Shevuot 13

בעומד במרדו ורבי היא דתניא רבי אומר על כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה בין לא עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר חוץ מפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ומפר ברית בבשר שאם עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר ואם לאו אין יום הכפורים מכפר

The mishna is referring to a case where the person did not repent and persists in his rebellion, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that even for such a case Yom Kippur and the scapegoat will atone. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented, or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, except for one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven, by denying God’s existence, and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. For these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone.

מאי טעמא דרבי דתניא כי דבר ה׳ בזה זה הפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ואת מצותו הפר זה המפר ברית בבשר הכרת תכרת הכרת לפני יום הכפורים תכרת לאחר יום הכפורים

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is taught in a baraita in interpretation of the verse: “For he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [hikkaret tikkaret], his sin is upon him” (Numbers 15:31): “For he scorned the word of the Lord”; this is referring to one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning. “And nullified His commandment”; this is referring to one who nullified the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. The use of the double verb form hikkaret tikkaret teaches that he will be cut off, i.e., he is liable to receive karet, before Yom Kippur, and he will still be cut off after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur does not atone for him.

יכול אפילו עשה תשובה תלמוד לומר עונה בה לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שעונה בה

One might have thought that this applies even if he repented. To counter this, the verse states: “His sin is upon him,” by which God indicates: I said that Yom Kippur does not atone for these sins only when his sin is still upon him, as he did not repent. It is apparent from this baraita that it is only for the three sins mentioned that Yom Kippur does not atone without repentance, but Yom Kippur atones for other sins even if one did not repent.

ורבנן הכרת בעולם הזה תכרת לעולם הבא עונה בה שאם עשה תשובה ומת מיתה ממרקת

And with regard to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how do they interpret the verse? If someone commits one of the three sins mentioned, then he is cut off [hikkaret] from life in this world, and he will be cut off [tikkaret] in the World-to-Come. The phrase “His sin is upon him” teaches that if he repented and died, his death cleanses him of his sin.

ומי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי והא מדסיפא רבי יהודה היא רישא נמי רבי יהודה היא דקתני סיפא אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח ומאן אית ליה האי סברא רבי יהודה מכלל דרישא רבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: And can you interpret the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But from the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, by inference, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Israelites and priests and the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, all equally achieve atonement from the scapegoat. And who accepts this reasoning? Rabbi Yehuda, as the Gemara will demonstrate. By inference, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

אמר רב יוסף רבי היא וסבר לה כרבי יהודה

Rav Yosef said: It is possible that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause does not pose a difficulty, because with regard to whether priests achieve atonement through the scapegoat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר ליה אביי דוקא קאמר מר רבי סבר לה כרבי יהודה אבל רבי יהודה לא סבר לה כרבי או דלמא מדרבי סבר לה כרבי יהודה אף רבי יהודה סבר לה נמי כרבי מיהו אורחא דמילתא קתני למימר דתלמיד סבר לה כרביה

Abaye said to him: Does the Master mean specifically what he is saying, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to whether the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priest, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to atonement for one who did not repent? Or perhaps from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it follows that Rabbi Yehuda also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but the reason that Rav Yosef did not make this clear is that he teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, which is to say that a disciple, in this case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר ליה אין דוקא קאמינא רבי סבר לה כרבי יהודה אבל רבי יהודה לא סבר לה כרבי

Rav Yosef said to him: Yes, I mean specifically what I was saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

דתניא יכול יהא יום הכפורים מכפר על שבים ועל שאינן שבים ודין הוא הואיל וחטאת ואשם מכפרין ויום הכפורים מכפר מה חטאת ואשם אין מכפרין אלא על השבים אף יום הכפורים אין מכפר אלא על השבים מה לחטאת ואשם שאין מכפרין על המזיד כשוגג תאמר ליום הכפורים שמכפר על המזיד כשוגג

As it is taught in a baraita recorded in the Sifra: One might have thought that Yom Kippur would atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent, and this assertion is supported by the following logical inference: Although it would appear that since a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone and Yom Kippur atones, it should follow that just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, this comparison is flawed. One can claim: What is notable about a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? They are notable in that they do not atone for intentional sins like they do for unwitting sins. Can you say the same about Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins?

הואיל ומכפר על המזיד כשוגג יכפר על שבים ועל שאינן שבים תלמוד לומר אך חלק

The baraita continues: Since it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is more far-reaching in that it atones for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins, it follows that it should atone both for those who repent and for those who do not repent. To counter this, the verse states: “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The word “yet” serves to divide and limit the atonement of Yom Kippur in that it atones only for those who repent.

סתם סיפרא מני רבי יהודה וקאמר שבים אין לא שבים לא

Rav Yosef attributes the baraita to Rabbi Yehuda: Whose opinion is expressed by the unattributed baraitot in the Sifra? Rabbi Yehuda. And he says: For those who repent, yes, Yom Kippur atones, but for those who do not repent, Yom Kippur does not atone.

ורמי סתם סיפרא אסתם סיפרא דתניא יכול לא יהא יום הכפורים מכפר אלא אם כן התענה בו וקראו מקרא קדש ולא עשה בו מלאכה לא התענה בו ולא קראו מקרא קדש ועשה בו מלאכה מנין תלמוד לומר יום כפרים הוא מכל מקום

The Gemara asks: But raise a contradiction, setting one unattributed baraita in the Sifra, i.e., the one just cited, against another unattributed baraita in the Sifra, as in another baraita there it is taught: One might have thought that Yom Kippur would atone only if one fasted on it and declared it a holy convocation and did not perform labor on it. From where is it derived that even if one did not fast on it and did not declare it a holy convocation and performed labor on it, that it still atones? The verse states: “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The additional emphasis on “it is” serves to teach that the day atones in any case. This baraita contradicts the one cited above that states clearly that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.

אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבי והא רבי יהודה

Abaye said: This is not difficult: This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבא אמר הא והא רבי ומודה רבי בכרת דיומא דאי לא תימא הכי כרת דיום הכפורים לרבי לית ליה

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that Yom Kippur atones for those who do not repent, but even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that with regard to avoiding the punishment of karet incurred for violating the day of Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur atones and one is not liable to be punished with karet only if one repented for the sin of violating the day of Yom Kippur. Perforce he must concede this point, as if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there would be no instance in which one would be liable to be punished with karet for violating Yom Kippur.

אלמה לא משכחת לה כגון דעבד בליליא ומית דלא אתא יממא לכפורי ליה

The Gemara questions this proof: Why not? You could find it in a case where he performed labor on the night of Yom Kippur and died that night, as in such a case, the daytime of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, never came to atone for him.

אלא אימא

Rather, say that Rava’s proof is as follows:

כרת דיממא לרבי לית ליה

It must be that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that Yom Kippur does not atone for one who violates the day itself and does not repent, as if you do not say so, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there would be no instance in which a person would be liable to receive karet for violating Yom Kippur in the daytime.

אלמה לא משכחת לה דאכל אומצא וחנקיה ומית אי נמי דאכל סמוך לשקיעת החמה דלא הוה שהות לכפורי ליה

The Gemara questions this proof: Why not? You could find it in a case where he ate a piece of meat, and while he was eating it choked him and he died, or in a case where he ate immediately before sunset at the end of the day. Even if one holds that Yom Kippur does atone for violations of the day itself, in these cases it could not, as there was no time after the violation for the day to atone for him, in the first case because he was already dead, and in the second case because it was no longer Yom Kippur.

אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח

§ The mishna (2b) states: Israelites and priests and the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, equally achieve atone-ment. What is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? The difference is only that the priests achieve atonement for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods through the bull that the High Priest offers on Yom Kippur, whereas the Israelites achieve atonement for their transgressions through the goats that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur.

הא גופא קשיא קתני אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח והדר תני מה בין ישראל לכהנים ולכהן משוח אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח מתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות ואין חילוק ביניהן ומה בין ישראל לכהנים ולכהן משוח אלא שהפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכו׳

The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult, as it teaches: Both Israelites and priests and the anointed priest equally achieve atonement. But then it teaches: What is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Both Israelites and priests and the anointed priest equally achieve atonement through the scapegoat for transgressions other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, and in this regard there is no distinction between them. But what is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? The difference is only that the bull of the High Priest that he offers on Yom Kippur atones for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, whereas the Israelites achieve atonement for their transgressions through the goats that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur.

ומני רבי יהודה היא דתניא וכפר את מקדש הקדש זה לפני ולפנים את אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו יכפר אלו עזרות כהנים כמשמעו עם הקהל אלו ישראל יכפר אלו הלוים

And whose opinion is expressed by the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita in exposition of the verse: “He shall bring atonement upon the sanctum of the sacred, and he shall effect atonement upon the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and upon the priests and upon all the people of the congregation shall he bring atonement” (Leviticus 16:33): “He shall bring atonement upon the sanctum of the sacred”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the Holy of Holies. “Upon the Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary. “And the altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning. “He shall effect atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards. “And upon the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning. “And upon all the people”; these are the Israelites. “Shall he bring atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.

הושוו כולן לכפרה אחת שמתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות דברי רבי יהודה

All of them are equated with regard to the fact that they are all atoned for through one atonement, i.e., that they are atoned for by the scapegoat for all transgressions other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי שמעון אומר כשם שדם שעיר הנעשה בפנים מכפר על ישראל על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו כך דם הפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכשם שוידויו של שעיר המשתלח מכפר על ישראל בשאר עבירות כך וידויו של פר מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the blood of the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary atones for Israelites for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, so too, the blood of the bull of the High Priest, whose blood presentation is also performed inside the Sanctuary, atones for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. And just as the confession made over the scapegoat atones for Israelites for other transgressions, so too, the confession made over the bull atones for the priests for other transgressions. It is apparent from the baraita that it is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priests.

ולרבי שמעון הא ודאי הושוו מאי הושוו דבני כפרה נינהו מיהו כל חד וחד מכפר בדנפשיה

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Shimon’s opinion: And according to Rabbi Shimon, one can ask: Weren’t both Israelites and priests certainly equated in the verse in Leviticus? The Gemara explains: According to his opinion, in what way are they equated in the verse? They are equated in that they are all subject to atonement on Yom Kippur; but each one of the groups achieves atonement in its own way.

מאי טעמיה דרבי שמעון דכתיב ולקח את שני השעירם איתקש שעיר המשתלח לשעיר הנעשה בפנים מה שעיר הנעשה בפנים אינו מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו דכתיב ביה אשר לעם אף שעיר המשתלח אינו מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that priests are not atoned for by the scapegoat? As it is written: “He shall take the two goats” (Leviticus 16:7); one is used for the scapegoat and the other for the internal goat. With this verse, the scapegoat is juxtaposed with the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary. It teaches that just as the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside does not atone for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, as it is written with regard to that goat: “The goat sin-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:15), which indicates that it atones for Israelites and not for the priests, so too, the scapegoat does not atone for the priests for their other transgressions.

ורבי יהודה אמר לך להכי איתקוש שיהיו שוים במראה ובקומה ובדמים הוא דאתא

And as for Rabbi Yehuda, how does he understand the juxtaposition? He could have said to you: It is only for this reason that the goats are juxtaposed: The juxtaposition comes to teach that they should be similar in appearance and in height and in value. They are not similar in the atonement that they effect.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן ושחט את שעיר החטאת אשר לעם שאין הכהנים מתכפרין בו ובמה מתכפרין בפרו של אהרן

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the internal goat: “He shall slaughter the goat sin-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:15); the term “of the people” excludes Aaron and the priests, and therefore indicates that the priests do not achieve atonement through that goat. But then, through what do they achieve atonement? Presumably, through the bull of Aaron, i.e., the bull of the High Priest.

יכול לא יתכפרו בפרו של אהרן שהרי כבר נאמר אשר לו מעתה אין להן כפרה כשהוא אומר יכפר על הכהנים מצינו להן כפרה

One might have thought that they would also not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as it is already stated: “Aaron shall bring near his own bull sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:6), which indicates that it atones only for Aaron’s transgressions, not for the transgressions of others. And if that is so, then they do not have any means through which to achieve atonement. But when the verse states: “And he shall effect atonement…upon the priests” (Leviticus 16:33), we have clearly found that they do have a means of achieving atonement.

במה הן מתכפרין מוטב שיתכפרו בפרו של אהרן שהרי הותר מכללו אצל ביתו ואל יתכפרו בשעיר הנעשה בפנים שלא הותר מכללו אצל ביתו

The baraita continues: Through which means then do they achieve atonement? Do they achieve it through the internal goat or the bull of Aaron? It is better to say that they achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as in any event, with regard to his household, an exception was made to its rule that it atones only for Aaron, and his household also achieves atonement from his bull. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that the priesthood should also achieve atonement from his bull. And one should not say that they achieve atonement through the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, as it is not found with regard to Aaron’s household that an exception was made to its rule that it atones for the people, as his household does not achieve atonement from the scapegoat.

ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר בית אהרן ברכו את ה׳ בית הלוי ברכו את ה׳ יראי ה׳ ברכו את ה׳

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can cite another proof, as the verse states: “House of Israel, bless the Lord; house of Aaron, bless the Lord; house of Levi, bless the Lord; those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord” (Psalms 135:19–20). It is apparent from this verse that “house of Aaron” is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron’s immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron’s bull should atone for them.

מאן תנא אמר רבי ירמיה דלא כרבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה האמר כהנים יש להן כפרה בשעיר המשתלח ומני רבא אמר רבי שמעון היא דאמר כהנים אין להם כפרה בשעיר המשתלח

The Gemara repeats its question about this baraita: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita? Rabbi Yirmeya says: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as, if one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one can counter: Doesn’t he say that the priests have a means of atonement through the scapegoat, whereas the baraita indicates that they do not, as it states that if they do not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, then they do not have any means through which to achieve atonement? But then, whose opinion is expressed? Rava says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests do not have a means of achieving atonement through the scapegoat.

אביי אמר אפילו תימא רבי יהודה הכי קאמר מעתה אין להם כפרה בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו כשהוא אומר יכפר על הכהנים מצינו שיש להן כפרה בשאר עבירות וכמו דמצינו שיש להן כפרה בשאר עבירות כך יש להן כפרה

Abaye said: You may even say that the baraita is accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this is what it is saying: If that is so, that the priests do not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, then they do not have any means through which to achieve atonement for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. When the verse states: “And he shall effect atonement…upon the priests,” we have clearly found that they do have a means of atonement for other transgressions. And it follows that just as we have found that they have a means of atonement for other transgressions, as Israelites do, so too, they must also have a means of atonement