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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 8, 2017 | ื›ืณ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 10

Study Guide Shevuot 10. The gemara continues to analyze and explain the opinions in the mishna regarding what sins the goat sin offerings on Rosh Hashana, the holiday and Yom Kippur atone for?ย  ย The gemaraย startsaย  discussion on a different topic regarding what is done with extra sheep left at the end of the year that were designated for the Tamid (daily) sacrifice.

ื•ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขื™ืจ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืืฃ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื›ืคืจื™

And through this additional โ€œand,โ€ the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed with the goats of the New Moons, indicating that just as the goats of the New Moons atone for a case involving sacrificial food, i.e., where a ritually pure person partook of ritually impure sacrificial food, so too, the goats of the Festivals atone for a similar case involving sacrificial food, i.e., where a ritually impure person partook of ritually pure sacrificial food.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื”ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ

And if you would say: Let the goats of the Festivals atone for that which the goats of the New Moon are sacrificed, that is not possible. Didnโ€™t we say above that the verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin but another does not bear that sin?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื”ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื”

And if you would say: Let the goats of the Festivals atone for that which the goat of Yom Kippur is brought, that is not possible. Didnโ€™t we say above that the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10)? The emphasis on โ€œonce a yearโ€ teaches that this atonement for this case should be only once a year.

ืืžืื™ ืžื›ืคืจื™

The Gemara explains: It must be that the goats of the Festivals atone for cases of defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, because if not, for what other matter involving sacrificial foods could they atone?

ืื™ ืขืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืื™ ื‘ืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื™ ืขืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืชื•ืœื” ืื™ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ

If you say they atone for cases in which one had awareness at the beginning and had awareness at the end, then one can counter that he is liable to bring an offering to atone for his transgression, and therefore the goats of the Festivals will not atone for him. If you say they atone for cases in which one had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, then one can counter that the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself suspend any punishment that he deserves until he becomes aware of his transgression. If you say they atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, then one can counter that the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atones.

ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

Perforce, they atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: The atonement effected by all the goats offered as part of the additional offerings, i.e., those of the New Moons, Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same. They all atone for various cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉื• ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rabbi แธคama bar Rabbi แธคanina said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? With regard to the goat of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28โ€“29) the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead it states: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ which teaches that all the goats are juxtaposed, this one with that one, as the use of the term โ€œandโ€ teaches that the second matter adds to the first matter, and that all the goats effect a similar atonement as the first one listed, that of the New Moon.

ืงืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื’ืžืจ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืžื“ ืžืœืžื“ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืžื“ ืžืœืžื“

The Gemara questions this interpretation: Initially it enters your mind to explain that the atonement effected by each and every one of the goats of the Festivals is derived from the atonement effected by the goat adjacent to it, i.e., the one mentioned in the passage immediately preceding it: The atonement effected by the Passover goat from the atonement effected by the goat of the New Moon and the atonement effected by the Shavuot goat from the atonement effected by the Passover goat and so forth. But this is difficult, as doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: With regard to the entire Torah, one derives a halakha derived via a juxtaposition from a halakha derived via a juxtaposition, except for halakhot concerning consecrated matters, where one does not derive a halakha derived via a juxtaposition from a halakha derived via a juxtaposition?

ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžืงืžื ื’ืžืจื™

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because actually the atonement effected by all of the goats is derived directly from the atonement effected by the first goat, i.e., the goat of the New Moon.

ืชื™ื ื— ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขืฆืจืช ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Rabbi แธคama bar Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s explanation works out well for all the goats with regard to which it is written: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ but from where do we derive what the goats of Shavuot and Yom Kippur atone for, as with regard to them it is not written: And a goat, but simply: โ€œA goatโ€?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ืงืฉื• ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ื”ื ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืœืื• ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื•ื

Rather, Rabbi Yona says: The verse states at the end of the passage detailing the goats of the Festivals: โ€œThese shall you offer to the Lord on your Festivalsโ€ (Numbers 29:39); with this verse all the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed, this one with that one, which indicates that they all atone for the same sins. The Gemara challenges: But the New Moon is not regarded as a Festival.

ืื™ื‘ืจื ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชืžื•ื– ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืชื ืžืœื•ื™ื™ ืžืœื™ื•ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื™

The Gemara refutes this: In truth, the New Moon is also called a Festival, in accordance with what Abaye says with regard to a different issue, as Abaye says: With regard to the month of Tammuz in that year during which the Jewish people sinned by accepting the slanderous report of the spies about Eretz Yisrael, the court made it a full month of thirty days, as it is written: โ€œHe proclaimed a festival to crush my young menโ€ (Lamentations 1:15). Abaye understands the verse to mean that by extending the month of Tammuz by an extra day, by proclaiming that the thirtieth day should be celebrated as a New Moon in addition to the first day of the following month, it emerged that the acceptance of the spiesโ€™ report occurred on the ninth of Av, and not the eighth, thereby defining the ninth of Av as an ominous day for the Jewish people. From Abayeโ€™s explanation it is apparent that the New Moon is also called a Festival.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ื•ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื›ืคืจืชื•

The Gemara continues to analyze Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: And even though he holds that all the goats offered as part of the additional offerings effect atonement for the same sin, Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur that it does not atone their atonement, i.e., does not atone for the sins that they atone for, and they do not atone its atonement.

ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื›ืคืจืชื• ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื”

He elaborates: It does not atone their atonement, because, as the Gemara derived from the verse: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10), the internal goat effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases. And they do not atone its atonement, because, as the Gemara explained, the verse states: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year.โ€ The emphasis on the phrase โ€œonce a yearโ€ teaches that this atonement for the specific case that it atones for should be only once a year.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืขืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The Gemara adds: This qualification of Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion is also indicated by that which is taught in a baraita: For cases of the defiling of the Temple in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, and for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons and the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื” ื•ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ื ืžื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจื”

The Gemara notes: But in delineating which offerings atone, Rabbi Meir omitted the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, and furthermore, when delineating their atonement, i.e., what cases they atone for, he also omitted it, i.e., he did not mention the cases that the internal goat atones for, which are the cases in which one had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end. Evidently, the atonement of the internal goat is substantively different from the atonement of the other goats.

ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon would say: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. And for defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods, the goats of the Festivals atone for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and the goats of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืืœื ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the goats of the New Moons do not atone for that which the goats of Festivals atone, as the verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œAnd he gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17), which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, one sin but does not bear two sins. But nevertheless, let the goats of the Festivals atone for that which the goats of New Moons atone. The Gemara responds: The verse states: โ€œHe gave it to you.โ€ The emphasis on โ€œitโ€ teaches that it bears this sin, but no other offering bears this sin.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ืืœื ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the goats of the Festivals do not atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone, as the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on the phrase โ€œonce a yearโ€ teaches that this atonement, i.e., the specific case it atones for, should be only once a year. But nevertheless, let the goats of Yom Kippur atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone. The Gemara responds: The verse states: โ€œOnce a year,โ€ which indicates that it effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases.

ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืœื‘ื“

The Gemara challenges the use of these derivations: But when it states โ€œonceโ€ in this verse, it is with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary that it is written, so the derivations from it should have no bearing on the discussion concerning the external goat. The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œOne goat for a sin-offering aside from

ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ืžื™

the sin-offering of the atonementsโ€ (Numbers 29:11). โ€œOne goat for a sin-offeringโ€ is referring to the external goat, and โ€œthe sin-offering of the atonementsโ€ is referring to the internal goat. With this verse, the external goat is juxtaposed with the internal goat, and therefore the limitations imposed on the atonement of the internal goat are also to be applied to the external goat.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืžื• ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon a version of his opinion that differs from that of the mishna above: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. The goats of the Festivals exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and also atone for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods where one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end. The goats of Yom Kippur further exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end; and they also atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ื ื•ืช ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: What is different about the goats of the New Moons that they do not atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to any one of the goats of the New Moons: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17), which teaches that it bears, i.e., atones for, one sin but does not bear two sins. The Gemara asks: If so, the goats of the Festivals should also not atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone, as that same verse states: โ€œAnd He gave it to you,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but nothing else bears that sin. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of the Festivals do atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the word โ€œit.โ€ Accordingly, he holds that any one of the goats of the Festivals can atone for two different sins.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื—ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช ืื—ืช ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks further: What is different about the goats of the Festivals that they do not atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone? As the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: โ€œOnce a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10), which teaches that this atonement for the specific case that it atones for should be only once a year, and therefore no other offering can atone for it. The Gemara challenges: If so, the goats of Yom Kippur should also not atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone, as it is written: โ€œOnce a year,โ€ which teaches that the goats effect one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two cases. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of Yom Kippur atone for everything that the goats of the Festivals atone for? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the word โ€œonce.โ€ Accordingly, he holds that the goats of Yom Kippur can atone for three different cases.

ืืžืื™ ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ื ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara asks: Why doesnโ€™t he expound the word โ€œonceโ€? He does not expound it because when the word โ€œonceโ€ is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, and so the halakha derived from that verse has no bearing on the capacity of the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary to atone. The Gemara asks: If so, the goats of the Festivals also should atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone, as when the phrase โ€œonce a yearโ€ is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, so the halakha derived from that verse has no bearing on whether another offering can atone for that which the external goat atones.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืื—ืช ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื›ืคืจ ืื”ืจืŸ ืขืœ ืงืจื ืชื™ื• ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ืงืจื ื•ืชื™ื• ื“ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช ื”ื ื“ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does learn a halakha from the word โ€œonce,โ€ and he holds that it also teaches about the capacity of the external goat to atone, as the Gemara explained above. But it is different here, with regard to the derivation that the goat cannot effect two atonements, as the verse states: โ€œAnd Aaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on โ€œupon its cornersโ€ teaches that it is only with regard to the internal goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners of the internal altar, that it effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases, but the external goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners of the external altar, can effect even two different atonements.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืชืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื•ืฆืจื›ื• ืœืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื ืคื“ื™ืŸ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื

ยง Animals purchased with funds collected for public offerings may be sacrificed only during the fiscal year in which those funds were given. For this purpose, the fiscal year begins on the first of Nisan. Generally, once an animal has been consecrated as an offering, then even if for some reason it may no longer be sacrificed, it still cannot be redeemed unless it develops a blemish. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan teaches an exception to this halakha: Ulla says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public during the fiscal year in which they were purchased are redeemed, even if they are unblemished, and they may then be used for non-sacred purposes.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื•ืงืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืืŸ ืฆื™ื™ืช ืœืš ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืจื‘ืš ื•ื›ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

Rabba was sitting and reciting this halakha. Rav แธคisda said to him: Who will listen to you and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, your teacher, with regard to this halakha? Rav แธคisda clarified: But the sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone? Since these animals were consecrated as offerings, they should have been endowed with inherent sanctity. Only sanctity that inheres in an itemโ€™s value, i.e., an item consecrated to the Temple treasury, can be desacralized through redemption, but an item with inherent sanctity can never be desacralized.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืช ืœื ืชืกื‘ืจื ื“ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืงื˜ื•ืจืช ืžื” ื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืžืคืจื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื” ืฉื›ืจ ื”ืื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืœืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ื”ืื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืœืื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื›ืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืžืชืจื•ืžื” ื—ื“ืฉื”

Rabba said to him: Donโ€™t you also hold that we do not say that the question: The sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone, poses a difficulty? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 4:5): In any fiscal year, one may use only incense that was purchased with funds collected for that year. Accordingly, the mishna asks: With regard to the surplus incense that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year, what would the Temple treasurers do with it in order to render it usable for the following year? They would separate from the Temple treasury the wages for the artisans who worked for the Temple, and those funds would thereby be desacralized. And then they would desacralize the surplus incense by transferring its sanctity to that money that had been set aside for the artisans. Then, they would give the now-desacralized incense to the artisans as their wages, and finally, they would repurchase it with funds from the new collection carried out for the coming year.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื™ืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

Rabba explains the proof from the mishna: One could ask: But why should the method described work? Let us say: The sanctity that was inherent in the incense, to where has it gone? It cannot be removed by redeeming it. Perforce, even you must concede that this question does not pose a difficulty.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงื˜ื•ืจืช ืงืืžืจืช ืฉืื ื™ ืงื˜ื•ืจืช

Rav แธคisda said to him: Did you say that there is a proof from the halakhot of incense? One cannot compare incense to animals consecrated for the daily offerings, since incense is different,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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!

Shevuot 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 10

ื•ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขื™ืจ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืืฃ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื›ืคืจื™

And through this additional โ€œand,โ€ the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed with the goats of the New Moons, indicating that just as the goats of the New Moons atone for a case involving sacrificial food, i.e., where a ritually pure person partook of ritually impure sacrificial food, so too, the goats of the Festivals atone for a similar case involving sacrificial food, i.e., where a ritually impure person partook of ritually pure sacrificial food.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื”ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ

And if you would say: Let the goats of the Festivals atone for that which the goats of the New Moon are sacrificed, that is not possible. Didnโ€™t we say above that the verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin but another does not bear that sin?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื”ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื”

And if you would say: Let the goats of the Festivals atone for that which the goat of Yom Kippur is brought, that is not possible. Didnโ€™t we say above that the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10)? The emphasis on โ€œonce a yearโ€ teaches that this atonement for this case should be only once a year.

ืืžืื™ ืžื›ืคืจื™

The Gemara explains: It must be that the goats of the Festivals atone for cases of defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, because if not, for what other matter involving sacrificial foods could they atone?

ืื™ ืขืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืื™ ื‘ืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื™ ืขืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืชื•ืœื” ืื™ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ

If you say they atone for cases in which one had awareness at the beginning and had awareness at the end, then one can counter that he is liable to bring an offering to atone for his transgression, and therefore the goats of the Festivals will not atone for him. If you say they atone for cases in which one had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, then one can counter that the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself suspend any punishment that he deserves until he becomes aware of his transgression. If you say they atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, then one can counter that the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atones.

ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

Perforce, they atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ืฉื•ื” ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: The atonement effected by all the goats offered as part of the additional offerings, i.e., those of the New Moons, Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same. They all atone for various cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉื• ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rabbi แธคama bar Rabbi แธคanina said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? With regard to the goat of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28โ€“29) the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead it states: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ which teaches that all the goats are juxtaposed, this one with that one, as the use of the term โ€œandโ€ teaches that the second matter adds to the first matter, and that all the goats effect a similar atonement as the first one listed, that of the New Moon.

ืงืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืžื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื’ืžืจ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืžื“ ืžืœืžื“ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืžื“ ืžืœืžื“

The Gemara questions this interpretation: Initially it enters your mind to explain that the atonement effected by each and every one of the goats of the Festivals is derived from the atonement effected by the goat adjacent to it, i.e., the one mentioned in the passage immediately preceding it: The atonement effected by the Passover goat from the atonement effected by the goat of the New Moon and the atonement effected by the Shavuot goat from the atonement effected by the Passover goat and so forth. But this is difficult, as doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: With regard to the entire Torah, one derives a halakha derived via a juxtaposition from a halakha derived via a juxtaposition, except for halakhot concerning consecrated matters, where one does not derive a halakha derived via a juxtaposition from a halakha derived via a juxtaposition?

ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžืงืžื ื’ืžืจื™

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because actually the atonement effected by all of the goats is derived directly from the atonement effected by the first goat, i.e., the goat of the New Moon.

ืชื™ื ื— ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขืฆืจืช ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Rabbi แธคama bar Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s explanation works out well for all the goats with regard to which it is written: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ but from where do we derive what the goats of Shavuot and Yom Kippur atone for, as with regard to them it is not written: And a goat, but simply: โ€œA goatโ€?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ืงืฉื• ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ื”ื ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืœืื• ืžื•ืขื“ ื”ื•ื

Rather, Rabbi Yona says: The verse states at the end of the passage detailing the goats of the Festivals: โ€œThese shall you offer to the Lord on your Festivalsโ€ (Numbers 29:39); with this verse all the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed, this one with that one, which indicates that they all atone for the same sins. The Gemara challenges: But the New Moon is not regarded as a Festival.

ืื™ื‘ืจื ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชืžื•ื– ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืชื ืžืœื•ื™ื™ ืžืœื™ื•ื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื™

The Gemara refutes this: In truth, the New Moon is also called a Festival, in accordance with what Abaye says with regard to a different issue, as Abaye says: With regard to the month of Tammuz in that year during which the Jewish people sinned by accepting the slanderous report of the spies about Eretz Yisrael, the court made it a full month of thirty days, as it is written: โ€œHe proclaimed a festival to crush my young menโ€ (Lamentations 1:15). Abaye understands the verse to mean that by extending the month of Tammuz by an extra day, by proclaiming that the thirtieth day should be celebrated as a New Moon in addition to the first day of the following month, it emerged that the acceptance of the spiesโ€™ report occurred on the ninth of Av, and not the eighth, thereby defining the ninth of Av as an ominous day for the Jewish people. From Abayeโ€™s explanation it is apparent that the New Moon is also called a Festival.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ื•ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื›ืคืจืชื•

The Gemara continues to analyze Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: And even though he holds that all the goats offered as part of the additional offerings effect atonement for the same sin, Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur that it does not atone their atonement, i.e., does not atone for the sins that they atone for, and they do not atone its atonement.

ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื›ืคืจืชื• ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื”

He elaborates: It does not atone their atonement, because, as the Gemara derived from the verse: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10), the internal goat effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases. And they do not atone its atonement, because, as the Gemara explained, the verse states: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year.โ€ The emphasis on the phrase โ€œonce a yearโ€ teaches that this atonement for the specific case that it atones for should be only once a year.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืขืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The Gemara adds: This qualification of Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion is also indicated by that which is taught in a baraita: For cases of the defiling of the Temple in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, and for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons and the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉื™ื™ืจื” ื•ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ื ืžื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจื”

The Gemara notes: But in delineating which offerings atone, Rabbi Meir omitted the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, and furthermore, when delineating their atonement, i.e., what cases they atone for, he also omitted it, i.e., he did not mention the cases that the internal goat atones for, which are the cases in which one had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end. Evidently, the atonement of the internal goat is substantively different from the atonement of the other goats.

ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon would say: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. And for defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods, the goats of the Festivals atone for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and the goats of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืืœื ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the goats of the New Moons do not atone for that which the goats of Festivals atone, as the verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œAnd he gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17), which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, one sin but does not bear two sins. But nevertheless, let the goats of the Festivals atone for that which the goats of New Moons atone. The Gemara responds: The verse states: โ€œHe gave it to you.โ€ The emphasis on โ€œitโ€ teaches that it bears this sin, but no other offering bears this sin.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ืืœื ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the goats of the Festivals do not atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone, as the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: โ€œAaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on the phrase โ€œonce a yearโ€ teaches that this atonement, i.e., the specific case it atones for, should be only once a year. But nevertheless, let the goats of Yom Kippur atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone. The Gemara responds: The verse states: โ€œOnce a year,โ€ which indicates that it effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases.

ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืœื‘ื“

The Gemara challenges the use of these derivations: But when it states โ€œonceโ€ in this verse, it is with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary that it is written, so the derivations from it should have no bearing on the discussion concerning the external goat. The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œOne goat for a sin-offering aside from

ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ืžื™

the sin-offering of the atonementsโ€ (Numbers 29:11). โ€œOne goat for a sin-offeringโ€ is referring to the external goat, and โ€œthe sin-offering of the atonementsโ€ is referring to the internal goat. With this verse, the external goat is juxtaposed with the internal goat, and therefore the limitations imposed on the atonement of the internal goat are also to be applied to the external goat.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืžื• ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon a version of his opinion that differs from that of the mishna above: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. The goats of the Festivals exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and also atone for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods where one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end. The goats of Yom Kippur further exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end; and they also atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ื ื•ืช ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: What is different about the goats of the New Moons that they do not atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to any one of the goats of the New Moons: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17), which teaches that it bears, i.e., atones for, one sin but does not bear two sins. The Gemara asks: If so, the goats of the Festivals should also not atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone, as that same verse states: โ€œAnd He gave it to you,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but nothing else bears that sin. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of the Festivals do atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the word โ€œit.โ€ Accordingly, he holds that any one of the goats of the Festivals can atone for two different sins.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืœื ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืœื ืชื”ื ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ื ื™ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื—ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช ืื—ืช ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks further: What is different about the goats of the Festivals that they do not atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone? As the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: โ€œOnce a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10), which teaches that this atonement for the specific case that it atones for should be only once a year, and therefore no other offering can atone for it. The Gemara challenges: If so, the goats of Yom Kippur should also not atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone, as it is written: โ€œOnce a year,โ€ which teaches that the goats effect one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two cases. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of Yom Kippur atone for everything that the goats of the Festivals atone for? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the word โ€œonce.โ€ Accordingly, he holds that the goats of Yom Kippur can atone for three different cases.

ืืžืื™ ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืจื’ืœื™ื ื ืžื™ ื ื›ืคืจื• ืื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara asks: Why doesnโ€™t he expound the word โ€œonceโ€? He does not expound it because when the word โ€œonceโ€ is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, and so the halakha derived from that verse has no bearing on the capacity of the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary to atone. The Gemara asks: If so, the goats of the Festivals also should atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone, as when the phrase โ€œonce a yearโ€ is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, so the halakha derived from that verse has no bearing on whether another offering can atone for that which the external goat atones.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืื—ืช ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื” ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื›ืคืจ ืื”ืจืŸ ืขืœ ืงืจื ืชื™ื• ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื” ืงืจื ื•ืชื™ื• ื“ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืคืจื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช ื”ื ื“ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืชื™ ื›ืคืจื•ืช

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does learn a halakha from the word โ€œonce,โ€ and he holds that it also teaches about the capacity of the external goat to atone, as the Gemara explained above. But it is different here, with regard to the derivation that the goat cannot effect two atonements, as the verse states: โ€œAnd Aaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a yearโ€ (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on โ€œupon its cornersโ€ teaches that it is only with regard to the internal goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners of the internal altar, that it effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases, but the external goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners of the external altar, can effect even two different atonements.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืชืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื•ืฆืจื›ื• ืœืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื ืคื“ื™ืŸ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื

ยง Animals purchased with funds collected for public offerings may be sacrificed only during the fiscal year in which those funds were given. For this purpose, the fiscal year begins on the first of Nisan. Generally, once an animal has been consecrated as an offering, then even if for some reason it may no longer be sacrificed, it still cannot be redeemed unless it develops a blemish. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan teaches an exception to this halakha: Ulla says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public during the fiscal year in which they were purchased are redeemed, even if they are unblemished, and they may then be used for non-sacred purposes.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื•ืงืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืืŸ ืฆื™ื™ืช ืœืš ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืจื‘ืš ื•ื›ื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

Rabba was sitting and reciting this halakha. Rav แธคisda said to him: Who will listen to you and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, your teacher, with regard to this halakha? Rav แธคisda clarified: But the sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone? Since these animals were consecrated as offerings, they should have been endowed with inherent sanctity. Only sanctity that inheres in an itemโ€™s value, i.e., an item consecrated to the Temple treasury, can be desacralized through redemption, but an item with inherent sanctity can never be desacralized.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืช ืœื ืชืกื‘ืจื ื“ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืงื˜ื•ืจืช ืžื” ื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืžืคืจื™ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื” ืฉื›ืจ ื”ืื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืœืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ื”ืื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืœืื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื›ืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืžืชืจื•ืžื” ื—ื“ืฉื”

Rabba said to him: Donโ€™t you also hold that we do not say that the question: The sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone, poses a difficulty? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 4:5): In any fiscal year, one may use only incense that was purchased with funds collected for that year. Accordingly, the mishna asks: With regard to the surplus incense that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year, what would the Temple treasurers do with it in order to render it usable for the following year? They would separate from the Temple treasury the wages for the artisans who worked for the Temple, and those funds would thereby be desacralized. And then they would desacralize the surplus incense by transferring its sanctity to that money that had been set aside for the artisans. Then, they would give the now-desacralized incense to the artisans as their wages, and finally, they would repurchase it with funds from the new collection carried out for the coming year.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื™ืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

Rabba explains the proof from the mishna: One could ask: But why should the method described work? Let us say: The sanctity that was inherent in the incense, to where has it gone? It cannot be removed by redeeming it. Perforce, even you must concede that this question does not pose a difficulty.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงื˜ื•ืจืช ืงืืžืจืช ืฉืื ื™ ืงื˜ื•ืจืช

Rav แธคisda said to him: Did you say that there is a proof from the halakhot of incense? One cannot compare incense to animals consecrated for the daily offerings, since incense is different,

Scroll To Top