## Yoma Daf 40a

###### Yoma 40a:1
[Yoma 40a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:1)

אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ פְּלִיגִי, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא מְעַכְּבָא, הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to that** second **version** of the dispute, **in which you said** that Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree** whether the drawing of the lots is indispensable according to Rabbi Yehuda, but according to Rabbi Neḥemya it certainly is indispensable, then **granted, according to the one,** i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, **who said** that the drawing of the lots **is not indispensable,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* taught? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Yoma 40a:2
[Yoma 40a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:2)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְעַכְּבָא, הָא מַנִּי? תְּנִי: מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to the one,** i.e., Rabbi Yannai, **who said** that both according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya the drawing of the lots **is indispensable,** then in accordance with **whose** opinion could **this** *baraita* be taught? It would appear that, according to Rabbi Yannai, the *baraita* does not reflect anyone’s opinion. Perforce, the *baraita* cannot be referring to drawing the lots, and one must emend and **teach** the *baraita* as saying that **it is a mitzva to place** the lots on the goats.


###### Yoma 40a:3
[Yoma 40a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִצְוָה לְהַגְרִיל וּלְהִתְוַדּוֹת. לֹא הִגְרִיל וְלֹא הִתְוַדָּה — כָּשֵׁר. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי לְהַנִּיחַ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הִגְרִיל — כָּשֵׁר, לֹא הִתְוַדָּה — פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another challenge to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion, as presented in the second version of the dispute, which maintains that both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya hold that drawing of the lots is indispensable. A *baraita* teaches: **It is a mitzva** for the High Priest **to draw the lots and to confess** upon the goat to be sent to Azazel. **If he did not draw the lots** or **did not confess,** the service is still **valid.** This *baraita* also appears to say that the drawing of the lots is not indispensable, in contradiction to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion. **And if you say: So too,** the *baraita* should be emended to say it is a mitzva **to place** the lots on the goats, this is problematic. How will you then **say,** i.e., explain, **the latter clause** of that *baraita*, which teaches: **Rabbi Shimon says: If he does not draw the lots, it is valid. If he does not confess, it is invalid?**


###### Yoma 40a:4
[Yoma 40a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:4)

מַאי ״לֹא הִגְרִיל״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא הִנִּיחַ, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר הַגְרָלָה מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, מֵבִיא חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בַּהַגְרָלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the challenge from the latter clause: In this *baraita*, **what** is the meaning of: **He did not draw the lots? If we say** it means **he did not place** the lots on the goats, then **by inference Rabbi Shimon holds** that while the placing is not indispensable, the **drawing** of the lots **is indispensable.** But this is incorrect, since **wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If, following the designation of the goats, **one of them died,** a new goat **is brought** to be the **counterpart** of the surviving goat and is designated **without drawing lots; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.** It would therefore appear that the *baraita* should not be understood as referring to the mitzva to place the lots, but as referring to the drawing of the lots themselves. Therefore, the challenge to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion remains.


###### Yoma 40a:5
[Yoma 40a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא יָדַע מַאי קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִי הַגְרָלָה — הַגְרָלָה מַמָּשׁ קָא אָמְרִיתוּ, פְּלִיגְנָא עֲלַיְיכוּ בַּחֲדָא. אִי הַגְרָלָה דְּקָאָמְרִיתוּ הַיְינוּ הַנָּחָה — פְּלִיגְנָא עֲלַיְיכוּ בְּתַרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yannai’s opinion can still be defended by claiming that **Rabbi Shimon did not know** precisely **what the Sages were saying,** i.e., whether they were referring to the drawing or the placing of the lots. Therefore, in his response to them, **this is** what **he is saying: If** when you say: **Drawing of the lots, you are saying** that the **actual drawing of the lots** is not indispensable, as I also hold, then **I disagree with you** only **with regard to one** *halakha*, namely with regard to the indispensability of the confession. But **if,** when you say: **Drawing of the lots, you are saying** only that the **placing** of the lots is not indispensable, but you assume that the drawing of the lots is indispensable, then **I disagree with you with regard to two** *halakhot*, i.e., with regard to the indispensability of both the drawing of the lots and of the confession.


###### Yoma 40a:6
[Yoma 40a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: פַּר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another challenge to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion that all agree that the drawing of the lots is indispensable, from a *baraita*: Various services are performed with the bull and the goat and their blood. These services must be performed in a specific sequence, often alternating between the bull and the goat. If one service is neglected and a later service is advanced to be before it, the *halakha* is as follows: Failure to perform a service of **the bull** that was to precede a service of the goat **disqualifies** the service of **the goat,** if it was performed without that service of the bull preceding it.


###### Yoma 40a:7
[Yoma 40a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:7)

וְשָׂעִיר אֵין מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, failure to perform a service of **the goat** that was to precede a service of the bull **does not disqualify** the service of **the bull;** rather, it is valid after the fact. This last rule **applies to the applications** of blood performed **inside** the Holy of Holies.


###### Yoma 40a:8
[Yoma 40a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא פַּר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר: דְּאִי אַקְדְּמֵיהּ לְשָׂעִיר מִקַּמֵּי פַּר — לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא שָׂעִיר אֵין מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר — מַאי נִיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the challenge from the *baraita*: **Granted,** failure to perform the service of **the bull disqualifies** the service of **the goat** that is advanced ahead of it. This can be understood to mean **that if he advanced** the service **of the goat ahead** of the service **of the bull,** it is considered as though **he has not performed anything at all.** Once the service of the bull has been performed, the service of the goat must be repeated. **However,** the rule in the *baraita* that failure to perform a service of **the goat does not disqualify** the service of **the bull** that was advanced ahead of it. To **what** case **is it** referring?


###### Yoma 40a:9
[Yoma 40a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:9)

אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי אַקְדֵּים מַתָּנוֹת דְּפַר בַּהֵיכָל מִקַּמֵּי מַתָּנוֹת דְּשָׂעִיר בִּפְנִים — ״חוּקָּה״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that that the *baraita* means **that if one advanced** the **applications** of the blood **of the bull in the Sanctuary** made toward the curtain **ahead of the applications** of the blood **of the goat inside** the Holy of Holies, then the *baraita* should not rule that it is valid. The term **“statute”** (Leviticus 16:29) **is written concerning** the applications of the blood of the goat inside the Holy of Holies, which implies that their performance is indispensable to any subsequent services.


###### Yoma 40a:10
[Yoma 40a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:10)

אֶלָּא לָאו, דְּאַקְדֵּים מַתָּנוֹת דְּפַר בִּפְנִים מִקַּמֵּי הַגְרָלָה. וּמִדְּסִדְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא — (עִיקְרָא) הַגְרָלָה נָמֵי לָא מְעַכְּבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** that the *baraita* must be referring to a case in which **one advanced** the **applications** of the blood **of the bull inside** the Holy of Holies **ahead of** the **drawing** of the lots? If so, **from** the fact that the **sequencing** of drawing the lots **is not indispensable,** one may infer that the **drawing** of the lots **itself is also not indispensable.** This would then refute Rabbi Yannai’s opinion.


###### Yoma 40a:11
[Yoma 40a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:11)

לָא, דְּאַקְדֵּים מַתָּנוֹת דְּפַר בְּמִזְבֵּחַ מִקַּמֵּי מַתָּנוֹת דְּשָׂעִיר בַּהֵיכָל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: דְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂין בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן בַּחוּץ — לָא מְעַכְּבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions whether this is the only possible interpretation of the *baraita*: **No,** the *baraita* could be referring to a case in which **one advanced** the **applications** of the blood **of the bull upon the altar ahead of the applications** of the blood **of the goat in the Sanctuary** made toward the curtain. **And** as such, ruling in the *baraita* that this is valid after the fact **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Matters that are performed in** the **white garments outside** of the Holy of Holies **are not indispensable.** Therefore, the applications of the bull’s blood upon the altar cannot disqualify a different service.


###### Yoma 40a:12
[Yoma 40a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:12)

וְהָא בְּמַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as a possible interpretation of the *baraita*: **But didn’t** the conclusion of the *baraita* **teach** that the rule **applies to** the **applications** of blood performed **inside** the Holy of Holies? If so, the *baraita* cannot be referring to application of blood made upon the altar.


###### Yoma 40a:13
[Yoma 40a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:13)

אֶלָּא: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הַגְרָלָה לָא מְעַכְּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must understood in the way suggested by the Gemara previously, which implies that the drawing of the lots is not indispensable. However, this is not necessarily a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yannai. One could say: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who said:** The **drawing** of the lots **is not indispensable.** Rabbi Yannai claimed only that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya agreed that it is indispensable.


###### Yoma 40a:14
[Yoma 40a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:14)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וּנְהִי דִּכְסִדְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא — הַגְרָלָה מִיהָא מְעַכְּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say: Actually,** the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** Nevertheless, Rabbi Yannai’s opinion may still be defended: **Granted,** the *baraita* teaches **that** the **sequencing** of the drawing of the lots **is not indispensable;** however it may still be true that the **drawing** itself is **nevertheless indispensable.** This contradicts what was suggested previously, that one may infer from the indispensability of the sequencing to the indispensability of the drawing itself.


###### Yoma 40a:15
[Yoma 40a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/40a:15)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon **follow their** lines of **reasoning, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: