Yoma 66 a, b

Our first learning is about the bull or goat that might be left to die or left to graze.  The rabbis further clarify why we would choose to leave one of these Yom Kippur offerings to die rather than to graze if they were consecrated but not offered.

Of interest is the method of killing animals. Shechitah involves a very specific form of killing with a sharp knife; it would seem that a main priority is minimizing the suffering of the animal.  However, earlier in Yoma we learn that there might have been a requirement for the High Priest to cut only 3/4 of the two organs to be cut and then another priest would complete the slaughter.  In my mind, even considering such a 'pause' is barbaric.  Not what I would consider 'minimizing the suffering' of an animal.

We have been learning more about the practice of leaving an animal to die. This involves locking an animal in a small area without access to food or water so that it perishes on its own.  Such cruelty is hard to fathom.  The rabbis do speak of the need for this type of killing: it ensures that a consecrated animal is not misused in any way: if we actively slaughter a consecrated goat outside of a religious rite, for example, we are going against the halacha regarding the slaughter of that animal.  And of course we cannot sell it or leave it to graze to keep with other halachot.  But to leave an animal to die -- I wonder if the Jewish people avoided this practice at all costs.

A new Mishna speak of the sins of the people being placed on a goat's Head by the High Priest. The Gemara wonders: why is the Mishna phrased in a way that speaks only of the sins of the Jewish people and not those of the High Priest?  But perhaps it is assumed that a priest is in charge, as atonement is granted through the rituals performed by priests.  And if the scapegoat is designated before Shabbat, and it becomes ill, can the priest carry it?  The scapegoat is a living being, after all, which are allowed to be carried on Shabbat.  The rabbis then debate whether the laws of Shabbat regarding eiruvin and carrying apply on Yom Kippur.

What happens when the scapegoat is pushed from the cliff but does not die?  The rabbis argue whether the goat should be killed or whether it should be left to die.  Here is another example of a less than exemplary model of minimizing the suffering of animals.

In asking questions about the scapegoat, we move into a fascinating section of Talmud regarding interactions with Rabbi Eliezer.  In a note, we learn that Rabbi Eliezer was a Sage from before the destruction of the second Temple.  He was said to be a descendant of Moses with a wealthy family who came to learn Torah only after his teenage years.  When it came to halachic rulings, Rabbi Eliezer did not answer questions directly unless he had learned the answer from one of his teachers.  He was innovative and forthcoming in other matters.

He is asked about a number of things and his responses seem to be diversions.  However, Rabbi Eliezer is interpreted as in fact answering questions through metaphor and creative referencing.  One of the interactions is with a "wise woman" who wants to know why all people shared equally in the sin of the golden calf and yet they were punished with different ailments.  To this, Rabbi Eliezer tells us that women should be spinning and not asking such questions.  The wise woman's questions are answered, however, by both Rav and Levi.

One of our notes explains that perhaps this wise woman should not have asked such a question to a Sage; a lesser authority could have answered.  But this is not in line with our usual understanding of Jewish thought: aren't all children supposed to ask questions, whether wise or not knowing how to ask?  Or perhaps this was only meant to apply to male children on Pesach.

I find it particularly interesting that the Talmud notes that this is a "wise woman".  She was not simply a woman, and she was not described in any other way: young or old, beautiful or plain.  Her question was important enough to be answered and to have those answers recorded in our oral Torah.  So why Rabbi Eliezer's disdain?

Perhaps there have been arguments about the role of women in Judaism from the times of the Temple - or even earlier.  Perhaps there were some rabbis, like Rabbi Eliezer, who wanted women to maintain only roles of service in the home.  And other rabbis, like Rav and Levi, might have been interested in hearing women's voices and having their questions inform the narrative of our tradition.