Study Yoma folio 40A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But according to that second version of the dispute, in which you said that R' Yannai and R' Yoḥanan disagree whether the drawing of the lots is indispensable according to R' Yehuda, but according to R' Neḥemya it certainly is indispensable, then granted, according to the one, i.e., R' Yoḥanan, who
However, according to the one, i.e., R' Yannai, who said that both according to R' Yehuda and R' Neḥemya the drawing of the lots is indispensable, then in accordance with whose opinion could this baraita be taught? It would appear that, according to R' Yannai, the baraita does not reflect anyone’s
Come and hear another challenge to R' Yannai’s opinion, as presented in the second version of the dispute, which maintains that both R' Yehuda and R' Neḥemya hold that drawing of the lots is indispensable. A baraita teaches: It is a mitzva for the High Priest to draw the lots and to confess upon the
The Talmud clarifies the challenge from the latter clause: In this baraita, what is the meaning of: He did not draw the lots? If we say it means he did not place the lots on the goats, then by inference R' Shimon holds that while the placing is not indispensable, the drawing of the lots is indispens
The Talmud responds: R' Yannai’s opinion can still be defended by claiming that R' Shimon did not know precisely what the rabbis were saying, i.e., whether they were referring to the drawing or the placing of the lots. Therefore, in his response to them, this is what he is saying: If when you say: