Study Yoma folio 41A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
סתם סיפרא מני — רבי יהודה, וקא תני: הגורל עושה חטאת, ואין השם עושה חטאת. אלמא הגרלה מעכבא, תיובתא דמאן דאמר הגרלה לא מעכבא. תיובתא.
The Talmud now formulates the proof: Who is the author of anonymous halakhic statements made in the Sifra? R' Yehuda. And this baraita from the Sifra teaches: The lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering. Apparently, according to R' Yehuda, the lottery is indispensable. This refutation of the opinion of the one who says that the lottery is not indispensable, i.e., R' Yannai, according to the second version of his dispute, is indeed a conclusive refutation.
אמר רב חסדא: אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא או בלקיחת בעלים, או בעשיית כהן.
§ The Talmud addresses a similar case of designating offerings: Rav Ḥisda said: Nests, a pair of birds of which one bird must be sacrificed as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering become designated for the specific type of offering only at one of two distinct points: Either upon the owner’s taking of them, when he initially purchases and consecrates them for his offering, or upon the priest’s actual performance of the sacrificial rite upon them.
אמר רב שימי בר אשי: מאי טעמא דרב חסדא, דכתיב: ״ולקחה״ ״ועשה״. או בלקיחה, או בעשייה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is written in one verse: “And she should take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering” (Leviticus 12:8). In another verse, it is also written: “And the priest should offer them, the one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 15:15). The verses mention only the possibility of designating the offering either upon taking them or upon the performance of the sacrificial rite.