(a)The Beraisa says 'Mitzvah Lehagril u'Lehisvados'; neither is crucial. What does the Viduy refer to?
(b)What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(c)This Beraisa presents the same Kashya on Rebbi Yanai as we asked from the previous Beraisa - according to the second Lashon. What is the problem with amending the Lashon from 'Lehagril' to 'Lehani'ach' (like we answered there)? Why would that leave us with a Kashya on Rebbi Shimon?
(d)To answer this Kashya, we explain the Beraisa by placing Rebbi Shimon in a dilemma. What does the Tana Kama mean by Lo Higril, and what is Rebbi Shimon's dilemma?
(a)The Beraisa says 'Mitzvah Lehagril u'Lehisvados'. The Viduy refers to the third confession, which the Kohen Gadol made on the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.
(b)Rebbi Shimon says 'Lo Higril, Kasher, Lo Hisvadeh, Pasul'.
(c)If we amend the Lashon from 'Lehagril' to 'Lehani'ach' - it will follow that when Rebbi Shimon says 'Lo Higril, Kasher', he too, means 'Lo Hini'ach', implying that Hagralah, according to him, is crucial. But this cannot be, since Rebbi Shimon says elsewhere, that if one of the two goats dies, he brings another one to re-place it (without the need to make a second Hagralah.
(d)So we explain that in reality, when the Tana Kama said 'Lo Higril', he meant 'Lo Hini'ach'. Rebbi Shimon however, was not sure which of the two the Tana Kama meant. So he said to the Tana Kama: 'If you mean that Hagralah (literally) is not crucial - then I agree with you by Hagralah, but argue with you by Viduy (because I maintain that it is crucial). But if by Hagralah, you mean 'Hanachah' (but Hagralah is crucial), then I argue with you by Hagralah, too.
(a)What is the meaning of ...
1. ... 'Par Me'akev es ha'Sair'? Is this Beraisa speaking by Avodos inside the Kodshim or by those in the Heichal?
2. ... 've'Sa'ir Ein Me'akev es ha'Par'?
(b)Why can the latter not refer to the sprinkling of the blood of the bull in the Heichal (i.e. towards the Paroches), before that of the goat in the Kodesh Kodshim (i.e. towards the area between the poles of the Aron)?
(c)How will establishing the case when he sprinkled the blood of the bull before drawing lots for the goat, pose a Kashya on the second Lashon of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Yanai?
1. 'Par Me'akev es ha'Sa'ir' - means that the Kohen Gadol performed one of the later Avodos of the Sa'ir (la'Hashem) before an Avodah of the Par which should have preceded it, he is not Yotzei the Avodah, and it must be repeated. Both this case and the next refer to the Avodos that were performed inside the Kodesh Kodshim.
2. 've'Sa'ir Ein Me'akev es ha'Par' - means that if one performed one of the later Avodos of the Par before an Avodah of the Sa'ir which should have preceded it, one is nevertheless Yotzei.
(b)The latter case cannot refer to the sprinkling of the blood of the bull in the Heichal (i.e. towards the Paroches), before that of the goat in the Kodesh Kodshim (i.e. towards the area between the poles of the Aron) - to say that one is nevertheless Yotzei with the Avodah of the goat, since by all the Avodos inside the Kodesh Kodshim, the Torah writes "Chukah" (which denotes that the Kohen Gadol was not Yotzei if he changed the order)?
(c)Establishing the case when he sprinkled the blood of the bull before drawing lots for the goat - will mean that the order of Hagralah is not crucial, in which case it follows logically that the Hagralah is not crucial either (or so we currently think). But did Rebbi Yanai not prove (in the second Lashon) that Hagralah is crucial even according to Rebbi Yehudah?
(a)So we try to establish the Beraisa when he sprinkles the blood of the bull in the Heichal (i.e. on the Mizbe'ach) before sprinkling the blood of the goat in the Heichal (towards the Paroches), and the author of the Beraisa will be Rebbi Yehudah. What does the blood of the bull mean?
(b)How would this solve our problem?
(c)Why is this explanation unacceptable?
(a)So we try to establish the Beraisa when he sprinkles the blood of the bull in the Heichal (i.e. on the Mizbe'ach) before sprinkling the blood of the goat in the Heichal (towards the Paroches), and the author of the Beraisa will be Rebbi Yehudah. The blood of the bull actually means the blood of the bull mixed with that of the goat.
(b)This would solve our problem - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, whatever is performed even with the white garments outside the Kodesh Kodshim, is not crucial.
(c)This explanation is unacceptable however - because the Beraisa speaks specifically by the Avodos in the Kodesh Kodshim (as we explained above).
(a)The Gemara finally explains the Beraisa in one of two ways. Either we establish it in one of the previous cases - like Rebbi Shimon. What is the case? What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(b)Or we establish it even like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that the Goral is crucial. How do we now dispense with the Kashya that we asked in 2c.)?
(a)We either establish the Beraisa when he sprinkled the blood of the bull before drawing lots for the goat, and the author of the Beraisa will be Rebbi Shimon, who holds (even according to Rebbi Yanai) that the Goral is not crucial -
(b)Or we establish it even like Rebbi Yehudah, who agrees that, despite the fact that the order of the Goral is not crucial (due to the fact that "Chukah" does not pertain to Avodos that are performed outside the Kodesh Kodshim), the Goral itself is (because the Torah repeats "Asher Alah", as we explained above).
(a)"Yo'omad Chai Lifnei Hash-m Lechaper Alav" (Acharei-Mos). According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Sa'ir la'Azazel had to remain alive until the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem had been sprinkled. For how long did it have to remain alive - according to Rebbi Shimon?
(b)The source of their Machlokes lies in the word "Lechaper". How does each one explain it?
(c)Rebbi Yehudah derives his opinion from the juxtaposition of the phrases "v'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh ... v'Hikriv es ha'Sa'ir he'Chai". How does Rebbi Shimon derive his opinion from the words "Lechaper Alav"?
(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Sa'ir la'Azaz'el had to remain alive - until after the third Viduy (that was said over it).
(b)Rebbi Yehudah explains "Lechaper" to refer to Kaparas Damim, Rebbi Shimon, to Kaparas Devarim.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah derives his opinion from the juxtaposition of the phrases "v'Chilah mi'Kaper es ha'Kodesh" and "v'Hikriv es ha'Sa'ir he'Chai"; Rebbi Shimon learns from "Lechaper Alav" - that we are concerned with its own Kaparah (i.e. Kaparas Devarim), and not the Kaparas Damim of the Sa'ir la'Hashem ('Alav v'Lo al Chavero').
(a)Rebbi Akiva's Talmidim asked him whether the lots needed to be re-drawn - should the Sa'ir la'Hashem come out in his left hand. What was his reply?
(b)Why is this a Kashya on what we learned above - that the lots are a crucial part of the Avodah?
(c)How do we amend the She'eilah?
(a)When Rebbi Akiva's Talmidim asked him whether the lots needed to be re-drawn, should the Sa'ir la'Hashem come out in his left hand - he replied that that was the opinion of the Tzedokim, but not ours.
(b)It would appear from Rebbi Akiva's reply that intrinsically, the Kohen Gadol should be permitted to re-draw the lots, and that it is only not to emulate the Tzedokim, that he does not. But did we not say earlier that the Hagralah is crucial (so how can it possibly be changed)?
(c)We therefore amend the She'eilah to read, not whether, should the Goral la'Hashem come up in his left hand, the Kohen Gadol re-draws the lots, but whether, he simply switches the goat together with the lot, to his right hand, or not.
(a)What does the Beraisa initially learn from the word "v'ha'Sa'ir, Asher Alah Alav ha'Goral la'Hashem ... "?
(b)Why can we not explain it to mean that Hagralah is (just) a Mitzvah?
(c)How does Rava finally explain the Beraisa 'Keyvan she'Alah, Shuv Eino Tzarich'? What does "Alah" come to preclude?
(a)The Beraisa initially learns from the word "v'ha'Sa'ir, Asher Alah Alav ha'Goral la'Hashem ... " - that Hagralah is a Mitzvah and Hanachah is not.
(b)We cannot explain it to mean that Hagralah is (just) a Mitzvah - because then, we will have to explain that Hanachah (placing the Goral on the heads of the goats is not even a Mitzvah either).
(c)Rava finally explains the Beraisa 'Keyvan she'Alah, Shuv Eino Tzarich' to mean that it is not necessary to leave the Goral on the head of the Sa'ir until it is Shechted - once he has placed it on the goat's head, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah (but not that Hanachah is not crucial at all).
(a)What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from "v'Asahu Chatas"?
(b)What Kal va'Chomer would we otherwise have made from other Korbanos?
(c)What would be the significance of 'Kidesh Hashem' with regard to the two goats?
(d)How do we finally prove conclusively from here that even Rebbi Yehudah holds that the Goral is crucial? Who says that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah?
(a)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from "v'Asahu Chatas" - that the Goral makes the one Sa'ir for Hash-m and the other, for Azazel, and not by designation alone.
(b)Otherwise, we would learn a Kal va'Chomer and say, that if there where a Goral is not effective (i.e. to determine which of the two birds of a Zav etc. is an Olah, and which, a Chatas), designation is, certainly, where a Goral is effective, designation should be effective, too.
(c)The significance of 'Kidesh Hashem' - would be that, once the Kohen Gadol has declared the two goats, one for Hash-m and the other, for Azazel, he would not be permitted to change them.
(d)It is clear from this Beraisa, which is a Sifra, that, as far as the issue of the two goats is concerned, the Goral is crucial - and the author of a Stam Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah. This proves the second Lashon of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan (above end of 39b.) to be the correct version.