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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 5, 2017 | 讬状讝 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

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

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

Shevuot 7

Study Guide Shevuot 7. How do we know that the verses that obligate one to bring a sliding scale sin offering if one is impure is referring to one who聽entered the mikdash or ate kodashim?聽 How do we know that the sin offering that the Kohen brings on Yom Kippur whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar is for sins of one who entered the mikdash聽impure or ate kodashim in a case where he knew he was impure, then forgot and then didn’t remember?


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

注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 谞讬转讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖诪讬注转 拽讜诇 讜讗讘讬讟讜讬 砖驻转讬诐

one can bring a sliding-scale offering for the unwitting violation of a transgression whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet; just as is the case of a violation for 鈥渉earing the voice鈥 (Leviticus 5:1), which is where a litigant asks a witness to testify about an event and he takes a false oath that he did not witness the event, and for taking a false oath with the 鈥渦tterance of lips鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). In both of these cases, an intentional violation is not punishable by karet, and nevertheless one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for an unwitting violation.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to one who partakes of teruma while ritually impure, as the verse concerning a sliding-scale offering states: 鈥淥r if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:3). The verse states 鈥渢hrough which鈥 to exclude an impure person who partakes of teruma from liability to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 拽讘讜注

The Gemara asks: But say the verse states 鈥渢hrough which鈥 to exclude one who defiles the Temple, and teaches that due to the severity of that transgression it is not sufficient for him to achieve atonement with a sliding-scale offering; rather, he will not achieve atonement until he brings a fixed sin-offering. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from here.

拽专讬 专讘讗 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讚讜诇讛 诪讬诐 诪讘讜专讜转 注诪讜拽讬诐

Rava read the following verse about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: 鈥淥ne who draws water from deep wells鈥 (see Proverbs 20:5); this verse describes Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because by delving deeply into the Bible he found a source that a sliding-scale offering atones for the unwitting defiling of sacrificial foods by partaking of them while ritually impure.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 讞讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: 鈥淥r if a person will have touched any impure object, whether the carcass of an impure animal [岣yya] or the carcass of an impure domesticated animal [behema]鈥 (Leviticus 5:2). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Since a domesticated animal is also referred to a 岣yya, it would be sufficient if I would read only the verse鈥檚 clause about a 岣yya. Why then is an explicit clause about a behema stated? It is in order to derive a verbal analogy. It is stated in the verse here: 鈥淎n impure domesticated animal,鈥 and it is stated in the verse below with regard to one who intentionally defiles an offering by partaking of it while he is impure: 鈥淎n impure domesticated animal鈥 (Leviticus 7:21). Just as below the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods, so too here, the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods.

讗砖讻讞谉 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 讗讬转拽砖 诪拽讚砖 诇拽讜讚砖

The Gemara continues: We found a source for the halakha that the sliding-scale offering atones for the defiling of sacrificial foods; from where do we derive that it also atones for the defiling of the Temple by entering it while ritually impure? The verse states with regard to a woman after childbirth, who is impure due to having given birth: 鈥淪he may not touch any sacred item and she may not enter the Temple鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the Temple to sacred items to teach that the halakhot that apply to one apply to the other. Accordingly, the sliding-scale offering atones for both.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: If so, that the liability to bring a sliding-scale offering is derived from this verse, then one should also be liable to bring the offering if he partakes of teruma while impure, as the Master said that the general term 鈥渟acred item,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淪he may not touch any sacred item,鈥 serves to include teruma in the prohibition. Accordingly, it should also be included in the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛 讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪拽讚砖 诪住转讘专讗 诪拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪注讟讬谞谉 砖讻谉 讘讻专转 讻诪讜转讛

The Gemara explains: The Merciful One excludes something with the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 (Leviticus 5:3). Should we say that the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 serves to exclude the defiling of the Temple? No, it is reasonable that we should not exclude the defiling of the Temple, as its intentional violation is punishable by karet, just like one who defiles sacrificial foods by partaking of them while he is impure. Rather, the term must serve to exclude one who partakes of teruma while impure.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪诪注讟讬谞谉 砖讻谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讻诪讜转讛

The Gemara offers a counterargument: On the contrary, we should not exclude one who partakes of teruma while impure, as it is a violation done through eating, similar to one who eats sacrificial food while impure. Therefore, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for defiling the Temple.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 讻专讬转讜转 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇诇 讜讗讞转 诇驻专讟 讜讗讞转 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讬讗

Rather, Rava said it can be derived from the following: Why does the Torah mention three times the punishment of karet with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is impure? The three times are Leviticus 22:3, 7:20, and 7:21. One time is to apply the punishment to the general case of a ritually impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is to apply it to the specific instance of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to another case of defiling something sacred that is written in the Torah without specifying what it is referring to, and I do not know from that passage what that case is.

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖

Rava continues: The only passage that describes the defiling of something sacred without specifying the situation is the passage in the Torah that discusses a sliding-scale offering brought for the defiling of sacrificial foods. Therefore, you must say that the third mention of karet is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods. But if it is not needed to teach the matter of defiling sacrificial foods, as that has been derived through the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, apply it to the matter of defiling the Temple. Accordingly, one who intentionally defiles the Temple by entering it while impure is liable to receive karet, and it is reasonable that he should be liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for doing so unwittingly.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇砖 讻专讬转讜转 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇诇 讜讗讞转 诇驻专讟 讜讗讞转 诇讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But that third mention is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: Why does the Torah mention three times the punishment of karet with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is ritually impure? One time is to apply the punishment to the general case of an impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is to apply it to the specific instance of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to an impure person who eats items that are not generally eaten, such as frankincense.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻专转 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讟讗转 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讻砖诇诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara adds: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that for items that are not generally eaten one is not liable to be punished with karet for partaking of them while he is ritually impure, the third mention is necessary in order to include the case of an impure person who eats an internal sin-offering, as it could enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: For any type of offering that is not sacrificed on and its blood applied to the external altar in the manner that peace-offerings are, one cannot be liable to be punished with karet for eating it if it is piggul, i.e., for eating such an offering if it was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time. One might have thought that similarly, for such an offering, one is also not liable to be punished with karet for intentionally partaking of it while ritually impure; the third mention teaches us that one is indeed liable. Therefore, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for unwittingly entering the Temple while impure.

讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇诇 讜讗讞转 诇驻专讟 讜讗讞转 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讬讗

Rather, the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said in the name of Rava that it can be derived from the following: Why does the Torah mention three times the ritually impure status with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is impure? That is, each of the three times that the Torah mentions the punishment of karet, it also mentions the fact that the person was impure at the time. One time is for the general case of a impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is for the specific instance of one who partakes of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to another case of defiling something sacred that is written in the Torah without specifying what it is referring to, and I do not know from that passage what the case is.

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖

Now, the only passage that describes the defiling of something sacred without specifying the situation is the passage in the Torah that discusses a sliding-scale offering that is brought for the defiling of sacrificial foods. Therefore, you must say that the third mention of karet is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods. But if it is not needed to teach the matter of defiling sacrificial foods, as that has been derived through the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, apply it to the matter of defiling the Temple.

讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讻转讘 讻专转 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻转讘 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讜转 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讛 讘诇讗讜 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: But that third mention is also necessary, because since it is necessary for the Torah to write the karet punishment three times in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, it also has to write that the person was ritually impure, as it is not sufficient to mention the punishment without mentioning for what the punishment is given. Accordingly, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for unwittingly defiling the Temple.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转讜

Rather, Rava said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渉is impurity鈥 and 鈥渉is impurity,鈥 as follows: It is written here, with regard to a sliding-scale offering: 鈥淥r if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:3),

讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 注讜讚 讟诪讗转讜 讘讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖

and it is written there with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淲hoever touches the corpse of a man who died and is not sprinkled, he will have contaminated the Tabernacle of God鈥he will be impure, his impurity is still upon him鈥 (Numbers 19:13). This verbal analogy teaches that just as there the verse is referring to the defiling of the Temple, so too here, the sliding-scale offering is brought to atone for the defiling of the Temple.

讜讗诇讗 讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 (Leviticus 5:3)? The Gemara earlier derived from this term that one who is impure and unwittingly eats teruma is not liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Gemara has now derived that the sliding-scale offering atones specifically for the unwitting defiling of the Temple. If so, it is obvious that one is not liable for unwittingly eating teruma, and the phrase is superfluous.

诇专讘讜转 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专

The Gemara answers: The term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 serves to include one who was rendered impure by eating the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. Unlike other impure items, which render impure any person who touches them, the carcass of a kosher bird renders a person impure only if he eats it. Therefore, one might have thought he would not be liable for entering the Temple if he was rendered impure by having eating the carcass of a kosher bird. The extra term is therefore necessary to teach that one is liable.

讛讗 讗诪专转 讘讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讗讬讬转专 讻转讬讘 讗讜 讻讬 讬讙注 讚讘专 谞讙讬注讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 谞讙讬注讛 诇讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讛 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 you say above that the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 is a restriction? How can you now use it to include additional cases? The Gemara explains: It is precisely because it is a restriction that it includes additional cases. As it is written at the beginning of that verse: 鈥淥r if he will touch an impurity of a man鈥 (Leviticus 5:3), which indicates that one who is impure with a form of impurity that can impart impurity through touching, yes, he is liable for defiling the Temple by entering it in his impure state. But if one is impure with a form of impurity that cannot impart impurity through touching, then one would not be liable. Therefore, the verse opens with a restriction, and when the verse continues, and it is written 鈥渢hrough which,鈥 which is also a restriction, this constitutes a restriction after a restriction, and a restriction after a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha, applying it to additional cases.

讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮

搂 The mishna continues: For cases in which one had awareness at the beginning, but then transgressed during a lapse of awareness and still had no awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, suspend any punishment that he deserves until he becomes aware of his transgression, at which point he must bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the internal goat offering: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16).

讬砖 诇讬 讘注谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讛讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讟讜诪讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讟讜诪讗转 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜讟讜诪讗转 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

With regard to this matter, i.e., the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the goat, I can state that this verse serves to amplify the atonement by teaching that the goat offering atones for the following three sins, which the Torah is referring to as impurities: The impurity of the sin of idol worship, and the impurity of engaging in forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of perpetrating bloodshed.

讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪注谉 讟诪讗 讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 讘讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转讬 诇讘诇转讬 注砖讜转 诪讞拽讜转 讛转讜注讘转 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗讜 讘讛诐 讘砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗 讗转 讛讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 注诇 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛诇诇讜 讬讛讗 砖注讬专 诪讻驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讟诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转

The baraita demonstrates that each of these sins is referred to as impurity: With regard to idol worship the verse states: 鈥淔or he had given his offspring to Molekh in order to render impure My Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 20:3). With regard to forbidden sexual relations the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall safeguard My charge not to do any of the abominable traditions that were done before you and not to render yourself impure through them鈥 (Leviticus 18:30). With regard to bloodshed the verse states: 鈥淭he land will not atone for the blood that was spilled on it except through the blood of the one who spilled it; you shall not render the land impure鈥 (Numbers 35:34). One might have thought that the goat offering would atone for these three types of impurities. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淔rom the impurities of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). The restrictive term 鈥渇rom鈥 indicates that it atones for some impurities but not for all impurities.

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 诪讻诇诇 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The baraita derives the type of impurity for which the goat offering does atone: What do we find is the impurity that the verse differentiates from all other impurities? You must say that the verse is referring to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. It is specifically for this transgression that the Torah provides one with the means of achieving atonement, i.e., by bringing a sliding-scale offering. So too here, since the verse limits the atonement of the goat offering to transgressions involving impurity, it is logical that it can also atone only for 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 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟诪讗转 诪讟讜诪讗讜转 砖诇 拽讜讚砖

Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to derive which transgressions the goat offering atones for by comparing the verse written concerning it to a different verse. Rather, from its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement effected by the goat itself, it can be determined, as it states: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary [hakodesh] from the impurities of the children of Israel,鈥 which should be interpreted as saying that it atones for the defiling of anything sacred [kodesh], i.e., the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

讬讻讜诇 注诇 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘拽讜讚砖 讬讛讗 砖注讬专 讝讛 诪讻驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉

The baraita continues: One might have thought that this goat offering would atone for all cases of the defiling of the Temple, even where there was awareness at the beginning and at the end. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16), which indicates that the goat offering atones only for sins that are similar to acts of rebellion. Just as it atones for acts of rebellion that are not subject to atonement through an offering, as sin-offerings brought by an individual are brought only for unwitting sins, so too, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering. As long as one does not become aware of his sin, it cannot be atoned for through the sliding-scale offering. Accordingly, the goat will atone for it.

讜诪谞讬谉 诇讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖砖注讬专 讝讛 转讜诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讘诪砖诪注

The baraita continues. And from where is it derived for a case in which one had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, that this goat suspends the punishment that he deserved until he becomes aware of his transgression? The verse states 鈥渇or all their sins,鈥 from which it is indicated that the goat offering atones only for those who are potentially liable to bring a sin-offering, i.e., the sliding-scale offering, should they become aware of their sin.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘注谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讛讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讟讜诪讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讟讜诪讗转 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜讟讜诪讗转 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

The Gemara clarifies some of the details of the baraita. The Master said: With regard to this matter, I can state that this verse serves to amplify the atonement by teaching that the goat offering atones for the following three sins, which the Torah is referring to as impurities: The impurity of the sin of idol worship, and the impurity of engaging in forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of perpetrating bloodshed.

讛讗讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘砖讜讙讙 讘专 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Concerning this sin of idol worship, for which one might have thought the goat would atone, what are the circumstances? If you say the reference is to a case where he transgressed intentionally, then one can counter that he is subject to the death penalty and no offering will atone for his sin. And if you say the reference is to a case where he transgressed unwittingly, then one can counter that he is liable to bring his own sin-offering for his transgression, and the goat will not atone for him.

讘诪讝讬讚 讜诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 讗转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, and therefore he is not liable to receive the death penalty. It also atones in a case where he transgressed unwittingly, but by the time Yom Kippur arrived he had still not become aware of his transgression and therefore he was not liable to bring an offering.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Shevuot 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 7

注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 谞讬转讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖诪讬注转 拽讜诇 讜讗讘讬讟讜讬 砖驻转讬诐

one can bring a sliding-scale offering for the unwitting violation of a transgression whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet; just as is the case of a violation for 鈥渉earing the voice鈥 (Leviticus 5:1), which is where a litigant asks a witness to testify about an event and he takes a false oath that he did not witness the event, and for taking a false oath with the 鈥渦tterance of lips鈥 (Leviticus 5:4). In both of these cases, an intentional violation is not punishable by karet, and nevertheless one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for an unwitting violation.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讛 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to one who partakes of teruma while ritually impure, as the verse concerning a sliding-scale offering states: 鈥淥r if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:3). The verse states 鈥渢hrough which鈥 to exclude an impure person who partakes of teruma from liability to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘拽专讘谉 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 拽讘讜注

The Gemara asks: But say the verse states 鈥渢hrough which鈥 to exclude one who defiles the Temple, and teaches that due to the severity of that transgression it is not sufficient for him to achieve atonement with a sliding-scale offering; rather, he will not achieve atonement until he brings a fixed sin-offering. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from here.

拽专讬 专讘讗 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讚讜诇讛 诪讬诐 诪讘讜专讜转 注诪讜拽讬诐

Rava read the following verse about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: 鈥淥ne who draws water from deep wells鈥 (see Proverbs 20:5); this verse describes Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because by delving deeply into the Bible he found a source that a sliding-scale offering atones for the unwitting defiling of sacrificial foods by partaking of them while ritually impure.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 讞讬讛 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: 鈥淥r if a person will have touched any impure object, whether the carcass of an impure animal [岣yya] or the carcass of an impure domesticated animal [behema]鈥 (Leviticus 5:2). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Since a domesticated animal is also referred to a 岣yya, it would be sufficient if I would read only the verse鈥檚 clause about a 岣yya. Why then is an explicit clause about a behema stated? It is in order to derive a verbal analogy. It is stated in the verse here: 鈥淎n impure domesticated animal,鈥 and it is stated in the verse below with regard to one who intentionally defiles an offering by partaking of it while he is impure: 鈥淎n impure domesticated animal鈥 (Leviticus 7:21). Just as below the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods, so too here, the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods.

讗砖讻讞谉 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 讗讬转拽砖 诪拽讚砖 诇拽讜讚砖

The Gemara continues: We found a source for the halakha that the sliding-scale offering atones for the defiling of sacrificial foods; from where do we derive that it also atones for the defiling of the Temple by entering it while ritually impure? The verse states with regard to a woman after childbirth, who is impure due to having given birth: 鈥淪he may not touch any sacred item and she may not enter the Temple鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the Temple to sacred items to teach that the halakhot that apply to one apply to the other. Accordingly, the sliding-scale offering atones for both.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: If so, that the liability to bring a sliding-scale offering is derived from this verse, then one should also be liable to bring the offering if he partakes of teruma while impure, as the Master said that the general term 鈥渟acred item,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淪he may not touch any sacred item,鈥 serves to include teruma in the prohibition. Accordingly, it should also be included in the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讛讗 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛 讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪拽讚砖 诪住转讘专讗 诪拽讚砖 诇讗 诪诪注讟讬谞谉 砖讻谉 讘讻专转 讻诪讜转讛

The Gemara explains: The Merciful One excludes something with the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 (Leviticus 5:3). Should we say that the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 serves to exclude the defiling of the Temple? No, it is reasonable that we should not exclude the defiling of the Temple, as its intentional violation is punishable by karet, just like one who defiles sacrificial foods by partaking of them while he is impure. Rather, the term must serve to exclude one who partakes of teruma while impure.

讗讚专讘讛 转专讜诪讛 诇讗 诪诪注讟讬谞谉 砖讻谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讻诪讜转讛

The Gemara offers a counterargument: On the contrary, we should not exclude one who partakes of teruma while impure, as it is a violation done through eating, similar to one who eats sacrificial food while impure. Therefore, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for defiling the Temple.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 讻专讬转讜转 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇诇 讜讗讞转 诇驻专讟 讜讗讞转 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讬讗

Rather, Rava said it can be derived from the following: Why does the Torah mention three times the punishment of karet with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is impure? The three times are Leviticus 22:3, 7:20, and 7:21. One time is to apply the punishment to the general case of a ritually impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is to apply it to the specific instance of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to another case of defiling something sacred that is written in the Torah without specifying what it is referring to, and I do not know from that passage what that case is.

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖

Rava continues: The only passage that describes the defiling of something sacred without specifying the situation is the passage in the Torah that discusses a sliding-scale offering brought for the defiling of sacrificial foods. Therefore, you must say that the third mention of karet is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods. But if it is not needed to teach the matter of defiling sacrificial foods, as that has been derived through the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, apply it to the matter of defiling the Temple. Accordingly, one who intentionally defiles the Temple by entering it while impure is liable to receive karet, and it is reasonable that he should be liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for doing so unwittingly.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇砖 讻专讬转讜转 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇诇 讜讗讞转 诇驻专讟 讜讗讞转 诇讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But that third mention is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: Why does the Torah mention three times the punishment of karet with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is ritually impure? One time is to apply the punishment to the general case of an impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is to apply it to the specific instance of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to an impure person who eats items that are not generally eaten, such as frankincense.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讻专转 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讟讗转 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讻砖诇诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara adds: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that for items that are not generally eaten one is not liable to be punished with karet for partaking of them while he is ritually impure, the third mention is necessary in order to include the case of an impure person who eats an internal sin-offering, as it could enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: For any type of offering that is not sacrificed on and its blood applied to the external altar in the manner that peace-offerings are, one cannot be liable to be punished with karet for eating it if it is piggul, i.e., for eating such an offering if it was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time. One might have thought that similarly, for such an offering, one is also not liable to be punished with karet for intentionally partaking of it while ritually impure; the third mention teaches us that one is indeed liable. Therefore, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for unwittingly entering the Temple while impure.

讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇诇 讜讗讞转 诇驻专讟 讜讗讞转 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讬讗

Rather, the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said in the name of Rava that it can be derived from the following: Why does the Torah mention three times the ritually impure status with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is impure? That is, each of the three times that the Torah mentions the punishment of karet, it also mentions the fact that the person was impure at the time. One time is for the general case of a impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is for the specific instance of one who partakes of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to another case of defiling something sacred that is written in the Torah without specifying what it is referring to, and I do not know from that passage what the case is.

讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 拽讜讚砖 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖

Now, the only passage that describes the defiling of something sacred without specifying the situation is the passage in the Torah that discusses a sliding-scale offering that is brought for the defiling of sacrificial foods. Therefore, you must say that the third mention of karet is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods. But if it is not needed to teach the matter of defiling sacrificial foods, as that has been derived through the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, apply it to the matter of defiling the Temple.

讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讻转讘 讻专转 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻转讘 谞诪讬 讟诪讗讜转 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讛 讘诇讗讜 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: But that third mention is also necessary, because since it is necessary for the Torah to write the karet punishment three times in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, it also has to write that the person was ritually impure, as it is not sufficient to mention the punishment without mentioning for what the punishment is given. Accordingly, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for unwittingly defiling the Temple.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转讜

Rather, Rava said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渉is impurity鈥 and 鈥渉is impurity,鈥 as follows: It is written here, with regard to a sliding-scale offering: 鈥淥r if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:3),

讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 注讜讚 讟诪讗转讜 讘讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖

and it is written there with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淲hoever touches the corpse of a man who died and is not sprinkled, he will have contaminated the Tabernacle of God鈥he will be impure, his impurity is still upon him鈥 (Numbers 19:13). This verbal analogy teaches that just as there the verse is referring to the defiling of the Temple, so too here, the sliding-scale offering is brought to atone for the defiling of the Temple.

讜讗诇讗 讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 (Leviticus 5:3)? The Gemara earlier derived from this term that one who is impure and unwittingly eats teruma is not liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Gemara has now derived that the sliding-scale offering atones specifically for the unwitting defiling of the Temple. If so, it is obvious that one is not liable for unwittingly eating teruma, and the phrase is superfluous.

诇专讘讜转 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专

The Gemara answers: The term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 serves to include one who was rendered impure by eating the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. Unlike other impure items, which render impure any person who touches them, the carcass of a kosher bird renders a person impure only if he eats it. Therefore, one might have thought he would not be liable for entering the Temple if he was rendered impure by having eating the carcass of a kosher bird. The extra term is therefore necessary to teach that one is liable.

讛讗 讗诪专转 讘讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讗讬讬转专 讻转讬讘 讗讜 讻讬 讬讙注 讚讘专 谞讙讬注讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 谞讙讬注讛 诇讗 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讜讛 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 you say above that the term 鈥渢hrough which鈥 is a restriction? How can you now use it to include additional cases? The Gemara explains: It is precisely because it is a restriction that it includes additional cases. As it is written at the beginning of that verse: 鈥淥r if he will touch an impurity of a man鈥 (Leviticus 5:3), which indicates that one who is impure with a form of impurity that can impart impurity through touching, yes, he is liable for defiling the Temple by entering it in his impure state. But if one is impure with a form of impurity that cannot impart impurity through touching, then one would not be liable. Therefore, the verse opens with a restriction, and when the verse continues, and it is written 鈥渢hrough which,鈥 which is also a restriction, this constitutes a restriction after a restriction, and a restriction after a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha, applying it to additional cases.

讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮

搂 The mishna continues: For cases in which one had awareness at the beginning, but then transgressed during a lapse of awareness and still had no awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, suspend any punishment that he deserves until he becomes aware of his transgression, at which point he must bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the internal goat offering: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16).

讬砖 诇讬 讘注谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讛讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讟讜诪讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讟讜诪讗转 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜讟讜诪讗转 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

With regard to this matter, i.e., the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the goat, I can state that this verse serves to amplify the atonement by teaching that the goat offering atones for the following three sins, which the Torah is referring to as impurities: The impurity of the sin of idol worship, and the impurity of engaging in forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of perpetrating bloodshed.

讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪注谉 讟诪讗 讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 讘讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转讬 诇讘诇转讬 注砖讜转 诪讞拽讜转 讛转讜注讘转 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗讜 讘讛诐 讘砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 转讟诪讗 讗转 讛讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 注诇 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛诇诇讜 讬讛讗 砖注讬专 诪讻驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讟诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转

The baraita demonstrates that each of these sins is referred to as impurity: With regard to idol worship the verse states: 鈥淔or he had given his offspring to Molekh in order to render impure My Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 20:3). With regard to forbidden sexual relations the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall safeguard My charge not to do any of the abominable traditions that were done before you and not to render yourself impure through them鈥 (Leviticus 18:30). With regard to bloodshed the verse states: 鈥淭he land will not atone for the blood that was spilled on it except through the blood of the one who spilled it; you shall not render the land impure鈥 (Numbers 35:34). One might have thought that the goat offering would atone for these three types of impurities. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淔rom the impurities of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). The restrictive term 鈥渇rom鈥 indicates that it atones for some impurities but not for all impurities.

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 诪讻诇诇 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The baraita derives the type of impurity for which the goat offering does atone: What do we find is the impurity that the verse differentiates from all other impurities? You must say that the verse is referring to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. It is specifically for this transgression that the Torah provides one with the means of achieving atonement, i.e., by bringing a sliding-scale offering. So too here, since the verse limits the atonement of the goat offering to transgressions involving impurity, it is logical that it can also atone only for 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 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟诪讗转 诪讟讜诪讗讜转 砖诇 拽讜讚砖

Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to derive which transgressions the goat offering atones for by comparing the verse written concerning it to a different verse. Rather, from its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement effected by the goat itself, it can be determined, as it states: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary [hakodesh] from the impurities of the children of Israel,鈥 which should be interpreted as saying that it atones for the defiling of anything sacred [kodesh], i.e., the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

讬讻讜诇 注诇 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘拽讜讚砖 讬讛讗 砖注讬专 讝讛 诪讻驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 砖讗讬谞诐 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉

The baraita continues: One might have thought that this goat offering would atone for all cases of the defiling of the Temple, even where there was awareness at the beginning and at the end. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淎nd from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16), which indicates that the goat offering atones only for sins that are similar to acts of rebellion. Just as it atones for acts of rebellion that are not subject to atonement through an offering, as sin-offerings brought by an individual are brought only for unwitting sins, so too, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering. As long as one does not become aware of his sin, it cannot be atoned for through the sliding-scale offering. Accordingly, the goat will atone for it.

讜诪谞讬谉 诇讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖砖注讬专 讝讛 转讜诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讞讬讬讘讬 讞讟讗讜转 讘诪砖诪注

The baraita continues. And from where is it derived for a case in which one had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, that this goat suspends the punishment that he deserved until he becomes aware of his transgression? The verse states 鈥渇or all their sins,鈥 from which it is indicated that the goat offering atones only for those who are potentially liable to bring a sin-offering, i.e., the sliding-scale offering, should they become aware of their sin.

讗诪专 诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘注谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讛讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 讟讜诪讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讟讜诪讗转 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜讟讜诪讗转 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

The Gemara clarifies some of the details of the baraita. The Master said: With regard to this matter, I can state that this verse serves to amplify the atonement by teaching that the goat offering atones for the following three sins, which the Torah is referring to as impurities: The impurity of the sin of idol worship, and the impurity of engaging in forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of perpetrating bloodshed.

讛讗讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讘诪讝讬讚 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘砖讜讙讙 讘专 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Concerning this sin of idol worship, for which one might have thought the goat would atone, what are the circumstances? If you say the reference is to a case where he transgressed intentionally, then one can counter that he is subject to the death penalty and no offering will atone for his sin. And if you say the reference is to a case where he transgressed unwittingly, then one can counter that he is liable to bring his own sin-offering for his transgression, and the goat will not atone for him.

讘诪讝讬讚 讜诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 讗转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, and therefore he is not liable to receive the death penalty. It also atones in a case where he transgressed unwittingly, but by the time Yom Kippur arrived he had still not become aware of his transgression and therefore he was not liable to bring an offering.

Scroll To Top