Daf Ditty Yoma 40: Controversies over the Temple rites 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 1 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? 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. 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. 2 3 4 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. 5 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. 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. RASHI 6 Summary Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1 The chachaimim hold that putting the lot on the respective goats is not essential nor is the confession done on the goat la’azazel (the wilderness). Rabbi Shimon holds the confession is essential but the lottery is not. The Gemora brings a Baraisa which appears to say that the lottery to determine which goat is bought as a sacrifice and which goat is sent to the wilderness is not essential to the Yom Kippur 1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yoma_40.pdf 7 service. The Gemora rejects this by saying the chachaimim were speaking about placing the lots on the heads of the goats. The actual lottery, however, is indeed essential. The Gemora then brings Rabbi Shimon who apparently agrees with the chachamim’s ruling in regards to the lottery, but disagree with their ruling in regards to the confession said over the goat. Whereas the chachamim hold the confession is not essential, Rabbi Shimon holds it is. The difficulty is that we know from elsewhere that Rabbi Shimon holds the entire lottery is not essential. How then, can Rabbi Shimon agree with chachamim who hold that putting the lots on the goats is not essential, but the actual lottery is essential? The Gemora answers that Rabbi Shimon didn’t actually know what the chachamim said. He therefore responds to them, “If you are referring to the actual lottery I disagree only in regards to the confession. If, however, you are referring to putting the lots on the goats, I disagree with you on two matters, for I maintain that the actual lottery is also not essential. Lottery on Shabbos The Pardas Yosef (Vayikra p. 197) brings a question that is asked on the 'Taz Hayodua' - the famous Taz. The Taz, in three places in Shulchan Aruch states a rule that the chachamim cannot prohibit something that is explicitly stated in the Torah. According to this, how could the chachamim prohibit certain kinds of lotteries on Shabbos (as an injunction that it is similar to business or it might lead to writing), when the Torah explicitly said that this was done on Yom Kippur with the two goats? The Seder Yoma (63) answers according to the Taz himself. The Taz is bothered as to why the chachamim did not prohibit the blowing of the shofar on Yom Tov (because of the injunction of perhaps one would come to fix musical instruments) in the same way they prohibited it on Shabbos. He answers that the Torah explicitly commands to blow shofar on Rosh Hashana and that cannot be uprooted, however a decree that it should not be blown on Shabbos does not uproot the verse, for it will still be blown on Yom Tov when it is not Shabbos. Similarly, even though the Sages prohibited lotteries on Shabbos - that did not uproot the verse of having the raffle on Yom Kippur. Switching the Lots The students asked Rebbe Akiva if the lot for the korbon laHashem came out in the kohen gadol's left hand, can he return it to his right. This question was based on it being a good omen for the goat which will be used for the chatas to emerge in his right hand. Rabbi Akiva answered that we should not leave room for the tzidukkim to ridicule us. The Gemora asks on the question: how could one possibly switch according to the Tanna that holds that the lottery is essential to the service. Tosfos HaRosh and Gevuros Ari ask that this question should be universally accepted, for even the Tanna who holds that the lottery is not essential would 8 agree that if it was done, the lots have established which goat is for which korban; so how can the kohen gadol possibly switch it? The Mikdash Dovid (24 -3) answers that it is evident from here that according to the Tanna that holds that the lottery is not necessary, even if it was done, that was not what designated each goat to its particular destiny; rather, it was the words of the kohen. Even if the lots indicated one way, the kohen (if not for the tzidukkim problem) could have switched them. Another question can be asked. What would the benefit be to switch the left to the right? The result of the lots already shattered our hopes of the good omen? THE NECESSITY TO SELECT THE GOATS WITH LOTS Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2 The Gemara discusses whether the process of Hagralah (or Goral), the drawing of lots to select the Sa'ir la'Shem and the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, is Me'akev or not. Must the Kohen Gadol perform the Goral to select the goats, or does it suffice if he verbally designates each goat? The Gemara attempts to answer this question from a statement made by Rebbi Akiva in response to his students' question.