Our discussion today delves into the intricate halachic principles surrounding the sacrificial service in the Temple, particularly concerning the offerings brought on Yom Kippur and other special occasions. We begin by examining the case of the bull and goat offerings on Yom Kippur, specifically what happens if their blood spills before the entire sprinkling service is completed.
The halacha dictates that if the blood of the bull, which the High Priest brings on Yom Kippur, or the goat, which he also brings, spills after certain sprinklings are completed, additional animals must be brought to continue the service. For instance, if the bull's blood spills after the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies are finished, a second bull is brought. If the sprinklings in the Sanctuary are then completed and that blood spills, a third bull is required for the altar sprinklings. Thus, it is possible to have three separate bulls involved in the process.
A key question arises regarding these multiple animals: which of them must be taken out of Jerusalem and burned? The halacha states that the remnants of the bull offering must be taken outside Jerusalem to a place called Beit Ha-Deshen (House of Ashes) and burned. Anyone involved in this burning process becomes ritually impure, and their clothes and any vessels they touch also become impure. So, if three bulls are used, do all of them undergo this process? The Gemara addresses this, citing a Mishnah: "All of them cause impurity to garments and are burned in Beit Ha-Deshen." This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon. Their reasoning is that since each bull was considered viable and some sprinklings were performed with its blood, it deserves the same treatment as a regular bull offering, including being taken to Beit Ha-Deshen and causing impurity to those involved in its burning. The Sages, however, disagree, stating: "They do not cause impurity to garments and are not burned in Beit Ha-Deshen, except for the last one, because it completed the atonement." According to the Sages, even if each bull contributed to a part of the atonement process, only the final bull, which concludes the atonement, is subject to these laws. Rashi clarifies that this applies even if one full bull was used for the Holy of Holies, a second for the Sanctuary, and a third for the altar; still, only the last bull is burned according to the Sages.
Next, the Gemara introduces a question from Rava to Rav Nachman: "How many goats are sent off" to Azazel? This refers to the goat designated for Azazel on Yom Kippur. Rashi explains a scenario where the blood of the goat designated for God spills after the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies. The halacha requires bringing two new goats and casting lots again, as the lottery is an essential step. If the goat for God from this second pair is slaughtered and its blood spills after the Sanctuary sprinklings, two more goats must be brought, and lots cast again. If the goat for God from this third pair is then slaughtered for the altar sprinklings, we end up with three goats designated for Azazel from three different pairs. Rava asks how many of these goats are sent off the mountain. Rav Nachman responds, "Do you think you send off a whole herd?" implying only one is sent. Rashi notes that the Torah only requires one to be sent. Rava challenges this, asking, "Do you burn a whole herd?" referring to the previous discussion where, according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, three bulls might be burned. If it's permissible to burn three bulls, why not send off three goats?
Rav Nachman distinguishes between the two cases: "Is it similar? There it is not written 'it,' here it is written 'it.'" Regarding the burning of the bulls outside Jerusalem, the verse does not use the word "it" (אותו), which would imply a singular animal. Therefore, multiple animals can be burned. However, concerning the goat sent to Azazel, the verse states, "and he shall send it (אותו) to Azazel," implying only one. The question then becomes: which one is sent? Rav Pappa, in the name of Rava, says the first one is sent, meaning the goat for Azazel from the first pair. Rav Shimi, in the name of Rava, says the last one is sent, from the last pair. Rav Shimi's opinion is understandable: since the atonement was completed with the third goat's blood sprinklings on the altar, the goat from that group, which contributed to the final atonement, is the one sent off. The Gemara then asks for Rav Pappa's reasoning. He holds like Rabbi Yose, who states that "it is a mitzvah to use the first."
To find the source for Rabbi Yose's principle, the Gemara first suggests Rabbi Yose from the discussion of the Temple's collection boxes for shekalim. There, three boxes, marked A, B, and C, were used to collect funds for public offerings. Rabbi Yose explains that the numbering was to ensure that the money from the first box (A) was used first, then B, then C, indicating a mitzvah to use the first. However, the Gemara rejects this proof, arguing that in the case of the shekalim boxes, the money in each box became viable at different times. The money in box A became viable first, then B, then C. In contrast, all three goats for Azazel become viable simultaneously, only after the final blood sprinklings are completed. Therefore, the shekalim case is not a valid comparison.
The Gemara then proposes another source for Rabbi Yose's opinion: Rabbi Yose from the laws of the Pesach offering. A person who designated an animal for their Pesach offering, lost it, and then designated another, might find the first one later. The Sages say one may offer whichever they prefer. Rabbi Yose, however, states, "It is a mitzvah to bring the first one." He adds that if the second one is superior, it is a mitzvah to bring the superior one. Rashi clarifies that this scenario occurs before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, meaning both animals become viable for the offering simultaneously at midday. Despite this simultaneous viability, Rabbi Yose still prioritizes the first animal. This supports Rav Pappa's view that the first goat for Azazel should be sent. The distinction regarding a superior animal is not relevant for the Azazel goat, as its purpose is not to be offered on the altar.
We now move to a new chapter, which discusses the laws of the goat for Azazel. The Mishnah states: "The two goats of Yom Kippur, their mitzvah is that they should both be similar." This similarity applies to their appearance (color, e.g., white, black, or gray), height, and value. They should also be purchased at the same time. However, the Mishnah clarifies that "even if they are not similar, they are valid." This means similarity is a preferred practice (lechatchilah) but not an absolute requirement (me'akev). For example, if one goat was bought today and the other tomorrow, they are still valid.
The Mishnah continues: if one of the goats dies before the lottery is performed, one should "take a pair for the second one." Since no designation has occurred yet, a new partner can be found for the surviving goat. However, "if one dies after the lottery," a new pair must be brought, and a new lottery performed. The High Priest then states a condition: "If the one for God died, this one that received the lot for God shall stand in its place. And if the one for Azazel died, this one that received the lot for Azazel shall stand in its place." The remaining goat, which is now superfluous (either a second goat for God or a second goat for Azazel), "shall graze until it becomes blemished, and then it shall be sold, and its money shall fall" into the Temple treasury for voluntary offerings. Normally, a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement through another offering is left to die of starvation. However, the Mishnah states, "for a public sin offering does not die." This means the rule of starving an animal to death only applies to a private sin offering, not a public one. Rashi explains that this is a tradition received from Moses at Sinai, as the cases where a sin offering is left to die (e.g., a substitute for a sin offering, an offspring of a sin offering, or a sin offering whose owner died) all pertain to private offerings.
Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, stating that even a public sin offering should be left to die. He also adds another law: "If the blood of the one for God spilled, the one to be sent (for Azazel) must die." Conversely, "if the one to be sent died, the blood" of the one for God "must be poured out." In either case, two new goats must be brought, and the lottery process restarted.
The Gemara then explores the source for the Mishnah's rule that the two goats for Yom Kippur should be similar. The verse states, "He shall take two goats." The word "goats" (plural) implies at least two. So, the word "two" (שני) seems superfluous. This extra word teaches that "they should both be similar" in appearance, height, and value. How do we know that even if they are not similar, they are still valid? The repetition of the word "goat" (שעיר) in other verses, such as "Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot for God fell" and "the goat on which the lot for Azazel fell," serves as an inclusion, teaching that any goat is acceptable. The Gemara asks why we would think dissimilarity would invalidate the offering if not for this inclusion. It suggests that since the word "two" (שני) appears three times in the verses relating to these goats, one might think similarity is an absolute requirement. However, the inclusionary "goat, goat" teaches that it is not an absolute requirement. The three instances of "two" then teach the preferred similarity in appearance, height, and value, respectively. Tosafos Yeshanim clarifies that the requirement to purchase them simultaneously is derived from the phrase "he shall take two goats," implying a single act of acquisition.
This same logic is applied to the lambs brought by a person with tzara'at (a skin affliction) for their purification. The verse states, "He shall take two lambs." The word "two" (שני) again teaches that they should be similar. The repetition of "lamb" (כבש) in other verses, such as "the priest shall take one lamb and slaughter the lamb," teaches that even if they are not similar, they are valid. The Gemara again asks why dissimilarity would be thought to invalidate the offering. The answer is that the word "shall be" (תהיה) in the context of these lambs might imply that they must be exactly as specified, making similarity an absolute requirement. The extra "lamb, lamb" then teaches that it is not. The word "shall be" (תהיה) then refers to other essential aspects of the purification process, such as the cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson thread, which are absolute requirements.
A third parallel case is presented regarding the two birds brought by a person with tzara'at on the first day of purification. The verse states, "two birds" (שתי ציפורים). The word "two" (שתי) teaches similarity. The repetition of "bird" (ציפור) in verses like "the priest shall slaughter one bird" and "he shall take the live bird" teaches that any bird is valid even if not similar. Again, the word "shall be" (תהיה) might imply an absolute requirement for similarity, but the extra "bird, bird" negates this, leaving "shall be" to refer to other essential details of the purification, not their appearance.
The Gemara then challenges this pattern by asking about the daily communal offerings (korban Tamid). The verse states, "two lambs" (שני כבשים) for the daily offering. Following the previous logic, the word "two" (שני) should imply similarity, and the repetition of "lamb" (כבש) should teach that dissimilarity does not invalidate it. However, we find no discussion of the daily lambs needing to be similar. The Gemara explains that the word "two" (שני) in the context of the daily offering teaches a different law. The verse states, "two for the day" (שניים ליום), which is interpreted as "corresponding to the day," meaning both lambs must be slaughtered in a position where the sun's rays hit them. This is a unique requirement for the daily offerings. The Gemara elaborates on how this was done: the morning offering was slaughtered in the northwest corner, away from the eastern wall, to catch the rising sun's rays. The afternoon offering was slaughtered in the northeast corner, facing west, to catch the setting sun's rays. In both cases, the animal's neck was placed in the second ring from the altar, northward. Rashi explains that the first ring may have been used to stabilize the animal's legs. The similarity for the Sabbath additional offerings (Musafim) is indeed a mitzvah, but not an absolute requirement, as there is no inclusionary language to negate the implication of "two."
Finally, we examine the law concerning the two goats of Yom Kippur if they are slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard. Slaughtering an animal consecrated as an offering outside the Temple is a severe transgression, punishable by karet (spiritual excision) if done intentionally. The Gemara states that if the two goats for Yom Kippur were slaughtered outside before the lottery was performed, the person who slaughtered them is liable for both. However, if they were slaughtered outside after the lottery, liability applies only to the goat designated for God, and not to the goat for Azazel. The reason is that liability for slaughtering outside (shechutei chutz) applies only to animals intended to be brought "at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (פתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד). Only the goat for God is intended for this. The goat for Azazel is sent off a mountain, not offered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
The Gemara questions the ruling that one is liable for both goats if slaughtered outside before the lottery. At that stage, neither goat is designated for God or Azazel, as the lottery is an essential step. Since they are not yet fully designated, how can one be liable? Rav Chisda answers that "they are fit for the goat that is done outside," referring to the additional goat offering brought on Yom Kippur (Musaf). Even before the lottery, these two goats are potentially viable for the Musaf offering, which is brought in the courtyard (outside the Sanctuary proper). Therefore, slaughtering them outside the Temple courtyard would incur liability. The Gemara challenges this: if they are not fit for the goat for God because the lottery is missing, why would they be fit for the Musaf offering, which is brought at the very end of the day's service, after the bull, the goat for God, and the incense offering? This means they are "lacking the service of the day" (מחוסר עבודת היום) and are out of order. Rav Chisda responds with a crucial principle: "Lacking time for it to come on that day" (אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום) is not a disqualification. If an offering is brought prematurely but is otherwise intrinsically fit and could be brought later that day, it is still considered viable. The lottery, however, is an intrinsic requirement, and until it is performed, the goats are not designated for their specific Yom Kippur roles. Thus, before the lottery, they are not fit for the goat for God, but they are fit for the Musaf offering, making one liable for slaughtering both outside. After the lottery, only the goat for God is subject to the laws of shechutei chutz.