## Yoma Daf 40b

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

״יׇעֳמַד חַי לִפְנֵי ה׳ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו״, עַד מָתַי יִהְיֶה זָקוּק לַעֲמוֹד חַי? עַד שְׁעַת מַתַּן דָּמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שְׁעַת וִידּוּי דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse states: “But the goat on which the lot came up for Azazel **shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him,** to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10). The verse indicates that the goat must remain alive until a certain time. Were it to die beforehand, it would have to be replaced. **Until when** is the goat for Azazel **required to stand alive? Until the time of the application of the blood of its counterpart,** i.e., the goat for God; **this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:** It must remain alive **until the time of the verbal confession** over it.


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

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ — בְּכַפָּרַת דָּמִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״. מָה לְהַלָּן — בְּכַפָּרַת דָּמִים, אַף כָּאן — בְּכַפָּרַת דָּמִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to what do they disagree? As it was taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states that the goat should remain alive **“to make atonement”** (Leviticus 16:10). This indicates that it must remain alive until it effects atonement. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon dispute which atonement the verse is referring to. **The verse speaks of atonement through** the application of the **blood** of the sin-offering goat. **And similarly it states: “When he has made an end of atoning for the Sanctuary,** and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). **Just as there** the reference is **to atonement through blood, so too here** the verse is referring to **atonement through blood. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו״, בְּכַפָּרַת דְּבָרִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says: “To make atonement over it”; the verse speaks of atonement through speech,** i.e., the verbal confession that is recited over it.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: עָלָה בִּשְׂמֹאל, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר לְיָמִין? אָמַר לָהֶן: אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַמִּינִין לִרְדּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof that the drawing of lots is not indispensable. A *baraita* teaches: **Rabbi Akiva’s students asked him:** If the lot for God **was drawn by** the High Priest’s **left** hand, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to whether **he may transfer** the lot **to** his **right** hand? **He said to them: Do not give the heretics an opportunity to dominate.** If it is allowed, they will adduce this as proof of their claim that the *halakhot* are not absolute, and the Sages have the power to change them as they see fit.


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

טַעְמָא דְּאַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַמִּינִין לִרְדּוֹת, הָא לָאו הָכִי מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ הַגְרָלָה מְעַכְּבָא, וְכֵיוָן דִּקְבַעְתֵּיהּ שְׂמֹאל הֵיכִי מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The** only **reason** Rabbi Akiva provided to disallow it was **so as not to give heretics an opportunity to dominate,** which implies that if **not for this** reason, it would be permitted to **transfer** the lot to the right hand. How could this be true? **Didn’t you say** that **the drawing** of the lots **is indispensable? And,** consequently, **once** the designation of the goat has been defined by the drawing of the **left** hand, **how** then **could we transfer** the lot to the right hand? Perforce, the designation is not created by the actual drawing, and as such it is not indispensable.


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

אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמְרִי: עָלָה הַגּוֹרָל בִּשְׂמֹאל, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲזִירוּ לוֹ וְלִשְׂעִירוֹ לְיָמִין. אָמַר לָהֶם: אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַמִּינִין לִרְדּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the *baraita* can be understood in a way in which it does not provide a proof: **Rava said: This is** what Rabbi Akiva’s students **are saying:** If **the lot was drawn by** his **left** hand, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to whether **he may transfer it,** the lot, **and its** associated **goat to** his **right** side. **He said to them: Do not give the heretics an opportunity to dominate.** Accordingly, there was never any suggestion of changing the designation of the goats. Therefore, no proof can be brought concerning the indispensability of the drawing of the lots.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר: ״אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר יַנִּיחֶנּוּ עָלָיו, — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עָלָה״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof that the drawing of lots is indispensable. A *baraita* teaches (*Sifra*, *Aharei Mot* 2:4): **If** the verse **had stated** only: **“The goat upon which** the lot” (Leviticus 16:9), **I would have said** the intention is that **he** must physically **place** the lot **upon it.** Therefore, **the verse** also **states:** “On which **it came up”** (Leviticus 16:9), indicating that **once** the lot **has come up** from the receptacle, **it is not necessary** to do **more,** i.e., the lot does not have to be physically placed upon the goat.


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

לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְמִצְוָה, מִכְלָל דַּהֲנָחָה מִצְוָה נָמֵי לָא? אֶלָּא לָאו, לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַגְרָלָה מְעַכְּבָא, הַנָּחָה — לָא מְעַכְּבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **To what** does the *baraita* refer when it says it is not necessary to actually place the lot upon the goat? **If we say** it means that it is no longer necessary to do so even **as a mitzva,** then, **by inference,** one must conclude that **the placement** of the lot upon the goat is **not even a mitzva.** This is problematic. Since it is clearly part of the Yom Kippur service, it must at least be a mitzva. **Rather, is it not** that when the *baraita* teaches that the placing of the lot is not necessary, it means only that the placing of the lot is not **indispensable? And conclude from it** that the **drawing** of lots **is indispensable,** but **the placement** of the lot upon the goat **is not indispensable.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר יַנִּיחֶנּוּ עָלָיו עַד שְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָלָה״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava rejects the proof: **Rava said:** This cannot serve as a proof, since **this is what** the *baraita* **is saying: If** the verse **had stated** only: **“The goat upon which** the lot,” **I would have said** that the intention is that **he should** physically **place** the lot **upon** the goat, and the lot should remain upon it **until the time of its slaughter.** Therefore, **the verse** also **states:** “On which **it came up,”** indicating that **once** the lot **has come up** from the receptacle and been placed upon the goat for even one moment, **it is not necessary** to do **more,** i.e., the lot does not have to remain on the goat anymore. Understood in this way, it cannot be determined from this *baraita* whether or not the placement is indispensable.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the drawing of the lots is indispensable. A *baraita* in the *Sifra* teaches: The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, **and he shall offer it for a sin-offering”** (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that **the lottery makes it a sin-offering,** but verbally designating the goat with **the status** of a sin-offering **does not make it a sin-offering.**


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

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל — קִידֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, מְקוֹם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: A verse is needed to teach this *halakha*, as I **might** have thought to come to the opposite conclusion. **Is there not an *a fortiori* inference** as follows: **Just as in a case in which** the use of **a lottery does not consecrate** the animals with a specific designation, e.g., a woman who has given birth and must bring two birds, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, nevertheless a verbal designation of the animals with **the required status does consecrate them,** so too, in **a case in which** the use of **a lottery does consecrate** the animals, **is it not** logically **right that** verbally designating the animals with **the required status should consecrate them?**


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In contradiction of this reasoning, **the verse states,** with regard to the goat: “He shall offer it for a sin-offering” to indicate that the lottery makes it a sin-offering; verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.