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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 11, 2017 | 讻状讙 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • 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 13

Study Guide Shevuot 13. The mishna is attributed to Rebbi as it seems to imply that Yom Kippur itself atones for sins even for those who don’t repent.聽 Could the mishna really be Rebbi – isn’t the continuation Rabbi Yehuda?聽 This issue is resolved and leads to further discussion.聽 Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon’s聽debate regarding through which sacrifices on Yom Kippur聽do the kohanim receive atonement for all their sins – is it with the goat that is sent to Azazel or the bull of the high priest.

讘注讜诪讚 讘诪专讚讜 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讞讜抓 诪驻讜专拽 注讜诇 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜诪驻专 讘专讬转 讘讘砖专 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讘讝讛 讝讛 讛驻讜专拽 注讜诇 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讗转 诪爪讜转讜 讛驻专 讝讛 讛诪驻专 讘专讬转 讘讘砖专 讛讻专转 转讻专转 讛讻专转 诇驻谞讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 转讻专转 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

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: 鈥淔or he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [hikkaret tikkaret], his sin is upon him鈥 (Numbers 15:31): 鈥淔or he scorned the word of the Lord鈥; 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. 鈥淎nd nullified His commandment鈥; 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.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜谞讛 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖注讜谞讛 讘讛

One might have thought that this applies even if he repented. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淗is sin is upon him,鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻专转 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 转讻专转 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 注讜谞讛 讘讛 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讜诪转 诪讬转讛 诪诪专拽转

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 鈥淗is sin is upon him鈥 teaches that if he repented and died, his death cleanses him of his sin.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讜诪讗谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讜拽讗 拽讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讚专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 诪讬讛讜 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬 诇诪讬诪专 讚转诇诪讬讚 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讜拽讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬诐 讜注诇 砖讗讬谞谉 砖讘讬诐 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬诐 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬诐 诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 转讗诪专 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙

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?

讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 讬讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬诐 讜注诇 砖讗讬谞谉 砖讘讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽

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: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). The word 鈥測et鈥 serves to divide and limit the atonement of Yom Kippur in that it atones only for those who repent.

住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽讗诪专 砖讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讘讬诐 诇讗

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.

讜专诪讬 住转诐 住讬驻专讗 讗住转诐 住讬驻专讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛转注谞讛 讘讜 讜拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 讛转注谞讛 讘讜 讜诇讗 拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讜诐 讻驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). The additional emphasis on 鈥渋t is鈥 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讘讻专转 讚讬讜诪讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻专转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇专讘讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讜诪讬转 讚诇讗 讗转讗 讬诪诪讗 诇讻驻讜专讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗

Rather, say that Rava鈥檚 proof is as follows:

讻专转 讚讬诪诪讗 诇专讘讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗讻诇 讗讜诪爪讗 讜讞谞拽讬讛 讜诪讬转 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讻诇 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讜转 诇讻驻讜专讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞

搂 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.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讞讬诇讜拽 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讗诇讗 砖讛驻专 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讜讻讜壮

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.

讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗转 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讝讛 讛讬讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讻诪砖诪注讜 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 注讝专讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻诪砖诪注讜 注诐 讛拽讛诇 讗诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐

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

讛讜砖讜讜 讻讜诇谉 诇讻驻专讛 讗讞转 砖诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讚诐 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讻讱 讚诐 讛驻专 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讜讻砖诐 砖讜讬讚讜讬讜 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪讻驻专 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讻讱 讜讬讚讜讬讜 砖诇 驻专 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转

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.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讛讜砖讜讜 诪讗讬 讛讜砖讜讜 讚讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬讛讜 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讻驻专 讘讚谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion: And according to Rabbi Shimon, one can ask: Weren鈥檛 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讗转 砖谞讬 讛砖注讬专诐 讗讬转拽砖 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗砖专 诇注诐 讗祝 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转

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: 鈥淗e shall take the two goats鈥 (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: 鈥淭he goat sin-offering of the people鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讛讻讬 讗讬转拽讜砖 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讬诐 讘诪专讗讛 讜讘拽讜诪讛 讜讘讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖讞讟 讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇注诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 讜讘诪讛 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉

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: 鈥淗e shall slaughter the goat sin-offering of the people鈥 (Leviticus 16:15); the term 鈥渙f the people鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬转讻驻专讜 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗砖专 诇讜 诪注转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛

One might have thought that they would also not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as it is already stated: 鈥淎aron shall bring near his own bull sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:6), which indicates that it atones only for Aaron鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement鈥pon the priests鈥 (Leviticus 16:33), we have clearly found that they do have a means of achieving atonement.

讘诪讛 讛谉 诪转讻驻专讬谉 诪讜讟讘 砖讬转讻驻专讜 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讘讬转讜 讜讗诇 讬转讻驻专讜 讘砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讘讬转讜

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗讛专谉 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讘讬转 讛诇讜讬 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讬专讗讬 讛壮 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can cite another proof, as the verse states: 鈥淗ouse 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鈥 (Psalms 135:19鈥20). It is apparent from this verse that 鈥渉ouse of Aaron鈥 is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron鈥檚 immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron鈥檚 bull should atone for them.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜诪谞讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讻驻专讛 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞

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鈥檛 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪注转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讻驻专讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讜讻诪讜 讚诪爪讬谞讜 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讻讱 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛

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: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement鈥pon the priests,鈥 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

  • 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 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 13

讘注讜诪讚 讘诪专讚讜 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讞讜抓 诪驻讜专拽 注讜诇 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜诪驻专 讘专讬转 讘讘砖专 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讘讝讛 讝讛 讛驻讜专拽 注讜诇 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜讗转 诪爪讜转讜 讛驻专 讝讛 讛诪驻专 讘专讬转 讘讘砖专 讛讻专转 转讻专转 讛讻专转 诇驻谞讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 转讻专转 诇讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

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: 鈥淔or he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [hikkaret tikkaret], his sin is upon him鈥 (Numbers 15:31): 鈥淔or he scorned the word of the Lord鈥; 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. 鈥淎nd nullified His commandment鈥; 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.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讜谞讛 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖注讜谞讛 讘讛

One might have thought that this applies even if he repented. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淗is sin is upon him,鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻专转 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 转讻专转 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 注讜谞讛 讘讛 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讜诪转 诪讬转讛 诪诪专拽转

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 鈥淗is sin is upon him鈥 teaches that if he repented and died, his death cleanses him of his sin.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讜诪讗谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讜拽讗 拽讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讚专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 诪讬讛讜 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬 诇诪讬诪专 讚转诇诪讬讚 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讜拽讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬诐 讜注诇 砖讗讬谞谉 砖讘讬诐 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬诐 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬诐 诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 转讗诪专 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙

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?

讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 讬讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬诐 讜注诇 砖讗讬谞谉 砖讘讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽

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: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). The word 鈥測et鈥 serves to divide and limit the atonement of Yom Kippur in that it atones only for those who repent.

住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽讗诪专 砖讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讗 砖讘讬诐 诇讗

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.

讜专诪讬 住转诐 住讬驻专讗 讗住转诐 住讬驻专讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛转注谞讛 讘讜 讜拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 讛转注谞讛 讘讜 讜诇讗 拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讜诐 讻驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). The additional emphasis on 鈥渋t is鈥 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讘讻专转 讚讬讜诪讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻专转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇专讘讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讜诪讬转 讚诇讗 讗转讗 讬诪诪讗 诇讻驻讜专讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗

Rather, say that Rava鈥檚 proof is as follows:

讻专转 讚讬诪诪讗 诇专讘讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗讻诇 讗讜诪爪讗 讜讞谞拽讬讛 讜诪讬转 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讻诇 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讜转 诇讻驻讜专讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞

搂 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.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讞讬诇讜拽 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讗诇讗 砖讛驻专 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讜讻讜壮

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.

讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗转 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讝讛 讛讬讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讻诪砖诪注讜 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 注讝专讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻诪砖诪注讜 注诐 讛拽讛诇 讗诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐

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

讛讜砖讜讜 讻讜诇谉 诇讻驻专讛 讗讞转 砖诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讚诐 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讻讱 讚诐 讛驻专 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讜讻砖诐 砖讜讬讚讜讬讜 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诪讻驻专 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讻讱 讜讬讚讜讬讜 砖诇 驻专 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转

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.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讛讜砖讜讜 诪讗讬 讛讜砖讜讜 讚讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬讛讜 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讻驻专 讘讚谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion: And according to Rabbi Shimon, one can ask: Weren鈥檛 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讗转 砖谞讬 讛砖注讬专诐 讗讬转拽砖 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 诇砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗砖专 诇注诐 讗祝 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转

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: 鈥淗e shall take the two goats鈥 (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: 鈥淭he goat sin-offering of the people鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讛讻讬 讗讬转拽讜砖 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讬诐 讘诪专讗讛 讜讘拽讜诪讛 讜讘讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖讞讟 讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇注诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 讜讘诪讛 诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉

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: 鈥淗e shall slaughter the goat sin-offering of the people鈥 (Leviticus 16:15); the term 鈥渙f the people鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬转讻驻专讜 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗砖专 诇讜 诪注转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛

One might have thought that they would also not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as it is already stated: 鈥淎aron shall bring near his own bull sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:6), which indicates that it atones only for Aaron鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement鈥pon the priests鈥 (Leviticus 16:33), we have clearly found that they do have a means of achieving atonement.

讘诪讛 讛谉 诪转讻驻专讬谉 诪讜讟讘 砖讬转讻驻专讜 讘驻专讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 砖讛专讬 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讘讬转讜 讜讗诇 讬转讻驻专讜 讘砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讘讬转讜

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗讛专谉 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讘讬转 讛诇讜讬 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮 讬专讗讬 讛壮 讘专讻讜 讗转 讛壮

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can cite another proof, as the verse states: 鈥淗ouse 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鈥 (Psalms 135:19鈥20). It is apparent from this verse that 鈥渉ouse of Aaron鈥 is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron鈥檚 immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron鈥檚 bull should atone for them.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜诪谞讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讻驻专讛 讘砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞

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鈥檛 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪注转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讻驻专讛 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讻驻专 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讜讻诪讜 讚诪爪讬谞讜 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛 讘砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 讻讱 讬砖 诇讛谉 讻驻专讛

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: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement鈥pon the priests,鈥 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

Scroll To Top