Explanation: Alternatively, we could have answered that the Beraisa is R. Shimon, who says that the lottery is not Me'akev.

Retraction: I later found this Beraisa in the Tosefta. Next to it is taught the argument below of R. Yehudah and R. Shimon "Ya'amad Chai..." It concludes "... Divrei R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says...

Since the Seifa is R. Shimon, the Reisha is not R. Shimon.

Explanation: The Gemara does not change the text of the Beraisa. Rather, it explains that "Lo Higril" means that he did not place the lot [on the goat].

Question: Why don't we say that R. Shimon knew [that Rabanan mean that he did not place it on the goat], and he said "v'Lo Higril", i.e. he did not lift it up?

Also now R. Shimon uses "v'Lo Higril" to means that he did not lift it up, even though he is unsure whether Rabanan use "v'Lo Higril" to discuss placing or lifting it up! (I.e. he was not concerned about using the words unlike Rabanan.)

Answer: If R. Shimon was sure that Rabanan use "Lo Higril" to mean that he did not place, he should have said "the lot did not go up";

However, now that we say that he was unsure, for perhaps Rabanan mean that it did not go up, and they call this "Lo Higril", therefore also he said Lo Higril.

Rashi's opinion: This refers to Viduy. This should appear about in the text, before "Ta Shma: the bull is Me'akev the goat..."

Rebuttal (Tosfos): The text in our Gemaros is correct. It refers to the lottery;

We said "alternatively, it is like R. Shimon, who says that the lottery is not Me'akev. Alternatively, it is like R. Yehudah;

Granted, he says that the order is not Me'akev, but the lottery itself is Me'akev if the lot was never lifted [out of the box]...

Explanation: They are consistent with what they taught elsewhere. Just like R. Yehudah argues with R. Shimon when the lottery never went up, he argues only when it went up, and the Mishtale'ach died before sprinkling the blood of the inner goat.

R. Yehudah holds that we spill the blood, bring two other [goats] and do a new lottery on them;

(Beraisa): "Ya'amad Chai" - it (Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach) must be alive until sprinkling the blood of its colleague (the inner goat);

"U'Lechaper Alav" means until he atones through its colleague.

R. Shimon holds that it need not [be alive until sprinkling the blood]. "U'Lechaper Alav" refers to the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach;

The verse means that the goat on which the lot for Azazel came must live until he atones on it, through Viduy. If it died before Viduy, he brings another [goat] without a lottery;

If it died after Viduy, he need not bring another. Even though he did not yet send it, it is not Me'akev.

If the Mishtale'ach died before Viduy and before Zerikas Dam of its colleague, he throws the blood of its colleague and brings another goat without a lottery, and confesses on it;

He does not cast lots on it even for a Mitzvah, since a lottery requires two, like it says "Al Shnei ha'Se'irim";

If he would bring two, he would have to spill the blood [of the first] or dispose of the second on which the lot for Hash-m will come;

This is like I explained according to R. Yehudah. When the Mishtale'ach dies, he must bring two others and cast lots on them anew.

A Mishnah below (62a) teaches like this, and concludes "the second grazes until it gets a Mum. R. Yehudah says, it dies";

R. Yehudah said further that if the Mishtale'ach dies, we spill the blood.

Support: Also in Toras Kohanim, R. Yehudah explicitly says that if one of them died after the lottery, he bring two others and casts lots on them.

Source: R. Yehudah learns from this verse. Immediately after the argument of R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, the text there says "Leshalach Oso" - if the blood spilled, the Mishtale'ach dies. If the Mishtale'ach died, we spill the blood.

This is like R. Yehudah, for R. Shimon holds that if one of them died, he brings its colleague without a lottery

Rather, surely it is like R. Yehudah. He expounds "Ya'amad Chai" in order to atone through it;

Since if the Mishtale'ach died, he can no longer atone through its colleague, he spills the blood.

He also expounds "Lechaper Alav Leshalach Oso" - if he wants to send it, he cannot send it unless he was Mechaper with its colleague.

However, if the blood spilled, the Mishtale'ach dies.

Since R. Yehudah holds that they are Me'akev each other, and he must bring two others, whenever we apply "they will take two goats", we apply "he will put lots on the two goats."

R. Shimon's opinion: However, R. Shimon expounds that until verbal Kaparah, they do not depend on each other. Rather, the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach depends on an action on its own body;

If the blood spilled, the Mishtale'ach does not die. Rather, he confesses on it, since it is alive;

He brings another goat without a lottery. "They will take two goats" does not apply, so also "he will put lots on the two goats" does not apply.

Question: If so, this is difficult according to the opinion (39b) that according to R. Yehudah, the lottery is not Me'akev!

Answer #1: The reason why if the Mishtale'ach died, we must spill the blood, is not due to the lottery. Rather, "he will take two goats" obligates that they be taken together.

Answer #2: Since they were already fixed together like one, if one of them died, also the other is cast off. Therefore, we must bring others. Since we must bring others, we cast a lottery for a Mitzvah;

According to R. Shimon, there is not even a Mitzvah. Since he holds that we bring only one, a lottery does not apply.

Explanation: We do not want to establish R. Akiva like R. Shimon, because R. Yehudah and R. Nechemyah were R. Akiva's Talmidim, like it says in Yevamos 62b. (Presumably, they hold like him.)

Question: We should go back and learn from here that the lottery is Mekadesh from a Kal va'Chomer!

Where ha'Shem (Hash-m's name) is not Mekadesh, the lottery is Mekadesh. Where ha'Shem is Mekadesh, all the more so a lottery should be Mekadesh!

Answer: Just like we expound from "v'Asahu Chatas" that the lottery makes it a Chatas, but ha'Shem does not make it a Chatas, all the more so we expound from "v'Asahu Chatas" that the lottery makes this a Chatas, but not others.

Support: In Kidushin (15b) we say that an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri should be redeemed (go free) through six [years of service] from a Kal va'Chomer;

Citation (15b) Suggestion: One who is not redeemed "b'Eleh", i.e. through relatives, e.g. an Eved Ivri sold to a Yisrael, is redeemed through six. One who is redeemed b'Eleh, all the more so he should be redeemed through six!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: "B'Eleh" - he is redeemed b'Eleh, but not through six.

Citation (cont.) Question: If [the Tana] learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Sachir-Sachir", we should learn from it that he is redeemed "b'Eleh"!

Citation (cont.) Answer: There is different, for it says "Yig'alenu" - this one, and not another.

Inference: It was clear to the Tana that we expound the exclusion "Yig'alenu" - this one, and not another, and this is why we do not learn one sold to a Yisrael from a Kal va'Chomer from one sold to a Nochri;

Even so, he would have learned that one sold to a Nochri is redeemed after six through a Kal va'Chomer;

He would not exclude it from Yig'alenu, and expound "his uncle, cousin or other kin will redeem him, but he will not be redeemed another way."

Question: Why is this different than here, in which we exclude both of them from v'Asahu? [It teaches that] here ha'Shem is not Mekadesh, and elsewhere a lottery is not Mekadesh!

There, he excludes from Yig'alenu only redemption through relatives elsewhere.

He uses another verse to teach that he is not redeemed through six. "V'Im Lo Yig'al b'Eleh" - he is redeemed through these, but not through six;

Answer #1: Perhaps here is different. Since it says v'Asahu, and it says also Chukah, v'Asahu written regarding the lottery reveals about Chukah, that it applies also to the lottery;

Even though R. Yehudah [normally] holds that Chukah does not apply to [matters outside, like], the lottery, v'Asahu reveals that Chukah applies also to the lottery.

Answer #2: Alternatively, because the verse repeated "Asher Alah" twice [it is Me'akev].

Support: This (saying that a Kal va'Chomer can override an exclusion - c:5.i) answers also the following question.

Question: We conclude that the one who says that the lottery is not Me'akev is refuted, but it is fine for the opinion that it is Me'akev (R. Yanai);

Also according to him, we can ask that here we learn from v'Asahu that it is Me'akev, and above he learns from the repetition!

Answer #1: Based on what I explained, this is fine. If not for v'Asahu, which connotes an exclusion, even though the Torah repeated, we would expound a Kal va'Chomer to teach that the lottery is not Me'akev, since the Torah did not repeat ["Asher Alah"] in an expression of a command.

Therefore, we need v'Asahu.

Had the Torah not repeated ["Asher Alah"], we would have expounded v'Asahu only to exclude a lottery from working elsewhere, like I explained regarding Yig'alenu. Therefore, we needed the repetition.

Answer #2: However, without this we could say that we do not challenge the opinion that the lottery is Me'akev, for he could learn from here.

Implied question: Above we said that it is due to the repetition!

Answer: He (R. Yanai) did not say this. The Stam Gemara said so, before it knew the Beraisa of v'Asahu.

Support: We find like this in Shevuos (25a) regarding the argument of Rav and Shmuel about a Shevu'ah that Ploni threw a rock to the sea.

Question (R. Shmuel bar Menachem): How can we learn from here?

Yom Kipur was in the Klal (category) of all Korbanos, of which ha'Shem is Mekadesh, and left the Klal to receive a Chidush law (i.e. unlike the normal laws of Torah), i.e. a lottery;

You cannot return it to its Klal! All agree that it is not learned from its Klal (Zevachim 49a)!

Answer: Even if it left to receive a Chidush law, we can learn them [this case and its Klal] from each other through a Kal va'Chomer or Mah Matzinu, if there is no challenge;

However, if one can challenge it, we do not learn.

Distinction: However, something that was in a Klal, and left the Klal [but not for a Chidush - PF], this was not to teach about itself [rather, to teach about the entire Klal];

This is like burning [which was included in "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah", and the Torah specifically forbids it on Shabbos, to teach that one is liable for each Av Melachah by itself] and similar matters;

We learn from it. Even if one can challenge it, we do not challenge it, just like we do not challenge a Gezeirah Shavah or Hekesh.

Support - Citation (Yevamos 7a) Question: Why do we need "Aleha" to forbid Yibum with Arayos? Why would I think that it is permitted, that we need "Aleha" to forbid?

Citation (cont.) Answer #1: One might have thought that we learn from Eshes Ach. It was in a Klal, and left the Klal to teach...

Citation (cont.) Question: This is like something that was in a Klal, and left to teach a Chidush!...

Citation (cont.) Answer #2: Rather, one might have thought that we learn Achos Ishah through a Mah Matzinu from Eshes Ach.

Question: We already said that this is a Chidush [so we cannot learn from it]. Why did we suggest learning from Eshes Ach?

Answer: You must say that initially, we thought to learn from Eshes Ach like from something that was in a Klal, and left the Klal to teach [not a Chidush]. Even if one can challenge it, we do not challenge it;

The Gemara asked that it is a Chidush. If so, if one can challenge it, we do not learn from it!

The Gemara then said that even though it is a Chidush, we may learn from it through a Mah Matzinu, for there is no challenge to it;

Therefore, we asked that they are different. There (Eshes Ach), there is only one Isur. Here (Achos Ishah), there are two Isurim. Since we can challenge, we do not learn from it, since it is a Chidush.