sitting and reporting this teaching, whereupon the sons of R. Papa b. Abba objected to Rabina: Who said of his father and of his mother: ‘I have not seen him, etc.’? — ‘His father’, that is the father of his mother, an Israelite; ‘brother’, the brother of his mother, an Israelite; ‘sons’, that means the sons of his daughter [which she had] from an Israelite. AND THEY MADE A CAUSEWAY FOR HIM etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: These were not Babylonians but Alexandrians, and because they [the Palestinians] hated the Babylonians, they called them [the Alexandrians] by their [the Babylonians’] name. It was taught: R. Judah said, They were not Babylonians, but Alexandrians. — R. Jose said to him: May your mind be relieved even as you have relieved my mind! MISHNAH. SOME OF THE NOBILITY OF JERUSALEM USED TO GO WITH HIM UP TO THE FIRST BOOTH. THERE WERE TEN BOOTHS FROM JERUSALEM TO THE ZOK29^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:This is soon explained.
^ᵇnote:And this term as a rule occurs only in connection with a rite performed by priests.
^ᶜnote:What Sabbath desecration could the taking of the scapegoat to the wilderness involve?
^ᵈnote:V. Shab. 90a. Hence no transgression would be involved in carrying it.
^ᵉnote:A sick being, unable to ‘carry itself’, might logically be assumed to be an exception to R. Nathan's rule.
^ᶠnote:v. Glos.
^ᵍnote:I.e., transferring an object from public to private grounds and vice versa, both of which were prohibited on the Sabbath.
^ʰnote:Since the word ‘anointed’ is here interpreted as referring to the suspension of the Sabbath law, the inference is justified that no such prohibition existed on the Day of Atonement, or else it would be illogical to say that a special statement permits the suspension of these laws on the Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath, since they would be operative on any Day of Atonement, even if it fell on a weekday. The laws of ‘carrying out’ and ‘erub belong together, hence strictly speaking, the Gemara need not have mentioned both; when one is applied, the other automatically applies too.
^ⁱnote:How should the laws on levitical uncleanness apply to the taking of the scapegoat to the wilderness?
^ʲnote:When he receives it from the high priest.
^ᵏnote:R. Eliezer made a point of not answering any question concerning which he had not received a definite tradition or interpretation from his teachers.
^ˡnote:This, too, is an evasive answer: You and I are well, hope to keep well, why trouble about such hypothetical situations?
^ᵐnote:Judg. V, 31.
^ⁿnote:Peloni. It may have been a general question concerning ‘John Doe’, or it may refer to Solomon's (Rashi), or to Absalom's (R. Han.) regard for the Davidic Dynasty being responsible for the substitution of the vague Peloni. [Some see in Peloni a reference to Jesus, Finkelstein L. to Philo. Bokser, B.Z Pharisaism in Transition pp. 18ff, rightly regards these identifications as hardly supported by any facts.]
^ᵒnote:Ali his answers are evasive.
^ᵖnote:Some see in the question about the shepherd a reference to David, who as lion (King) or as shepherd had taken the lamb (Bathsheba) from her husband. Others see the lamb in Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, whom the lion (David) sent to his death.
^ᵠnote:May a bastard (the issue of a union forbidden under the penalty of extinction) inherit his father?
^ʳnote:Why don't you ask the whole question: How far does he participate in the rights and duties of normal Jews?
^ˢnote:May one whitewash one's house in spite of the fact that one ought to remain conscious all the time of the destruction of the Temple, etc.
^ᵗnote:[V. Suk., Sonc. ed., p. 122. Bokser, op. cit. pp. 108f sees in these questions differences of opinion on important points of law. The question about sheep concerned the ban against cattle-raising which the Rabbis wished to enforce (v. B.M. 84b) and which R. Eliezer opposed as having no precedent in tradition. The questions relating to the mamzer involved the imposition of certain discriminations against the mamzer of which R. Eliezer did not approve, and similarly he refused to accept the prohibition of the other Rabbis of plastering one's house in sad remembrance of the destruction of the Temple, not finding any support for it in tradition].
^ᵘnote:Scripture mentions three forms of penalties: Some died by the sword (Ex. XXXII, 27), others by the plague (ibid. 35), the rest by dropsy as the result of their drinking the water containing the gold dust, which Moses had offered them in expiation (ibid. 20).
^ᵛnote:Ex. XXXV, 25.
^ʷnote:I.e., died by the plague.
^ˣnote:Penalty could be imposed only when the offence had been committed in the presence of two witnesses who accuse the defendant, after he had been warned as to the consequences of his offence.
^ʸnote:Ex. XXXII, 26. (cont.) and said: ‘Whoso is on the Lord's side, let him come unto me’. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
^ᶻnote:Deut. XXXIII, 9. Here seems scriptural proof that the Levites, in punishing the guilty, ignored relationships, such as father or mother, but executed punishment on all. Thus their relatives, other Levites, must have been guilty.
^ᵃᵃnote:This hatred caused them to look down upon the Babylonians as remiss in their religious duties, and to father upon them other people's wrongs.
^ᵃᵇnote:R. Jose was a Babylonian. He welcomes the interpretation, which freed his fellow-countrymen from the charge of such boorish conduct.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘the peak’, the mountain top from which the scapegoat was precipitated. Also used to denote the precipice itself.