Yoma 65 a, b

The rabbis agree that when an animal designated as a sin offering is lost, it is replaced.  If the original is found at a later time, it is left to die.  However, if the original has been designated as a sin-offering, it carries special status as 'consecrated'.  What do we do with something that is consecrated if it cannot fulfil its designated service as another animal or item stood in?

Today's daf looks at the rabbis' considerations around this circumstance with particular attention given to the pair of goats consecrated on Yom Kippur - one to Azazel and the other as sacrifice.  How might one of those goats become lost?  Should one goat or both goats be replaced? Should there be a new lottery for this new pair of goats?  When should that lottery happen?  What if one of the first pair of goats has already been sent off to Azazel when the other is lost?

The rabbis consider another part of our last mishna. When is a goat left to die?  What if the blood of the sprinkled inappropriately?  Once the mitzvah of the lottery and the mitzvah of the scapegoat have been performed, if there was a  problem with the timing of pouring the blood out at the Altar, why should another goat be left to die?  Amud (a) helps us to understand the rabbis' questions by comparing these questions to another situation.  If shekels were collected for the Temple and given to a messenger to deliver - and then they were stolen, those 'lost' shekels would remain consecrated.  However, if these shekels were found after the larger collection was closed, would they be dedicated to the Temple toward this year's or next year's collections?

The rabbis argue over this analogy.  If a bull or goat for Yom Kippur sacrifice is lost, replaced, and then found, should the original animal be left to die or should it graze until it develops a blemish and then be sold as a gift-offering (a sin-offering would not be left to die and thus the animal must be a gift- or a guilt-offering)?  Why not keep this found, consecrated animal until the next year and sacrifice it then, like the shekel example?  Some rabbis argue that communal offerings, like this animal would be, are only brought by donations of this current year.  That works for the goat, but the bull is an individual offering.  What about a found bull?

The rabbis wonder about repeating the lotteries, designating the found bull as a sin-offering whose owners had died, whose year has passed.  They look at whether that year was measured as 365 days or 12 months, which would suggest different statuses on the animal.

A note by Steinsaltz helps us to understand this text.  First, the rabbis do not want to kill a consecrated animal, which would be [akin to] destroying consecrated property.  Second, they do not wish to cause needless suffering to an animal, as Rava saw this as a Torah prohibition.  Each of the rabbis argue that the penalty is severe.  It is not clear to me whether they believe that the animal should die because that would somehow be the more 'humane' solution to this problem.

The notion of leaving an animal to graze, leaving it to die, and sacrificing it are fascinating and disturbing ways of thinking about animals as intermediaries between ourselves and G-d.  If animals are standing in for guilt, sin, gifts, etc., our relationship with G-d as a Jewish people is dependent upon those animals.  In addition, the notion of perfection versus 'blemished' and the idea of sending an animal to Azazel are also waiting to be unpacked.  I believe that tomorrow's daf continues with this stream of thought and I hope to write more about these ideas soon.