Talmud su Levitico 16:9

MISHNAH: He scrambled the urn¹To make sure that he had no control about which lot he grabbed in each hand. and brought up the two lots; one had written on it “for Hashem²Cf. Chapter 3, Mishnah 9, Notre 144.”, and the other had written on it “for Azazel³Since הָאֶ֥בֶן הָאָֽזֶל (IS. 20:19) is a monolith, עז-אזח is a strong monolith, either a rocky mountain top or a sheer cliff, in the words of the verse (Lev. 16:22) “in a cut (or cut-off) land.””, with the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. If the Eternal’s came up in his right hand, the executive officer said to him, “Sir High Priest, lift you right hand.” But if it came up in his left hand, the head of the serving family said to him. “Sir High Priest, lift your left hand.” He puts them on the two he-goats⁴Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side. and says, “for Hashem a purification offering”⁵In Lev. 16:9 the expression וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת׃ cannot mean “sacrificed it as purification offering” since its slaughter is prescribed only in v. 15; it must mean “declare it as purification sacrifice.”. Rebbi Ismael says, it was not necessary to say “a purification offering,” only “for Hashem”⁶Since both he-goats already were taken as purification sacrifices, v. 5., and they answer, “praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever.”

³⁸Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(5),It shall be made standing alive, This teaches that in the end it will die³⁹Lev. 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.. ⁴⁰This paragraph is a slight rewrite of a paragraph in Ševuot 1:10 (Notes 127–241). How long must it live? Up to he will finish atoning the Sanctuary⁴¹Lev. 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 indispensable⁴²It 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.. 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 confession⁴³It already had been stated that there has to be another drawing of lots with new animals,, the question is only about the confessions.?

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal¹²⁶Num. 28:15, the sacrifice of the Day of the New Moon. (The verse is quoted not quite correctly.) The root חטא in pā`al means “to sin” but in pi`ēl “to cleanse, to restitute, to purify.” The word חַטָּאת “purification” can also mean “sin” (Ex. 34:9). Here it is interpreted in both senses. Babli 9a.. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal¹²⁷In Sifry Deut. 145, the example given is that of a an unknown grave which makes everybody stepping over it impure; the impure person never could know of his impurity.. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat<sup>128</sup>In all occurrences (Note 123) the sentence starts with וּ which also could have been left out. This is read as referring to the first case. Babli 9b., the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and¹²⁹Probably “and” should be replaced by a comma. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation¹³⁰Lev. 10:17, referring to the inauguration of the Tabernacle which was on the first of Nisan. On that day, three purification sacrifices were offered. 1° A calf, special to this day. 2° A he-goat for the Day of the New Moon. 3° A he-goat by the chief of the tribe of Jehudah (Num. 7:16). The verse does not spell out to which of the three it refers.
In the Babli 9b, the entire argument is quoted as explanation of R. Simeon’s statement; also quoted Zevaḥim 101b.. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement)¹³¹Read: Inauguration., there is nothing similar in later generations¹³²The reference is to the calf (Note 129, 1°) which only in this case served as public purification offering; in all other cases the sacrifice is a he-goat. Since the verse is in the singular, it follows that only one purification offering was burnt; the other two were eaten [Sifra Šemini Pereq 2(2)]. It is characterized as “given to lift the sin of the congregation”; this is asserted only of the New Moon’s Day he-goat. It follows that the calf of the Inauguration was particular for the Sanctuary and the priests, Naḥshon’s for his tribe.. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”¹³³Ex. 28:38.. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers¹³⁴It is explicitly stated in the verse that the High Priest’s diadem is only effective to cure unknown disabilities of sacrifices, not of humans. In the Babli, Menaḥot 25a, this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Ze`ira) with a completely different suggestion which is rejected.. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah<sup>135</sup>R. Jehudah accepts the argument of R. Meїr but excludes the he-goats of the Day of Atonement from the group. R. Simeon accepts the argument of R. Jehudah but excludes the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon.. Rebbi Joḥanan<sup>136</sup>One may conjecture that originally the text read ר״י meaning “R. Jehudah” which was misread by a copyist as “R. Joḥanan”. (In Babli texts, ר״י has both meanings with about the same frequency.) agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering¹³⁷Lev. 16:9. One would have expected the sentence to read וְהִקְרִ֤יב אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־הַשָּׂעִ֔יר אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָלָ֥ה עָלָי֛ו הַגּוֹרָ֖ל לַֽײ לַחָטָּאת. Then חַטָּאת would have referred to the he-goat and meant “purification offering.” But the clause וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת “he turns it into חַטָּאת” defines the word as “unintentional sin.” The he-goat whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary turns intentional into unintentional sins.. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed¹³⁸It cannot be used for any other purpose. If the companion scapegoat would die before it is slaughtered, it could not be used for any other purpose; it must be sent grazing until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to be used as a sacrifice, then be sold and its value used to buy other sacrifices. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(5)..