Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 15, 2019 | 讟状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Keritot 25

At what stage does it become forbidden to benefit from the egla arufa (heifer whose neck is broken)?聽Can one bring a provisional guilt offering everyday? When one possibly trangressed any negative prohibition? Or only on one that if one did it intentionally one would receive karet and unwittingly would bring a sin offering? What are the proofs for each approach? On what sins does Yom Kippur atone for and on what sins does it not? How is this derived from the Torah?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讘讛 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讗讜住专转讛

Rabbi Yannai says: I heard an answer with regard to the boundary, i.e., the stage, beyond which it is prohibited, but I have forgotten what it is; and the members of the group of Sages were inclined to say that its descent to the rough, dried-up stream, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders it prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 驻专转 讞讟讗转 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say that the prohibition takes effect when the animal is alive? I say it from that which we learned in a mishna (岣llin 81b): With regard to one who slaughters the red heifer of purification, or an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck is broken, all of which are animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, Rabbi Shimon exempts one who slaughters them from receiving lashes for violating the prohibition of the slaughter of a mother and its offspring, if the mother was slaughtered on that same day; and the Rabbis deem him liable.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Hamnuna explains his proof: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say the prohibition takes effect from the time when the animal is alive, Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this matter, as Rabbi Shimon holds: Slaughter that does not render the animal fit for consumption is not considered slaughter. The slaughter of the heifer does not render it fit for consumption, as it was already prohibited to derive benefit from the animal while it is alive. Therefore, he does not violate the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讞专 注专讬驻讛 讗诪讗讬 驻讟专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗

Rav Hamnuna continues: And the Rabbis say: Slaughter that does not render the animal fit for consumption is considered slaughter, and therefore he is liable for the slaughter of a mother and its offspring. But if you say that the prohibition does not take effect until after the breaking of the neck of the heifer, why does Rabbi Shimon exempt him; it is a slaughter that renders the animal fit for consumption?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注讙诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 驻住讜诇 讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 驻住讜诇 讘驻专讛 讻砖专 讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 驻专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讙诇讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇讛

And if you would say the reason is that Rabbi Shimon holds that one who performs the breaking of the neck of the heifer by slaughter has performed the mitzva in a fit manner, and consequently that slaughter rendered the heifer prohibited with regard to deriving benefit from it and it is therefore unfit for consumption, that suggestion cannot be correct. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣llin 23b): That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer. How so? With regard to the red heifer, it is fit with slaughter; it is unfit with breaking the neck. With regard to the heifer whose neck is to be broken, it is fit with breaking the neck; it is unfit with slaughter.

讗讬砖转讬拽 诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 注讙诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖讬专讛

Rava, who holds that the prohibition takes effect only from when the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken, was silent, as he had no immediate answer. After Rav Hamnuna left the study hall, Rava said: What is the reason I did not say to him that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the ruling of that mishna and holds that a heifer whose neck is to be broken is fit even if it is killed by slaughtering?

讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗 谞砖转诪讬讟 转谞讗 讚谞砖诪注讬谞谉 注讙诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: But if Rava had given that answer, Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to that claim: The mishna would not have left out the opinion of the tanna who teaches us that a heifer whose neck is to be broken is fit if it is killed by slaughtering. In other words, there should be some source for this opinion, and in the absence of a source, there is no basis for saying that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚转谞谉 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注专驻讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讞讬讬诐 讗诪讗讬 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讛讗 讗讬转住专讗 诇讛 诪讞讬讬诐

Rava said: From where do I say that the prohibition takes effect when the animal鈥檚 neck is broken? I say it from that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, that is not so; if the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated, like all other animals. And if you say that the prohibition takes effect from the time when the animal is alive, why does it go out and graze among the flock? Wasn鈥檛 the animal prohibited already from when it was alive?

转谞讬 注讚 砖诇讗 谞专讗讬转 诇注专讬驻讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪砖谞注专驻讛 转拽讘专 讘诪拽讜诪讛 转谞讬 诪砖谞专讗讬转 诇注专讬驻讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: One should teach the mishna as follows: If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer was fit for having its neck broken, i.e., before it descended to a rough, dried-up stream, it shall go out and graze among the flock, but after that time it is prohibited to derive benefit from the animal. Rava raises a further difficulty: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place. This indicates that the prohibition takes effect only after the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: Teach that the mishna says: If the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer was fit for having its neck broken it shall be buried.

讗诐 讻谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖注诇 讛住驻拽 讘讗讛 诪转讞诇讛 讻讬驻专讛 住驻讬拽讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讜讗讬 诪讞讬讬诐 注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专讛 住驻讬拽转讛

Rava continues to ask: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: The reason for this halakha is that from the outset, the heifer whose neck is broken comes to atone for a situation of uncertainty. If its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled, as it atoned for its uncertainty and that uncertainty is gone. And if the mishna is discussing a case where the animal is alive, the heifer has still not atoned for its uncertainty. Rather, it is clear from the last clause of the mishna that the prohibition takes effect when the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara explains: Although it is evident that the mishna rules that the prohibition takes effect when the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken, this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna: It is stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the guilt offering of a leper, and there are offerings that atone, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, all of which are brought inside the Temple. And it is also stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the birds of a leper鈥檚 purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the heifer whose neck is broken, that are brought outside the Temple.

诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 [讜诪讻驻专] 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专

The baraita continues: Therefore, the offerings brought outside the Temple are compared to those offered inside: Just as with regard to the offerings that enable or atone which are stated in the Torah that are sacrificed inside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones, as even the former has portions of it that are burned on the altar, so too, with regard to offerings that enable or atone which are stated in the Torah that are sacrificed outside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables, e.g., the birds of a leper, like the offering that atones, e.g., the heifer whose neck is broken, in that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from either while they are still alive. According to this baraita, the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited while it is still alive.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讘讻诇 注转 砖讬专爪讛 讛讜讗 讛讬讛 谞拽专讗 讗砖诐 讞住讬讚讬诐 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 砖讛讬讛 诪转谞讚讘 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讞讜抓 诪讗讞专 讬讜诐 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day and at any time that he chooses, even if there is no uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and this type of offering was called the guilt offering of the pious, as they brought it due to their constant concern that they might have sinned. They said about Bava ben Buta that he would volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day except for one day after Yom Kippur, when he would not bring the offering.

讗诪专 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 诇讬 讛讬讬转讬 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讬 讛诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇住驻拽 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 注诇 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

Bava ben Buta said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that if they would have allowed me, I would have brought a guilt offering even on that day. But they would say to me: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. And the Rabbis say: One brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether he performed a sin for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering.

讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讬讚讜 住驻拽 注讘讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 驻讟讜专 砖讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讻驻专

Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur.By contrast, those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. With regard to one who encountered uncertainty as to whether he performed a sin on Yom Kippur, even if it was at nightfall at the end of the day, he is exempt, as the entire day atones for uncertain sins.

讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 住驻拽 讜注讘专 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讻砖专转 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讛讘讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗诐 诪砖谞诪诇拽讛 谞讜讚注 转拽讘专

A woman upon whom it is incumbent to bring a bird sin offering due to uncertainty, e.g., uncertainty with regard to whether or not her miscarriage obligated her to bring the sin offering of a woman who gave birth, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, is liable to bring it after Yom Kippur. This is because the offering does not come as atonement for a sin; rather, it renders her eligible to partake of the meat of offerings. With regard to this bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if it became known to her that she was exempt from bringing the offering after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched, the bird must be buried.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗 诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讚讘讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: What is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day and at any time that he chooses? If it enters your mind that a provisional guilt offering is obligatory, then why does he bring a sin offering when it becomes known to him that he sinned? In that case, he has already fulfilled his obligation by sacrificing a provisional guilt offering. Rather, conclude from this inference that a provisional guilt offering is a gift offering.

讜专讘谞谉 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讞讜讘讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇讛讙谉 注诇讬讜 讚讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 讙讜驻谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

And the Rabbis would respond: It is a burnt offering and a peace offering that come as a vow and gift offering, but a sin offering and a guilt offering, including a provisional guilt offering, are obligatory. And as for a provisional guilt offering, this is the reason that he brings it before his sin is known to him: It is not to achieve atonement, but to protect him from suffering until his sin is known to him, as the Torah spared the bodies of the Jewish people by commanding them to bring this offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讻注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讚讗转讜 讘讞讜讘讛 讜讗转讜 讘谞讚讘讛 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 谞诪讬 讚讗转讬 讘讞讜讘讛 讗转讬 谞诪讬 讘谞讚讘讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, one can suggest that perhaps a provisional guilt offering is like a burnt offering and a peace offering: Just as a burnt offering and a peace offering sometimes come as obligatory offerings, e.g., the Festival peace offering and the burnt offering of appearance brought on the pilgrimage Festivals, and they sometimes come as gift offerings, likewise, a provisional guilt offering also sometimes comes as an obligatory offering and sometimes comes as a gift offering as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 注讬拽专 讘谞讚讘讛 讻转讬讘讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注讬拽专 讘讞讜讘讛 讻转讬讘

Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣, son of Rava: A burnt offering and a peace offering are primarily written, i.e., discussed, in the context of a gift offering, and they are brought as obligatory offerings only in specific cases mentioned explicitly in the Torah. By contrast, a provisional guilt offering is primarily written in the context of an obligatory offering, similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗

Rabbi 岣yya teaches before Rava:

讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讗 注诇 讛谞讘诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 讗转讬

A provisional guilt offering comes for the uncertain consumption of a non-kosher animal carcass. Rava said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that one brings a provisional guilt offering only for uncertain performance of a matter for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering? But here the consumption of an animal carcass is a violation of a prohibition that does not entail karet or a sin offering. And if you are referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he maintains that a provisional guilt offering comes also as a gift offering, without any uncertain sin.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪转谞讬转 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 转谞讬转讛 拽诪讬 诪专 讜诪谞讜 专讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讜 讚转谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛住驻拽

Rabbi 岣yya said to Rava: What is the reason that you did not learn from Rabba? Many times I taught this baraita before the Master. And who is the Master? It is Rabba. And he said to me: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; nevertheless, it is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 own opinion that a provisional guilt offering is brought as a gift offering, but rather it is in accordance with the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta. As we learned in the mishna: But they say to him: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. According to this opinion, one brings a provisional guilt offering for any manner of uncertain sin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 (讘砖讙讙讛) 讜讗砖诐

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta and said that one may bring a provisional guilt offering for any uncertain sin, not only those stated by the Rabbis? With regard to a provisional guilt offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if anyone sins, and does any of the mitzvot of the Lord which may not be done, and he did not know, and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). This indicates that one brings a provisional guilt offering for any form of sin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讞诇讘

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One brings a provisional guilt offering only for the uncertain performance of a matter for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering? They derive this halakha by a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渕itzvot鈥 with regard to a provisional guilt offering and the word 鈥渕itzvot鈥 from a sin offering of forbidden fat, i.e., a standard sin offering, where it is written: 鈥淎ny of the mitzvot of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 4:27).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

The Gemara explains the verbal analogy: Just as there, it is referring to a sin for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, a provisional guilt offering is brought for a matter for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讗砖诪讜转 诪讻驻专讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞诪砖讛 讗砖诪讜转 诪讻驻专讬谉 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: Five guilt offerings atone, whereas a provisional guilt offering does not atone with a complete atonement. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of this baraita saying? Rav Yosef said that this is what the baraita is saying: Five guilt offerings atone with a complete atonement to the extent that no further atonement is necessary, but a provisional guilt offering does not atone with a complete atonement, since if it later became known to him that he sinned, he must bring a sin offering to achieve atonement.

讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讗 注诇 讛谞讘诇讛

And this statement of the baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, i.e., the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta, as they say: A provisional guilt offering may come for an uncertain eating of a non-kosher animal carcass. In the case of one who brought a provisional guilt offering for a sin such as the uncertain eating of an animal carcass and later found out that he sinned, he does not bring a sin offering and does not require any additional atonement.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 讗砖诪讜转 讗讬谉 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转谉 讚讻讬 诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转讜 讚诇讻讬 诪转讬讬讚注 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讻讚转谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉

Ravina said that this is what the baraita is teaching: With regard to five guilt offerings, nothing else achieves the atonement that they achieve, as one brings these offerings when it becomes known to him that he sinned. By contrast, with regard to a provisional guilt offering, another item achieves the atonement that it achieves, as one does not bring this offering when his uncertain sin becomes known to him. As we learned in the mishna: Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur, whereas those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur.

讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 讻讜壮 拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 With regard to those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings, the mishna teaches: Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. By contrast, those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that Yom Kippur does not atone for those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟讜诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诪讻驻专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 诪讻驻专

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi 岣nina says that the verse states with regard to Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the holy place, from the impurity of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that sins, i.e., violations committed unwittingly, are similar to transgressions, violations committed intentionally: Just as Yom Kippur atones for transgressions, which are not subject to atonement through an offering, as personal sin offerings are brought only for unwitting sins, so too with regard to sins, Yom Kippur atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but Yom Kippur does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 讘砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 讚诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛 讗讘诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚诪讻驻专 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 讚诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讻驻专

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But how can one derive this matter from the verse? When that verse is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur,which does not atone for a known violation of a mitzva, but only for a violation that is unknown. Perhaps only that offering does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering, but with regard to the scapegoat that is dispatched to Azazel, which atones for a known violation of a mitzva, I could say to you that it atones even for those sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讛讻讗 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 [讗转] 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专 讜诪讬注讟讬讛 拽专讗 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专

Rather, Abaye said that the matter is derived from here, a verse that deals with the scapegoat: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). This indicates that sins are similar to transgressions: Just as the scapegoat atones for transgressions, which are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too with regard to sins, the scapegoat atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering. And the verse limited the scope of atonement specifically with regard to the scapegoat, in order to say that despite the scapegoat鈥檚 greater capacity to achieve atonement, it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛谞讬 驻砖注讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讬 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 讛讝讚讜谉 讻砖讙讙讛

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: From where is it known that those transgressions mentioned in that verse are not subject to atonement through an offering? Perhaps those transgressions are subject to atonement through an offering, as we learned in a mishna (9a): There are four who bring an offering for an intentional transgression as they do for an unwitting sin: One who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant, a nazirite who became ritually impure, one who falsely takes the oath of testimony that he does not know testimony on behalf of another, and one who falsely takes the oath on a deposit that the item belonging to another is not in his possession. The Gemara does not provide Abaye鈥檚 answer to this question at this point.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诪讻驻专 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诪讻驻专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 诪讻驻专

It was also stated with regard to this matter that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he related a statement that Rabbi Yosei says that Reish Lakish says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). This indicates that sins are similar to transgressions: Just as the scapegoat atones for transgressions, which are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too with regard to sins, the scapegoat atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗拽砖讬 诇讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛谞讬 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讱 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 讛讝讚讜谉 讻砖讙讙讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 专讜讘 驻砖注讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 专讜讘 讻转讬讘

Abaye said: I also said that this halakha was derived from that verse, and Rav Dimi raised the following difficulty before me: From where is it known that those transgressions mentioned in the verse are not subject to atonement through an offering? Perhaps those transgressions are subject to atonement through an offering, as we learned in a mishna that there are four who bring an offering for an intentional transgression as they do for an unwitting sin. Ravin said to Abaye: The majority of transgressions are not subject to atonement through an offering. Abaye said to him: Is the term majority written in that verse?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪专讬砖讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜转谞讬讗 注讜谞讜转 讗诇讜 讝讚讜谞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注讜谞讛 讘讛

Rather, Abaye said that an answer to Rav Dimi鈥檚 question can be inferred from the beginning of the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 16:21), and it is taught in a baraita: The term 鈥渋niquities鈥 is referring to those sins that were performed intentionally. And similarly, the verse states: 鈥淏ecause he despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him鈥 (Numbers 15:31).

讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讻诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗拽砖讜讬讬 诇驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专

Abaye continues: If so, when it states: 鈥淎nd all their transgressions, for all their sins,鈥 why do I need the verse to mention 鈥渁ll their transgressions,鈥 which is also referring to sins that were intentionally performed? It is written to juxtapose sins to transgressions: Just as the scapegoat atones for transgressions, the majority of which are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too with regard to sins, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讞讟讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专 讘讜 讗诇讗 讛诪拽讜诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

搂 The mishna teaches: Those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: 鈥淔or on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be pure before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:30). This indicates that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, i.e., an uncertain sin that renders one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 拽讚诪讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬转讬

Rav Ta岣ifa, father of Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa, said in the name of Rava: With regard to the first clause in the mishna as well: Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur, one cannot bring a convincing proof

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 25

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讙讘讜诇 砖诪注转讬 讘讛 讜砖讻讞转讬 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬专讬讚转讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 讗讜住专转讛

Rabbi Yannai says: I heard an answer with regard to the boundary, i.e., the stage, beyond which it is prohibited, but I have forgotten what it is; and the members of the group of Sages were inclined to say that its descent to the rough, dried-up stream, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders it prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 驻专转 讞讟讗转 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say that the prohibition takes effect when the animal is alive? I say it from that which we learned in a mishna (岣llin 81b): With regard to one who slaughters the red heifer of purification, or an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck is broken, all of which are animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, Rabbi Shimon exempts one who slaughters them from receiving lashes for violating the prohibition of the slaughter of a mother and its offspring, if the mother was slaughtered on that same day; and the Rabbis deem him liable.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Hamnuna explains his proof: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say the prohibition takes effect from the time when the animal is alive, Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this matter, as Rabbi Shimon holds: Slaughter that does not render the animal fit for consumption is not considered slaughter. The slaughter of the heifer does not render it fit for consumption, as it was already prohibited to derive benefit from the animal while it is alive. Therefore, he does not violate the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗讞专 注专讬驻讛 讗诪讗讬 驻讟专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗

Rav Hamnuna continues: And the Rabbis say: Slaughter that does not render the animal fit for consumption is considered slaughter, and therefore he is liable for the slaughter of a mother and its offspring. But if you say that the prohibition does not take effect until after the breaking of the neck of the heifer, why does Rabbi Shimon exempt him; it is a slaughter that renders the animal fit for consumption?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注讙诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛转谞谉 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 驻住讜诇 讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 驻住讜诇 讘驻专讛 讻砖专 讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 驻专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讙诇讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇讛

And if you would say the reason is that Rabbi Shimon holds that one who performs the breaking of the neck of the heifer by slaughter has performed the mitzva in a fit manner, and consequently that slaughter rendered the heifer prohibited with regard to deriving benefit from it and it is therefore unfit for consumption, that suggestion cannot be correct. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣llin 23b): That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer. How so? With regard to the red heifer, it is fit with slaughter; it is unfit with breaking the neck. With regard to the heifer whose neck is to be broken, it is fit with breaking the neck; it is unfit with slaughter.

讗讬砖转讬拽 诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 注讙诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖讬专讛

Rava, who holds that the prohibition takes effect only from when the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken, was silent, as he had no immediate answer. After Rav Hamnuna left the study hall, Rava said: What is the reason I did not say to him that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the ruling of that mishna and holds that a heifer whose neck is to be broken is fit even if it is killed by slaughtering?

讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讗 谞砖转诪讬讟 转谞讗 讚谞砖诪注讬谞谉 注讙诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: But if Rava had given that answer, Rav Hamnuna could have said to you in response to that claim: The mishna would not have left out the opinion of the tanna who teaches us that a heifer whose neck is to be broken is fit if it is killed by slaughtering. In other words, there should be some source for this opinion, and in the absence of a source, there is no basis for saying that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚转谞谉 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注专驻讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讞讬讬诐 讗诪讗讬 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 讛讗 讗讬转住专讗 诇讛 诪讞讬讬诐

Rava said: From where do I say that the prohibition takes effect when the animal鈥檚 neck is broken? I say it from that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, that is not so; if the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated, like all other animals. And if you say that the prohibition takes effect from the time when the animal is alive, why does it go out and graze among the flock? Wasn鈥檛 the animal prohibited already from when it was alive?

转谞讬 注讚 砖诇讗 谞专讗讬转 诇注专讬驻讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪砖谞注专驻讛 转拽讘专 讘诪拽讜诪讛 转谞讬 诪砖谞专讗讬转 诇注专讬驻讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: One should teach the mishna as follows: If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer was fit for having its neck broken, i.e., before it descended to a rough, dried-up stream, it shall go out and graze among the flock, but after that time it is prohibited to derive benefit from the animal. Rava raises a further difficulty: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place. This indicates that the prohibition takes effect only after the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: Teach that the mishna says: If the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer was fit for having its neck broken it shall be buried.

讗诐 讻谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖注诇 讛住驻拽 讘讗讛 诪转讞诇讛 讻讬驻专讛 住驻讬拽讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讜讗讬 诪讞讬讬诐 注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专讛 住驻讬拽转讛

Rava continues to ask: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: The reason for this halakha is that from the outset, the heifer whose neck is broken comes to atone for a situation of uncertainty. If its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled, as it atoned for its uncertainty and that uncertainty is gone. And if the mishna is discussing a case where the animal is alive, the heifer has still not atoned for its uncertainty. Rather, it is clear from the last clause of the mishna that the prohibition takes effect when the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara explains: Although it is evident that the mishna rules that the prohibition takes effect when the heifer鈥檚 neck is broken, this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna: It is stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the guilt offering of a leper, and there are offerings that atone, e.g., a sin offering or guilt offering, all of which are brought inside the Temple. And it is also stated in the Torah that there are offerings that enable one to partake of sacrificial foods, e.g., the birds of a leper鈥檚 purification ritual, and offerings that atone, e.g., the heifer whose neck is broken, that are brought outside the Temple.

诪讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专 讛讗诪讜专 讘驻谞讬诐 注砖讛 讘讜 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专 [讜诪讻驻专] 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜抓 注砖讛 诪讻砖讬专 讻诪讻驻专

The baraita continues: Therefore, the offerings brought outside the Temple are compared to those offered inside: Just as with regard to the offerings that enable or atone which are stated in the Torah that are sacrificed inside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables like the offering that atones, as even the former has portions of it that are burned on the altar, so too, with regard to offerings that enable or atone which are stated in the Torah that are sacrificed outside the Temple, the Torah made the offering that enables, e.g., the birds of a leper, like the offering that atones, e.g., the heifer whose neck is broken, in that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from either while they are still alive. According to this baraita, the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited while it is still alive.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讘讻诇 注转 砖讬专爪讛 讛讜讗 讛讬讛 谞拽专讗 讗砖诐 讞住讬讚讬诐 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 砖讛讬讛 诪转谞讚讘 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讞讜抓 诪讗讞专 讬讜诐 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day and at any time that he chooses, even if there is no uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and this type of offering was called the guilt offering of the pious, as they brought it due to their constant concern that they might have sinned. They said about Bava ben Buta that he would volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day except for one day after Yom Kippur, when he would not bring the offering.

讗诪专 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 诇讬 讛讬讬转讬 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讬 讛诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇住驻拽 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 注诇 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

Bava ben Buta said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that if they would have allowed me, I would have brought a guilt offering even on that day. But they would say to me: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. And the Rabbis say: One brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether he performed a sin for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering.

讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讬讚讜 住驻拽 注讘讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 驻讟讜专 砖讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讻驻专

Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur.By contrast, those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. With regard to one who encountered uncertainty as to whether he performed a sin on Yom Kippur, even if it was at nightfall at the end of the day, he is exempt, as the entire day atones for uncertain sins.

讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 住驻拽 讜注讘专 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讻砖专转 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讛讘讗讛 注诇 讛住驻拽 讗诐 诪砖谞诪诇拽讛 谞讜讚注 转拽讘专

A woman upon whom it is incumbent to bring a bird sin offering due to uncertainty, e.g., uncertainty with regard to whether or not her miscarriage obligated her to bring the sin offering of a woman who gave birth, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, is liable to bring it after Yom Kippur. This is because the offering does not come as atonement for a sin; rather, it renders her eligible to partake of the meat of offerings. With regard to this bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if it became known to her that she was exempt from bringing the offering after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched, the bird must be buried.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讗 诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讚讘讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: What is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day and at any time that he chooses? If it enters your mind that a provisional guilt offering is obligatory, then why does he bring a sin offering when it becomes known to him that he sinned? In that case, he has already fulfilled his obligation by sacrificing a provisional guilt offering. Rather, conclude from this inference that a provisional guilt offering is a gift offering.

讜专讘谞谉 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讞讜讘讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 诪拽诪讬 讚诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇讛讙谉 注诇讬讜 讚讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 讙讜驻谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

And the Rabbis would respond: It is a burnt offering and a peace offering that come as a vow and gift offering, but a sin offering and a guilt offering, including a provisional guilt offering, are obligatory. And as for a provisional guilt offering, this is the reason that he brings it before his sin is known to him: It is not to achieve atonement, but to protect him from suffering until his sin is known to him, as the Torah spared the bodies of the Jewish people by commanding them to bring this offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讻注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讚讗转讜 讘讞讜讘讛 讜讗转讜 讘谞讚讘讛 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 谞诪讬 讚讗转讬 讘讞讜讘讛 讗转讬 谞诪讬 讘谞讚讘讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, one can suggest that perhaps a provisional guilt offering is like a burnt offering and a peace offering: Just as a burnt offering and a peace offering sometimes come as obligatory offerings, e.g., the Festival peace offering and the burnt offering of appearance brought on the pilgrimage Festivals, and they sometimes come as gift offerings, likewise, a provisional guilt offering also sometimes comes as an obligatory offering and sometimes comes as a gift offering as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 注讬拽专 讘谞讚讘讛 讻转讬讘讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注讬拽专 讘讞讜讘讛 讻转讬讘

Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣, son of Rava: A burnt offering and a peace offering are primarily written, i.e., discussed, in the context of a gift offering, and they are brought as obligatory offerings only in specific cases mentioned explicitly in the Torah. By contrast, a provisional guilt offering is primarily written in the context of an obligatory offering, similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗

Rabbi 岣yya teaches before Rava:

讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讗 注诇 讛谞讘诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谞讚讘讛 谞诪讬 讗转讬

A provisional guilt offering comes for the uncertain consumption of a non-kosher animal carcass. Rava said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that one brings a provisional guilt offering only for uncertain performance of a matter for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering? But here the consumption of an animal carcass is a violation of a prohibition that does not entail karet or a sin offering. And if you are referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he maintains that a provisional guilt offering comes also as a gift offering, without any uncertain sin.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪转谞讬转 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 转谞讬转讛 拽诪讬 诪专 讜诪谞讜 专讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讜 讚转谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛住驻拽

Rabbi 岣yya said to Rava: What is the reason that you did not learn from Rabba? Many times I taught this baraita before the Master. And who is the Master? It is Rabba. And he said to me: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; nevertheless, it is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 own opinion that a provisional guilt offering is brought as a gift offering, but rather it is in accordance with the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta. As we learned in the mishna: But they say to him: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. According to this opinion, one brings a provisional guilt offering for any manner of uncertain sin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 (讘砖讙讙讛) 讜讗砖诐

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta and said that one may bring a provisional guilt offering for any uncertain sin, not only those stated by the Rabbis? With regard to a provisional guilt offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if anyone sins, and does any of the mitzvot of the Lord which may not be done, and he did not know, and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). This indicates that one brings a provisional guilt offering for any form of sin.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讞诇讘

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One brings a provisional guilt offering only for the uncertain performance of a matter for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering? They derive this halakha by a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渕itzvot鈥 with regard to a provisional guilt offering and the word 鈥渕itzvot鈥 from a sin offering of forbidden fat, i.e., a standard sin offering, where it is written: 鈥淎ny of the mitzvot of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 4:27).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

The Gemara explains the verbal analogy: Just as there, it is referring to a sin for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, a provisional guilt offering is brought for a matter for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讗砖诪讜转 诪讻驻专讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞诪砖讛 讗砖诪讜转 诪讻驻专讬谉 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: Five guilt offerings atone, whereas a provisional guilt offering does not atone with a complete atonement. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of this baraita saying? Rav Yosef said that this is what the baraita is saying: Five guilt offerings atone with a complete atonement to the extent that no further atonement is necessary, but a provisional guilt offering does not atone with a complete atonement, since if it later became known to him that he sinned, he must bring a sin offering to achieve atonement.

讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讗 注诇 讛谞讘诇讛

And this statement of the baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, i.e., the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta, as they say: A provisional guilt offering may come for an uncertain eating of a non-kosher animal carcass. In the case of one who brought a provisional guilt offering for a sin such as the uncertain eating of an animal carcass and later found out that he sinned, he does not bring a sin offering and does not require any additional atonement.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞诪砖讛 讗砖诪讜转 讗讬谉 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转谉 讚讻讬 诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞专 诪讻驻专 讻驻专转讜 讚诇讻讬 诪转讬讬讚注 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讻讚转谞谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉

Ravina said that this is what the baraita is teaching: With regard to five guilt offerings, nothing else achieves the atonement that they achieve, as one brings these offerings when it becomes known to him that he sinned. By contrast, with regard to a provisional guilt offering, another item achieves the atonement that it achieves, as one does not bring this offering when his uncertain sin becomes known to him. As we learned in the mishna: Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur, whereas those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur.

讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 讻讜壮 拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讛谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 With regard to those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings, the mishna teaches: Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. By contrast, those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived, that Yom Kippur does not atone for those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟讜诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诪讻驻专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 诪讻驻专

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi 岣nina says that the verse states with regard to Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the holy place, from the impurity of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that sins, i.e., violations committed unwittingly, are similar to transgressions, violations committed intentionally: Just as Yom Kippur atones for transgressions, which are not subject to atonement through an offering, as personal sin offerings are brought only for unwitting sins, so too with regard to sins, Yom Kippur atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but Yom Kippur does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 讘砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 讚诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛 讗讘诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚诪讻驻专 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 讚诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讻驻专

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But how can one derive this matter from the verse? When that verse is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur,which does not atone for a known violation of a mitzva, but only for a violation that is unknown. Perhaps only that offering does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering, but with regard to the scapegoat that is dispatched to Azazel, which atones for a known violation of a mitzva, I could say to you that it atones even for those sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讛讻讗 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 [讗转] 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专 讜诪讬注讟讬讛 拽专讗 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专

Rather, Abaye said that the matter is derived from here, a verse that deals with the scapegoat: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). This indicates that sins are similar to transgressions: Just as the scapegoat atones for transgressions, which are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too with regard to sins, the scapegoat atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering. And the verse limited the scope of atonement specifically with regard to the scapegoat, in order to say that despite the scapegoat鈥檚 greater capacity to achieve atonement, it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛谞讬 驻砖注讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讬 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 讛讝讚讜谉 讻砖讙讙讛

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: From where is it known that those transgressions mentioned in that verse are not subject to atonement through an offering? Perhaps those transgressions are subject to atonement through an offering, as we learned in a mishna (9a): There are four who bring an offering for an intentional transgression as they do for an unwitting sin: One who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant, a nazirite who became ritually impure, one who falsely takes the oath of testimony that he does not know testimony on behalf of another, and one who falsely takes the oath on a deposit that the item belonging to another is not in his possession. The Gemara does not provide Abaye鈥檚 answer to this question at this point.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诪讻驻专 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诪讻驻专 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 诪讻驻专

It was also stated with regard to this matter that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he related a statement that Rabbi Yosei says that Reish Lakish says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). This indicates that sins are similar to transgressions: Just as the scapegoat atones for transgressions, which are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too with regard to sins, the scapegoat atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讚讬谉 拽专讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗拽砖讬 诇讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛谞讬 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讱 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注诇 讛讝讚讜谉 讻砖讙讙讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 专讜讘 驻砖注讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 专讜讘 讻转讬讘

Abaye said: I also said that this halakha was derived from that verse, and Rav Dimi raised the following difficulty before me: From where is it known that those transgressions mentioned in the verse are not subject to atonement through an offering? Perhaps those transgressions are subject to atonement through an offering, as we learned in a mishna that there are four who bring an offering for an intentional transgression as they do for an unwitting sin. Ravin said to Abaye: The majority of transgressions are not subject to atonement through an offering. Abaye said to him: Is the term majority written in that verse?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪专讬砖讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讛转讜讚讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讻诇 注讜谞讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜转谞讬讗 注讜谞讜转 讗诇讜 讝讚讜谞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注讜谞讛 讘讛

Rather, Abaye said that an answer to Rav Dimi鈥檚 question can be inferred from the beginning of the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 16:21), and it is taught in a baraita: The term 鈥渋niquities鈥 is referring to those sins that were performed intentionally. And similarly, the verse states: 鈥淏ecause he despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him鈥 (Numbers 15:31).

讜讗转 讻诇 驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讻诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗拽砖讜讬讬 诇驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗讘诇 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪讻驻专

Abaye continues: If so, when it states: 鈥淎nd all their transgressions, for all their sins,鈥 why do I need the verse to mention 鈥渁ll their transgressions,鈥 which is also referring to sins that were intentionally performed? It is written to juxtapose sins to transgressions: Just as the scapegoat atones for transgressions, the majority of which are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too with regard to sins, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, but it does not atone for sins that are subject to atonement through an offering.

讞讬讬讘讬 讗砖诪讜转 转诇讜讬讬谉 讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讞讟讗 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专 讘讜 讗诇讗 讛诪拽讜诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

搂 The mishna teaches: Those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: 鈥淔or on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be pure before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:30). This indicates that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, i.e., an uncertain sin that renders one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 拽讚诪讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬转讬

Rav Ta岣ifa, father of Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa, said in the name of Rava: With regard to the first clause in the mishna as well: Those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur, one cannot bring a convincing proof

Scroll To Top