MISHNAH: The commandment for the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement is that they be equal in looks, in height, and in value, and be bought simultaneously. Even if they are not equal they are qualified; if one was bought one day and the other the next day¹ they are qualified. If one of them dies, if it died before he² drew lots he should take a match for the second one; if it dies after he drew lots one brings two and he draws new lots for them. Then he shall say if the one for Hashem³ dies, “the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.⁴” And if the one for Azazel died, “the one for which the lot for Azazel is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” The second one shall graze until it becomes unfit, then be sold, and its proceeds used for voluntary sacrifices⁵ since no public purification sacrifice is allowed to die⁶. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says, if the blood is spilled the one to be sent away shall die, if the one to be sent away dies the blood shall be spilled⁷.

footnotes: ¹ Or any other day. ² The High Priest. ³ Cf. Chapter 4, Note 2. ⁴ Since only one new he-goat is needed; the second one was taken only to satisfy the requirement that lots be drawn for any he-goat used in the service. ⁵ The monies to be used to buy elevation sacrifices for times when otherwise the altar would be idle. ⁶ In contrast to private purification sacrifices which are not used because the owner used another animal in its stead. It cannot be used for another person, cannot be redeemed, and cannot be used in any other way. ⁷ Since R. Jehudah holds that if for any reason one of the he-goats or its blood cannot be used, the other cannot be used either and has to be let to die.

HALAKHAH: “The two he-goats of the Day of Atonement,” etc. ⁸ 3:10 (Notes 150–162) and Ševuot 4:1 (Notes 7–17).He-goats⁹ 16:5,7,8. Babli 62b, Sifra Aḥare Parasḥah 2(1)., the minimum of he-goats are two. If so, why does it say two? That they be equal.

footnotes: ⁸ The following is a slightly changed verson of a text appearing in Sanhedrin ⁹ Lev.

[Sheep¹⁰. 27:38, Num. 28:3., the minimum of sheep are two. If so, why does it say two? That both be equal.]¹¹

footnotes: ¹⁰ Ex ¹¹ Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources.

Birds¹² 14:4., the minimum of birds are two. If so, why does it say two? That both be equal.

footnotes: ¹² Lev.

Trumpets¹³ 10:2., the minimum of trumpets are two. If so, why does it say two? that both be equal.

footnotes: ¹³ Num.

Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written¹⁴ 19:17.: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written¹⁵ 24:17.: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge]¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Deut. ¹⁵ Deut. ¹⁶ The scribe’s text in parentheses conforms to the parallels; the corrector’s in brackets is more logical.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two,[by the mouth of two witnesses¹⁷ 17:6.], and it is said there two, two men remained in the camp¹⁸ 11:27.. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. Then why is it said (two) [and the two men shall stand]¹⁹? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; [one is silent while the other talks]¹¹, one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one the judge is friendly, to the other he is unfriendly, lets one sit and the other stand. [They said in the name of Rebbi Ismael, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.]¹¹

footnotes: ¹⁷ Deut. ¹⁸ Num. ¹⁹ If actually the same price was paid for the two he-goats used on the Day of Atonement, but if they were regularly sold in the market one of them clearly would fetch a higher price, they are not disqualified but do not fulfill the biblical requirement of equality. ¹¹ Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources. ¹¹ Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources.

Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down. What is forbidden is that one be standing and the other sitting; or that one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short, etc.

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the testimony is delivered..

If they are equal in price but unequal in value, the he-goats are not as commanded¹⁹; equal in value but not equal in price, the he-goats are as commanded. Better in its body²⁰ or better in its looks, what is preferable? Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say²¹ that we may understand it from the following: Of cut greenish and dry uncut, cut greenish is preferable²² the sacrifice of first barley (Lev. 2:14) which has to be greenish grain parched with fire, peeled barley of the fresh ear. While the ˋomer should be freshly cut, if the choice is only between cut moist or uncut completely dry barley, cut moist grain is preferable since this is explicitly required by the verse. אָבִיב is barley which is edible but still has a moist greenish tint; in Southern Germany known as Grünkern. Cf. Tosephta Menaḥot 10:33.. This implies, better in its body [or better in its looks]²³, better in its body is preferable.

footnotes: ¹⁹ If actually the same price was paid for the two he-goats used on the Day of Atonement, but if they were regularly sold in the market one of them clearly would fetch a higher price, they are not disqualified but do not fulfill the biblical requirement of equality. ²⁰ Having more meat. ²¹ This is the only opinion we have on the problem but it is not necessarily to be followed in practice if the Temple will be rebuilt. ²² This refers to the ˋomer, ²³ Corrector’s addition. It might be that the scribe’s second “better in its body” is dittography, which would make the correction unnecessary.

So is the Mishnah: “One brings two and he draws new lots for them. He shall say, ‘the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.’²⁴” Which of them is sacrificed first²⁵? Rav said, the second in the second pair; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second in the first pair²⁶. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice²⁷ 16:19., of the first {pair.²⁸} Rebbi La said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency lest it be pushed aside²⁹. This is parallel to what Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency that its companion be paired with it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, if the second in the second pair died, would the second in the first pair be pushed aside? There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: then the second in the first pair already is pushed aside³⁰. [So much more would Rav’s reasoning be inverted? If the second in the second pair died, the second in the second pair already is pushed aside.³¹]

footnotes: ²⁴ As it was translated in Mishnah 2, the clause אִם שֶׁל שֵׁם מֵת “if the one for Hashem dies,” describes the background of the required action; it is not part of the declaration by the High Priest. ²⁵ This now refers to the case that the he-goat to be sent to the Azazel dies and one is left with two he-goats as prospective sacrifices. ²⁶ Rav holds that since the sacrifice of the first he-goat becomes invalidated if the he-goat for Azazel died, since it was stated that if the he-goat for the Azazel died after the first he-goat had been slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the entire ceremony started anew with a new pair of he-goats, a sacrifice which became invalidated never can be reinstated. While it is a general principle that a sacrifice which became invalidated never can be reinstated, R. Joḥanan holds that the living he-goat is not disqualified if its companion he-goat died, but it only is suspended. If a second he-goat is newly chosen, the suspension of the first is removed. ²⁷ Lev. ²⁸ Since the verse refers to the first pair, the first he-goat is irrevocably made a sacrifice. ²⁹ A different formulation of the same idea. ³⁰ If the replacement he-goat for the Azazel also died, R. Joḥanan might agree that a double suspension is equivalent to invalidation. ³¹ Addition of the corrector. The question here is different. One brings a second pair and draws lots. According to the Mishnah, the new he-goat for the Azazel is selected. If then the first he-goat dies, following Rav’s original position the second drawing of lots was made under erroneous hypotheses, and a third pair of he-goats would be needed.The corrector’s source is unknown.

³² If he drew lots for three pairs², to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

footnotes: ³² Text from Chapter 5, Notes 141–143. ² The High Priest.

“Since no public purification sacrifice is let to die⁶. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die.” It is difficult for Rebbi Jehudah: does one draw lots originally to die? Rebbi Abun said, do we not find this following Rebbi Eliezer³³ 27:10). In the case of (voluntary) well-being offerings, both animals are dedicated as well-being offerings. For obligatory offerings, two animals cannot be brought instead of one. In Mishnah Temurah 3:3, the majority rules that the replacement of a valid reparation offering and any of its offspring shall be put out to graze until they develop a defect which makes them unfit as sacrifices, then be sold, and the proceeds given to the Temple to be used for additional sacrifices, But R. Eliezer rules that they have to be allowed to die immediately without any benefit to the Temple. R. Jehudah as student of his father R. Illay, a student of R. Eliezer, can be presumed to follow the latter’s teachings., as Rebbi Eliezer said, they shall die? Rebbi Mana said, what you ask about Rebbi Jehudah you should ask about the Mishnah, as we have stated there³⁴ 4:1. In case of a purification offering everybody agrees with R. Eliezer, and one of the he-goats for which lots are drawn is a purification offering., “the calf of a purification offering, and the replacement of a purification offering, and a purification offering whose owners died, shall die.” Would a person replace originally to die?

footnotes: ⁶ In contrast to private purification sacrifices which are not used because the owner used another animal in its stead. It cannot be used for another person, cannot be redeemed, and cannot be used in any other way. ³³ It is sinful to try to replace a validly dedicated animal by an other (Lev. ³⁴ Mishnah Temurah

MISHNAH: He came to the he-goat to be sent away and leaned on it with both his hands and confessed. And thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, they acted criminally, offended, sinned before You, Your people, the House of Israel. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc³⁵.

footnotes: ³⁵ Cf. Chapter 4, Note 61.

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara stated, “they acted criminally, offended, sinned,” in order not to mention the shame of Israel³⁷.

footnotes: ³⁷ In his text, the High Priest does not mention “Your people, the House of Israel.”

³⁸ 2(5),It shall be made standing alive, This teaches that in the end it will die³⁹ 16:9. Since the he-goat could not stand if he were not alive, the emphasis on “alive” in this verse implies that later it will not be alive, that it should not be let free in the desert but be thrown from a cliff.. ⁴⁰ 1:10 (Notes 127–241). How long must it live? Up to he will finish atoning the Sanctuary⁴¹ 16:20. Since there can be no atonement without confession, this will include the last confession of the High Priest even though it is mentioned only in v. 21., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable⁴². What is the difference between them? If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another he-goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another he-goat. The same holds for the bull. If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession⁴³?

footnotes: ³⁸ Sifra Aḥare Pereq ³⁹ Lev. ⁴⁰ This paragraph is a slight rewrite of a paragraph in Ševuot ⁴¹ Lev. ⁴² It remains unresolved whether for R. Simeon no confession is obstructive or only the last one which is mentioned after the atonement of the Sanctuary was declared complete. ⁴³ It already had been stated that there has to be another drawing of lots with new animals,, the question is only about the confessions.

MISHNAH: He handed him over to the one who led him. Everybody is qualified to lead him, but the High Priests made it an institution that they did not let an Israel lead him. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that Arsela³⁶ from Sepphoris led it, and he was an Israel.

footnotes: ³⁶ “Hammock”, a nickname.

HALAKHAH: He shall send him by a man⁴⁴ 16:21., to qualify the non-Cohen⁴⁵. Timely⁴⁴ 16:21.. that he be ready; timely, that he be prepared. Timely, even on the Sabbath; timely, even in impurity. Can he be not ready but prepared⁴⁶? But that he should not send him by two people. If he sent him by two people, does he make clothing impure⁴⁷ 16:26 states that the person bringing the scapegoat to the desert becomes impure together with his clothing.? Let us hear from the following: And the one who sends⁴⁸ 16:26.; not who was sending the one who sends. This implies that if he sent him by two people, it does not make clothing impure⁴⁹.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Lev. ⁴⁵ Since “man” is unspecific. Babli 66a/b. ⁴⁴ Lev. ⁴⁶ Ready and prepared are practically the same, the duplication is unwarranted. ⁴⁷ Lev. ⁴⁸ Lev. ⁴⁹ Only the person first appointed to the task becomes impure.

If it escapes in the direction in which it is going, it makes clothing impure, in the opposite direction it does not make clothing impure⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Babli 66b, Tosephta 3:14.

⁵¹“They asked Rebbi Eliezer, if the agent got sick? He said to them, so you shall be in peace. If the scapegoat fell ill? He said to them, it can carry you and me. If he pushed it but it did not die? He said to them, so it shall happen to all enemies of Heaven. Not that Rebbi Eliezer wanted to distract them, only that he did not tell them statements which he never had heard⁵². But the Sages are saying, if the agent got sick, he⁵³ sends it⁵⁴ by somebody else/ If the scapegoat fell ill, he⁵⁵ lets it⁵⁴ be carried on a donkey. If he⁵⁵ pushed it⁵⁴ but it did not die, he⁵⁵ has to descend after it and kill it.”

footnotes: ⁵¹ Babli 66b, Tosephta 3:14. ⁵² Which probably means that the cases never had happened before during the ascendancy of the Pharisees in the Temple service. ⁵³ The High Priest. ⁵⁴ The scapegoat. ⁵⁵ The designated agent. ⁵⁴ The scapegoat. ⁵⁵ The designated agent. ⁵⁴ The scapegoat. ⁵⁵ The designated agent.

⁵⁶ 13:6–8.“All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime he⁵⁴ did not fall down half the mountain before he dissolved into limbs; after Simeon the Just’s death he fled to the desert and was eaten by the Saracens. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the lot for Hashem⁵⁷ came up in his right hand; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it came up to the right, sometimes to the left. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the Easternmost light⁵⁸ was burning; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it was extinguished, sometimes burning. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the shiny strip⁵⁹ turned white; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it turned white, sometimes it turned red. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the fire on the altar steadily increased; after they had put on two logs in the morning⁶⁰ they did not add anything during the day. After Simeon the Just’s death the fire weakened; the had to add wood all day long. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime a blessing was in the Two Breads⁶¹ 23:17. and the shew-bread; the part of each one came to an olive sized bite; some of them ate and were full, some of them ate and left over. After Simeon the Just’s death the blessing was taken from the Two Breads and the shew-bread; the part of each one came only to a pea-sized bit. The decent ones refrained from taking; the gluttons stretched out their hands. It happened that a Cohen from Sepphoris took his and another’s part; he was called “pea-sized one” to this day. This is what David said⁶² 71:4., My God, let me escape from the hand of the evildoer, from the palm of the criminal and oppressor.”

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Babli 39a, Tosephta Soṭah ⁵⁴ The scapegoat. ⁵⁷ Mishnah 4:1. ⁵⁸ In the evening, the easternmost light of the candelabrum was lit first but in the morning it was serviced last. It was one of the miracles of the Temple that it outlasted all other lights of the candelabrum. ⁵⁹ Mishnah 6. ⁶⁰ Chapter 2, Note 19. ⁶¹ The two leavened breads required for the service of Pentecost; Lev. ⁶² Ps.

⁶³ It was stated: “Forty years before the Temple was destroyed was the Eastern light extinguished, and the shiny strip became red, and the lot of the Name came up in the left hand. They were locking the doors of the Temple hall in the evening and in the morning they found them open. Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai addressed it: ‘Temple hall, why do you frighten us? We know that in the end you will be destroyed, as it was said⁶⁴ 11:1., Lebanon⁶⁵ to Deut.3:25; Sifry Num. 134, Deut. 28. The last source identifies the Temple Mount as “Lebanon”., open your doors so fire may consume your cedars.’”

footnotes: ⁶³ Babli 39b. ⁶⁴ Zach. ⁶⁵ The Temple is identified with “Lebanon”, cf. Targum Onqelos

⁶⁶ Simeon the Just served Israel as High Priest for forty years, and in the last year he told them, in this year I am going to die. ⁶⁷ 109b. Josephus dates the building of the Onias Temple three generations later. They asked him, whom shall we appoint in your stead? He told them, there is my son Onias before you. They went and appointed Onias. His brother [Simon]⁶⁸ was jealous of him, he went and dressed him in an undershirt⁶⁹ 16, Note 111. The spelling in the Hebrew text here is the corrector’s following the Babli, erasing the Yerushalmi spelling retained later in the parallel statement of R. Jehudah. and girded him with a belt⁷⁰. He told them, look what this one vowed to his sweetheart: when I shall serve as High Priest I shall wear your undershirt and gird myself with your belt⁷¹ 25, this plot presupposes an extremely ignorant High Priest.. They investigated and did not find [him]⁷². It is said, he fled to King’s Mountain, from there he fled to Alexandria, based himself there and built there an altar, over which he recited this verse⁷³ 16:16., on that day there will be an altar for the Eternal inside the Land of Egypt. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? See how this one who fled from prominence went to seek it at the end⁷⁴, if one attained it and lost it not so much more? It was stated, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, it was not so but they appointed Simeon; his brother Onias was jealous of him, he went and dressed him in an undershirt and girded him with a belt. He told them, look what this one vowed to his sweetheart etc., as before⁷⁵ has to be inserted here. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? See how this one who never attained prominence forced Israel to foreign worship⁷⁶ 109b there is a discussion whether the illegitimate Onias Temple is classified as idolatry or not., if one attained it and lost it not so much more?

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Chapter 5, Note 77. ⁶⁷ A different version in the Babli, Menaḥot ⁶⁸ Name added by the corrector, consistent with quote later of R. Jehudah’s statement. In the Babli, the name is Simei, a more likely name for a son of Simeon. ⁶⁹ Cf. Šabbat ⁷⁰ The word in parentheses is the scribe’s Yerushalmi spelling, the words in brackets the corrector’s from the Babli. The form צוצל should be recognized by the dictionaries as Yerushalmi spelling. ⁷¹ Since the garments to be worn in Temple service are prescribed in Ex. ⁷² Corrector’s addition, probably incorrect. The investigation showed that the charges were unfounded, not that Onias was not to be found. ⁷³ Is. ⁷⁴ Onias preferred not to become High Priest rather than become an object of an investigation. Nevertheless he became a kind of High Priest in Egypt. ⁷⁵ Aramaic note of the scribe; the text of the previous baraita ⁷⁶ In the Babli Menahot

MISHNAH: They built him a ramp because of the Babylonians⁸⁰ who were plucking his hair and saying to him, go quickly, go quickly. The venerables of Jerusalem were accompanying him to the first hut⁸¹. There were ten huts between Jerusalem and the cliff, 90 stadia, 7½ per mil⁸² are 1 parasang or 4 mil.. The Greek stadion is a very badly defined measure; the reference here probably is to Egyptian measures; cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and Eruvin. The huts were equally spaced, one mil apart. 90 stadia are 12 mil; as indicated in Mishnah 5 the people whose Sabbath domain was centered at the tenth hut could accompany him only for one mil; the last mil to the cliff he had to go by himself.. At each hut one tells him, here is food, here is water, and one accompanies him from hut to hut except for the last leg where one does not come with him to the crag but stands afar and observes his actions⁸² are 1 parasang or 4 mil.. The Greek stadion is a very badly defined measure; the reference here probably is to Egyptian measures; cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and Eruvin. The huts were equally spaced, one mil apart. 90 stadia are 12 mil; as indicated in Mishnah 5 the people whose Sabbath domain was centered at the tenth hut could accompany him only for one mil; the last mil to the cliff he had to go by himself..

footnotes: ⁸⁰ In the Babylonian tradition (Babli 66b) the misbehaving people were Alexandrians. This is rejected in the Yerushalmi. ⁸¹ The person leading the scapegoat has the obligation to go to the desert; the people accompanying him cannot leave their Šabbath domain, 2’000 cubits or 7½ stadia. ⁸² 30 stadia ⁸² 30 stadia

HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, he compressed his body⁸³. There are Tannaim who state, a genuine ramp.

footnotes: ⁸³ The verb כבש means “to compress” (also to preserve edibles by vinegar or extended cooking, processes which shrink the volume); the noun כבש means “a ramp” (“preserve” is כבוש). It is left undecided whether the Mishnaic expression is to be read as a verb, that the man accompanying the scapegoat has to make himself inconspicuous, or as a noun, as translated in Mishnah 4.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the Alexandrians were saying, until when do you attribute the misconduct to us⁸⁰?

footnotes: ⁸⁰ In the Babylonian tradition (Babli 66b) the misbehaving people were Alexandrians. This is rejected in the Yerushalmi.

“The venerables of Jerusalem were accompanying him to the first hut⁸¹.” It was stated⁸⁴. “Ten huts within twelve mil, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, ten⁸⁵ from the preceding, the last hut is at mil10, from which it is another two mil to the crag. In the reading of the Babli, the distance of the crag from the wall of Jerusalem would only be 11 mil for R. Jehudah. huts within ten mil. Rebbi Yose said, five [and all of them by eruv;]⁸⁶ and so my son Eliezer said to me, I can make them five by eruv⁸⁷ from the crag, as described in the Mishnah. In the version of R. Eliezer (Eleazar) ben R. Yose (in the Tosephta, R. Yose ben R. Jehudah), the venerables of Jerusalem make an eruv outside the city walls which allows them to accompany the scapegoat for two mil. At the end of these two mil they are met by people from the first hut who made an eruv halfway to the meeting point; they accompany to the first hut which is at distance 4 from the city wall. Another group of people who made an eruv in the opposite direction accompany the scapegoat halfway to the next hut which is at distance 8. In this version, the person leading the scapegoat has to walk the last two mil alone since the second group of people from the second hut have to stop at mil 10..

footnotes: ⁸¹ The person leading the scapegoat has the obligation to go to the desert; the people accompanying him cannot leave their Šabbath domain, 2’000 cubits or 7½ stadia. ⁸⁴ Tosephta 3:13, Babli 67a. ⁸⁵ In the parallel sources: Nine. There is no reason to adapt the Yerushalmi to the Babli sources. If each hut is at distance 1 mil ⁸⁶ Corrector’s addition from the Babli, probably incorrect, since in the Yerushalmi version R. Yose accepts that his son’s R. Eliezer’s (should be R. Eleazar) argument parallels his own. ⁸⁷ If one does not accept the corrector’s addition, the huts postulated by R. Yose are at distances 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. The venerables of Jerusalem go halfway to the first hut, where they are met by people from the first hut who will accompany the scapegoat halfway to the second hut, etc., and the people of the fifth hut will stop one mil

“At each hut one tells him, here is food, here is water.” In order to strengthen him. Why? For the evil inclination desires only what is forbidden to him. As the following: Rebbi Mana went to visit Rebbi Haggai who was weak⁸⁸. He told him, I am thirsty; he answered him, drink⁸⁹! He left him and went away. After an hour he visited him and asked him, how is your thirst? He told him, the moment you permitted me it went away. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba told the following case: A man was walking in public⁸⁸ with his daughter. His daughter said to him, my father, I am thirsty. He said to her, wait a little bit. She said to him, my father, I am thirsty. He said to her, wait a little bit, and she died. When Rebbi Aḥa finished the musaf prayer⁸⁸ he said before them⁹⁰, our brothers, he who has small children should leave because of them⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ On the Day of Atonement. ⁸⁹ R. Haggai was very old at this moment, having been a student of R. Zeˋira, the teacher of R. Jeremiah, the teacher of R. Jonah, father and teacher of R. Mana. ⁸⁸ On the Day of Atonement. ⁸⁸ On the Day of Atonement. ⁹⁰ His congregants. ⁹¹ To feed them and give them to drink. Since little children are not required to fast, permitting them to drink would not quell their thirst; they actually have to be given to drink.

MISHNAH: What did he do? He split the shiny strip⁹²1:18.; half of it he bound on the rock and half of it he bound between its horns. Then he pushed it⁹³ backwards, it rolled descending. It did not reach half of the declivity before it dissolved into limbs. He goes and sits under the last hut⁹⁴ until nightfall. From when on does he make garments impure⁹⁵ 16:26.? From when he exits the wall of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon says, from when he pushes on the crag.

footnotes: ⁹² Which was tied to the scapegoat’s horns, Mishnah 4:2. It was expected to turn white as a sign of divine forgiveness, Is. ⁹³ The scapegoat. ⁹⁴ Since he left his Sabbath domain by biblical commandment, he was permitted to return the 4’000 cubits to the first hut where he could rest for the remainder of the day and found food to break the fast at nightfall. ⁹⁵ Lev.

HALAKHAH: ⁹⁶ 9, Notes 119–121, not in the original text. Cf. Babli 67a, Roš Haššanah 31b.[Originally they were tying it to their windows; some of them were turning white and some turning red; these were ashamed in front of the others. They changed and tied it to the door of the Sanctuary. Some years it was turning white, in others turning red. They changed and tied it to the rock.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Corrector’s addition from Šabbat

It is written⁹⁷ 1:18., let us go and argue, etc. It was stated, Rebbi Eliezer said, If your sins were like years⁹⁸ 1:1, Note 83., etc., like the years from Heaven to Earth, they will be snow white; more than that, they shall be like wool. Rebbi Joshua said, if your sins were like years, like the years of the patriarchs, they will be snow white; more than that, they shall be like wool. Rebbi Yuda bar Pazi said, if your sins were like years they will be snow white, the first time, if they were like purple they shall be like wool, the second time. But the rabbis said, If the sins of a person are like his years, they will be snow white.]

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Is. ⁹⁸ Reading שָׁנִים as “years”, not “purple wool”. Both the distance of Heaven from Earth and the combined lifetime of the patriarchs were 500 years, cf. Berakhot

MISHNAH: He¹ comes to the bull and the he-goat to be burned, cut them open and removed the inner parts², put then into a basin and burned them on the altar. He bound them to bars and took them out to the place of burning. When do they make garments impure⁹⁹ 16:28. It is implied that other priests transport the carcasses to be burned.? From the moment they leave the wall of the Temple courtyard; Rebbi Simeon says, from when the fire ignites most of them.

footnotes: ¹ The High Priest. ² Greek μηρία, τά, “thigh bones”, the parts of a sacrifice which have to be burned on the altar. ⁹⁹ Lev.

HALAKHAH: [He comes to his bull, etc.]¹⁰³ We have stated: “He comes to the bull and the he-goat to be burned.” There are Tannaim who state, the High Priest comes to read¹⁰⁴. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, the verse supports our Mishnah: He who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his garments¹⁰⁵ 16:26.. What is written next? And the purification bull and the purification he-goat¹⁰⁶ 16:27. The sacrifices have to be burned outside the sacred domain.. Rebbi Mana said, it may be interpreted even following the Tanna of the baraita. If a person moves from Tiberias to Sepphoris, while he still is in Tiberias do people say, he dwells in Sepphoris¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Addition by the corrector, slightly misquoted (Mishnah 3:9 instead of 6:7). ¹⁰⁴ The public Torah reading which according to Mishnah 7:1 follows the completion of the service of purification. ¹⁰⁵ Lev. ¹⁰⁶ Lev. ¹⁰⁷ All the verse indicates is that the he-goat has to be sent away before the purification sacrifices are removed from the sacred precinct; no exact time frame is given in view of the fact that the Torah reading is not biblically prescribed at this point.

Rebbi Zeriqan said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they be burned according to their rules¹⁰⁸ 16:27, and by practice of the Temple service at a place different from that where disabled sacrifices are usually burned (Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:5). If in impurity they follow the rules of disabled sacrifices, they can be burned only in the following night and at a different place.? What is his problem? If they became impure before the blood was poured, but if they became impure after the blood was poured¹⁰⁹ I am applying to it, at its appointed time¹¹⁰ 9, 2 28:2. Sifry Num. 65, 142; Mekhilta Ba 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 17), Tosephta Pisha 4:14; Pesaḥim 6:1 Notes 9, 10, Babli Pesaḥim 66a., even on the Sabbath, at its appointed time, even in impurity. [Rebbi Yose said, there where it is written at its appointed time; you do not infer anything from it¹¹¹ 16 neither the expression “at its appointed time” nor an equivalent is mentioned, the argument simply does not apply in our case..]¹¹² Rebbi Mana said, does not Rebbi Yose refrain from applying it here? He applies it to the bull of the Anointed and the Congregation¹¹³ 4:1–21. Since these sacrifices can only be brought on a weekday, the only problem is that of the place of burning as given in Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:5. He will accept that they not be burned on the appointed place only if they become invalid by a cause other than impurity. {he said to him}¹¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ If the carcasses are pure, then they have to be burned on the Day of Atonement by biblical decree, Lev. ¹⁰⁹ Then the sacrifice is valid and does not have to be repeated even if some subsequent action would have been required which now becomes impossible. ¹¹⁰ Num. ¹¹¹ Since in Lev. ¹¹² Addition of the corrector, in good Yerushalmi language. The addition is necessary to understand R. Mana’s remark and must have been taken from a manuscript source. ¹¹³ Lev. ¹¹⁴ It seems that this has to be deleted.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If of bulls and he-goats to be burned a limb left which completes a majority¹¹⁵ 104b. Since it was stated in Mishnah 7 that the carcasses become a source of severe impurity once they are brought outside the enclosure of the Temple courtyards, the question is the determination of the exact point in time when this happens. As stated in the next sentence, it is agreed that a majority of the carcass must have left. The question remains whether the majority is counted atom by atom, which would be impossible to determine exactly, or limb by limb. Since the only practical solution is to count limb by limb, must the limb which completes the majority be totally outside or possibly only partially.? His question implies that the matter depends on a majority. The following is obvious: If most of it left and after this a limb left which completes a majority. [This must be: It left limb by limb and after this a limb left which completes a majority¹¹⁶..]¹¹⁷

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ Babli Zevaḥim ¹¹⁶ The preceding sentence in fact makes no sense. ¹¹⁷ Addition of the corrector, in good Yerushalmi language. They must have been taken from a manuscript source.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned were taken out and brought back¹¹⁸105a.? It is obvious for us that in returning they do not make garments impure¹¹⁹. What our problem is, do they make garments impure from the moment they started to be brought out¹²⁰? Rebbi Abba objected, did we not state¹²¹ 12:6.: “They were carrying them on yokes. If the front carriers left the walls of the Temple courtyard while the back carriers did not yet leave, the front carriers make garments impure while the back carriers do not make garments impure until they also leave. After they left, these and those make garments impure.” Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, there is a difference, for it is written, then he shall take out¹²² 4:12, about the purification sacrifice of the anointed priest., until he completely leave the domain from which it is taken out¹²³.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ Since it was established in the previous paragraph that the carcasses are the cause of severe impurity by biblical decree once the majority of the limbs was removed from the Temple precinct, the question necessarily refers to single limbs which do not constitute a majority of the carcass. The question is different in the Babli, Zevaḥim ¹¹⁹ A limb even partially taken out of the sacred precinct becomes disqualified. Even if a person other than the carrier who touches a limb while it is taken back may become impure in his person, the impurity does not extend to his clothing since the biblical conditions for this are not satisfied. ¹²⁰ As will be seen, the question is about people other than the carriers of the carcass or its limbs. If the carcass was partially taken out but then returned, and a third party touched the body, do his garments become impure? ¹²¹ Mishnah Zevaḥim ¹²² Lev. ¹²³ The carriers become impure the moment they are completely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but the carcass becomes a source of severe impurity for any who touch it only after it was completely taken out of the sacred domain. The carriers become impure even if they never come in contact with the carcass. The wooden bars on which the carcass is carried do not transmit impurity by touch; the impurity of the carriers is induced by the motion of the carcass, not by contact.

¹²⁴ 104a. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out¹²⁵? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: ¹²⁶ 7:3.“If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread¹²⁷ loaves of leavened bread (*Lev.*7:13). This is interpreted to mean that the loaves have to be nearby. The question is the definition of “nearby”. is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem¹²⁸; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court.¹²⁹ Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal¹³⁰ 5:7). Nevertheless, meat taken out of the sacred precinct into the city before its time (i. e., before pouring the blood on the altar walls) disqualifies the entire sacrifice. The same argument can be applied to the case under discussion.. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem¹³¹ it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them¹³².

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Babli Zevaḥim ¹²⁵ If the carcasses become impure inside the sacred precinct they automatically are disqualified. Once disqualified they cannot become more disqualified by being taken out. Either with the classical commentaries one has to delete the words “became impure” and (with the Babli) ask whether bulls and he-goats to be burned, for which being taken outside is a biblical commandment at a later stage, can become disqualified by being taken out in a earlier stage, or one restricts the question to the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement which as public sacrifices may be offered in impurity if most of Israel are impure. ¹²⁶ Mishnah Menaḥot ¹²⁷ A thanksgiving offering has to be brought on ¹²⁸ Since the thanksgiving sacrifice as a family celebration may be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem (which takes the place of the camp of the Israelites in the desert), one only requires that the bread be at a place where it may be consumed. ¹²⁹ He requires that the bread be inside the sacred precinct since the presentation of the sacrifice is possible only there. ¹³⁰ Well-being sacrifices in general may be eaten in the entire city of Jerusalem (Mishnah Zevaḥim ¹³¹ Where the bulls and he-goats to be burned have to be brought. ¹³² R. Joḥanan qualifies the thanksgiving offering if all parts are in the place of their final destination at all times. If this argument is applied to bulls and he-goats to be burned, the walls of Jerusalem become irrelevant.

Rebbi Eleazar asked, do bulls and he-goats to be burned cause impurity of garments¹³³ 105a. without preparation¹³⁴ 1:1 Note 7. Since the basis of this rule is Lev. 11:38 referring to grain which cannot become severely impure, it is concluded that severe impurity makes foodstuffs impure even without preparation. and without impurity¹³⁵ 8:3, Babli Zebaḥim105a.. since at the end they become sources of severe impurity? Samuel from Cappadocia objected, then they should make their parts¹³⁶ impure. So only after they were taken away. And even if you are saying before they were taken away, parallel to the following: purifying water does not make anything impure to make itself impure in return¹³⁷19:21) but the water itself remains pure in his hands, while in general an impure person makes water which he touches impure in the first degree.. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, does not a carcass of a pure bird make food impure without preparation, without impurity, since at the end it becomes a source of severe impurity¹³⁸ 1:1; Sifra Aḥare Pereq 11(5–6). It is inferred that Lev. 17:15 must refer to meat that only is forbidden because it is carcass meat, and that the verse cannot refer to four-legged animals since they are impure from the start, and it cannot refer to non-kosher animals or birds since for them the reference to tom meat would be irrelevant. The only meat which causes impurity only if taken into the mouth to be eaten is that of pure birds not correctly slaughtered. Babli Zevaḥim 105a, Ḥulin121a.? Rebbi Yose said, the carcass of a pure bird has no enclosure¹³⁹ may be treated only in the sacred precinct.; these have an enclosure. Rebbi Mana said, the carcass of a pure bird has an enclosure; the human is its enclosure¹⁴⁰. If it were not so, if he brought a dog, clothed it, and fed it the carcass of a pure bird, would it not make the garments impure in its palate¹⁴¹? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, the enclosure of the carcass of a pure bird is everywhere; the enclosure of those is outside of Jerusalem¹⁴² 5, Note 67. Pouring the blood on the altar is qualified as “eating by the altar.” Cf. Babli Zevaḥim 104b..

footnotes: ¹³³ One has to delete this and replace it with “of foodstuffs”. Garments become impure only from sources of severe impurity, but foodstuffs become impure even from impurity which is not transmissible to human bodies or garments. Since the question is asked whether the carcasses cause impurity even before they are taken out, there cannot be any question of severe impurity at this point in time. Babli Zevaḥim ¹³⁴ Foodstuffs in general can become impure only after “preparation” by contact with water; cf. Terumot ¹³⁵ The carcasses of bulls and he-goats to be burned, as well as the carcass of the Red Cow, cause severe impurity to the people occupied with it but they themselves are pure; Mishnah Parah ¹³⁶ The inner parts (of the bulls of the Anointed Priest and the Congregation) which have to be burned on the altar; cf. Chapter 5 Note 155. ¹³⁷ The person who purifies another by sprinkling him with water containing ashes of the Red Cow becomes impure (Num. ¹³⁸ Mishnah Tahorot ¹³⁹ It is forbidden to be eaten anywhere, whereas sancta ¹⁴⁰ Only the human mouth causes impurity from carcass meat of pure birds. ¹⁴¹ But since a living animal cannot become impure, textiles worn by a dog eating the carcass of a pure bird remain pure. ¹⁴² Cf. Pesaḥim

Rebbi Eleazar said, bulls and he-goats to be burned which he slaughtered with the intent to pour the blood the next day, he made piggul¹⁴² 5, Note 67. Pouring the blood on the altar is qualified as “eating by the altar.” Cf. Babli Zevaḥim 104b.. To burn the parts on the next day he made piggul¹⁴³*.* To burn the meat the next day he did not make piggul since he neither intended it as food for humans nor as food for the altar¹⁴⁴ cannot apply..

footnotes: ¹⁴² Cf. Pesaḥim ¹⁴³ Parts burned on the altar are “eaten” by the altar. ¹⁴⁴ Since the carcass has to be burned outside the sacred precinct and outside of Jerusalem, the places were the parts and the meat of well-being offerings would have to be consumed, the rules of piggul

Rebbi Shammai asked, if the parts were lost, may one pour the blood for the meat? He had not heard what Rebbi Eleazar had said, since he neither intended as food for humans nor as food for the altar¹⁴⁵. Rebbi Zakkai stated:A non-Cohen who burned makes garments impure¹⁴⁶ 4:12,21; 16:28) to indicate that the burning outside the camp needs Cohanim.. One only has to ask, is it qualified during nighttime¹⁴⁷? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since burning of the parts which is not qualified for a non-Cohen may be done in the night, for these¹⁴⁸ which are qualified for a non-Cohen it is logical that it should be qualified during nighttime.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ While for other sacrifices one may pour the blood to permit the meat to be eaten by the owners (for family sacrifices), or by the Cohanim (for purification and reparation sacrifices), or by the altar (for elevation sacrifices), in the case of bulls and he-goats to be burned there is nothing to be permitted and therefore the blood may not be poured. ¹⁴⁶ While the carcasses must be carried out by Cohanim since non-Cohanim cannot enter the inner courtyard where the ceremonies take place, there is nothing in the verses (Lev. ¹⁴⁷ It is clear from the verses quoted that the carcasses have to be taken out of the camp (Jerusalem) on the day of the sacrifice; but there are no indications that the burning has to be finished on the same day. ¹⁴⁸ Bulls and he-goats to be burned.

¹⁴⁸And he who burns¹⁴⁹ 16:28.. Not the one who starts the fire, and not the one who prepares the stake. Who is he who burns? That is the one who helps during the burning. [Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the one who helps during the burning]¹⁵⁰ makes his garments impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who turns over an olive-sized piece¹⁵¹ makes his garments impure. The problem is only one who stands inside¹⁵² and in his hand is a beam with which he turns over an olive-sized piece, [what is the rule]¹⁵³? Let us hear from the following: And he shall take out, and he shall burn¹⁵⁴ 4:12, about the Anointed Priest’s bull.. Since one who takes out, only after he took to the outside, also he who burns only if he burns outside¹⁵⁵. There¹⁵⁶ Ḥizqiah said, he shall be impure until the evening¹⁵⁷ 19:7.; to include him who burns¹⁵⁸. Here it is the same¹⁵⁹ 124..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ Bulls and he-goats to be burned. ¹⁴⁹ Lev. ¹⁵⁰ Corrector’s addition. ¹⁵¹ Less than this amount is not considered “consumed”. ¹⁵² The Temple domain, or possibly the city of Jerusalem. ¹⁵³ Unnecessary corrector’s addition. ¹⁵⁴ Lev. ¹⁵⁵ Since the two expressions are written in the same verse. ¹⁵⁶ About burning the carcass of the Red Cow. ¹⁵⁷ Num. ¹⁵⁸ Even though the verse speaks only of the Cohen who directs the ceremony, all his helpers are included. ¹⁵⁹ About bulls and he-goats to be burned; Sifry Num.

MISHNAH: They told the High Priest that the he-goat arrived in the desert. And from where did they know that the he-goat arrived in the desert? They had overseers¹⁰⁰ posted who waved sheets and they knew that the he-goat had arrived in the desert. Rebbi Jehudah said, did they not have an important sign? There are three mil from Jerusalem to Bet Horon¹⁰¹ seems more appropriate; it may designate Wadi al-Hoḏ. R. Jehudah does not require the he-goat to be on the crag, only outside agricultural land.; they were walking one mil, returning one mil, and waiting for another mil; then they knew that the he-goat had arrived in the desert. Rebbi Ismael said, did they not have another sign? A shiny strip was tied to the door of the Temple hall; when the he-goat arrived in the desert it turned white¹⁰², as it is said⁹⁵ 16:26., if your sins were like crimson they will be white like snow.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Greek διάδοχοι, οἱ. ¹⁰¹ Even though this text is confirmed by Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, it seems impossible since Bet Horon is NE of Jerusalem in inhabited territory. The Babli’s reading, Bet Hidud ¹⁰² He disputes the fact that the strip was no longer tied to the Temple door. ⁹⁵ Lev.

HALAKHAH: What are διάδοχοι? Ones opposite one another¹⁶⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁰ They were stationed so that each one could see the preceding and the following ones.