Study Yoma folio 40A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא להך לישנא דאמרת פליגי, בשלמא למאן דאמר לא מעכבא, הא מני — רבי יהודה היא,
But according to that second version of the dispute, in which you said that R' Yannai and R' Yoḥanan disagree whether the drawing of the lots is indispensable according to R' Yehuda, but according to R' Neḥemya it certainly is indispensable, then granted, according to the one, i.e., R' Yoḥanan, who said that the drawing of the lots is not indispensable, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda.
אלא למאן דאמר מעכבא, הא מני? תני: מצוה להניח.
However, according to the one, i.e., R' Yannai, who said that both according to R' Yehuda and R' Neḥemya the drawing of the lots is indispensable, then in accordance with whose opinion could this baraita be taught? It would appear that, according to R' Yannai, the baraita does not reflect anyone’s opinion. Perforce, the baraita cannot be referring to drawing the lots, and one must emend and teach the baraita as saying that it is a mitzva to place the lots on the goats.
תא שמע: מצוה להגריל ולהתודות. לא הגריל ולא התודה — כשר. וכי תימא הכי נמי להניח, אימא סיפא, רבי שמעון אומר: לא הגריל — כשר, לא התודה — פסול.
Come and hear another challenge to R' Yannai’s opinion, as presented in the second version of the dispute, which maintains that both R' Yehuda and R' 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 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 R' 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: R' Shimon says: If he does not draw the lots, it is valid. If he does not confess, it is invalid?