Yoma 62 a, b

Perek V ends with the rabbis discussing the scapegoat and the goat offered on Yom Kippur.  This moves us fluidly into Perek VI which begins with a Mishna: First, these two goats must be identical in appearance, height and value; they must be purchased together.  However, if they are not identical and if they are purchased on different days, they are still valid.  Hmmm.

Next we learn that in the circumstance where one goat dies before both are assigned their tasks (via lottery), another goat can stand in its place.  Further, if it died after the lots were drawn, a new pair of goats can be substituted without consequence.  Taking this a step further, should either goat die, its counterpart steps into its role: the goat to be sacrificed is now the scapegoat or vice versa. There is also the question of what to do when one of the substituted pair of goats dies.  Is its counterpart left to graze and then sold with the money going toward a gift offering?  Or is it left to die?  Finally, Rabbi Yehuda is stringent: if the blood of the sacrificed goat is spilled, the scapegoat is left to die.  If the scapegoat dies, its counterpart's blood should be purposefully spilled and a new pair of goats should be purchased.

The Gemara wonders how we know that the two goats should be identical - and why the rites are valid if they are in fact quite different from each other.  The rabbis introduce other similar examples, including the lepers' offerings of two birds/goats and the dual offerings on Shabbat.  Word repetition provides our rabbis with fodder for metaphor and other creative interpretation.  For example, Leviticus 14:5-6 state "bird, bird" over again in order to amplify.  That extraneous word might symbolize the need for two birds - two birds that are not necessarily identical.

The High Priest might err and slaughter the goats before drawing lots to determine which goat goes to Azazel and which goat is sacrificed to G-d.  He might err in other ways, too - perhaps slaughtering the goats in the wrong place or at another inappropriate time.  We learn that his punishment might be focused only on one of the goats, for example, if he sacrificed it out of 'order'.  If the other was not intended for sacrifice, its slaughter would result in no consequence.

The remainder of the Gemara speaks more of timing errors.  It also touches upon the importance of the Sanctuary doors being open when a sacrificing a peace-offering.  This is because "...he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Leviticus 3:2).  We must remember that the rabbis are understanding their creation of these rites as direct interpretations of what was performed at the mishkan in the desert.

I must take a moment to note the focus on parallels in today's daf.  Today the focus the rabbis primarily focus on 'pairs'.  They do not discuss the larger picture, however.  Why do we choose two goats, one leave, carrying our sins to its ultimate death in the desert (Azazel) and the other to be sacrificed to G-d? For the goats, its death either way.  What might this mean for people?

We can carry our sins with us and leave the community.  We can avoid carrying our sins and give ourselves to G-d.  Neither of those options seems satisfying to me.  Shouldn't there be a goat who carries our sins, takes responsibility for those sins, and then finds a way to live?