Shevuot 7

עולה ויורד ניתי מידי דהוה אשמיעת קול ואביטוי שפתים

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 “hearing the voice” (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 “utterance of lips” (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.

אמר קרא בה בה למעוטי תרומה

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: “Or if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure” (Leviticus 5:3). The verse states “through which” to exclude an impure person who partakes of teruma from liability to bring a sliding-scale offering.

אימא בה למעוטי מקדש דלא סגי ליה בקרבן עולה ויורד עד דמייתי קרבן קבוע

The Gemara asks: But say the verse states “through which” 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.

קרי רבא עליה דרבי דולה מים מבורות עמוקים

Rava read the following verse about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: “One who draws water from deep wells” (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.

דתניא רבי אומר אקרא אני חיה בהמה למה נאמרה נאמר כאן בהמה טמאה ונאמר להלן בהמה טמאה מה להלן טומאת קודש אף כאן טומאת קודש

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: “Or if a person will have touched any impure object, whether the carcass of an impure animal [ḥayya] or the carcass of an impure domesticated animal [behema]” (Leviticus 5:2). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Since a domesticated animal is also referred to a ḥayya, it would be sufficient if I would read only the verse’s clause about a ḥayya. 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: “An impure domesticated animal,” 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: “An impure domesticated animal” (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.

אשכחן טומאת קודש טומאת מקדש מנלן אמר קרא בכל קדש לא תגע ואל המקדש לא תבא איתקש מקדש לקודש

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: “She may not touch any sacred item and she may not enter the Temple” (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.

אי הכי תרומה נמי דאמר מר בכל קדש לא תגע לרבות את התרומה

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 “sacred item,” in the verse: “She may not touch any sacred item,” serves to include teruma in the prohibition. Accordingly, it should also be included in the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.

הא מיעט רחמנא בה אימא בה למעוטי מקדש מסתברא מקדש לא ממעטינן שכן בכרת כמותה

The Gemara explains: The Merciful One excludes something with the term “through which” (Leviticus 5:3). Should we say that the term “through which” 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.

אדרבה תרומה לא ממעטינן שכן אכילה כמותה

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.

אלא אמר רבא שלש כריתות בשלמים למה אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לטומאה הכתובה בתורה סתם ואיני יודע מה היא

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.

הוי אומר טומאת קודש ואם אינו ענין לטומאת קודש דנפקא ליה מדרבי תנהו ענין לטומאת מקדש

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.

והאי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו שלש כריתות בשלמים למה אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לדברים שאינן נאכלין

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.

ולרבי שמעון דאמר דברים שאינן נאכלין אין חייבין עליהן כרת משום טומאה לאיתויי חטאת הפנימית דסלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואמר רבי שמעון כל שאינו קרב על מזבח החיצון כשלמים אין חייבין עליו משום פיגול משום טומאה נמי לא קא משמע לן דמיחייב

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.

אלא אמרי נהרדעי משמיה דרבא שלש טומאות בשלמים למה אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לטומאה הכתובה בתורה סתם ואיני יודע מה היא

Rather, the Sages of Neharde’a 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.

הוי אומר טומאת קודש ואם אינו ענין לטומאת קודש דנפקא ליה מדרבי תנהו ענין לטומאת מקדש

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.

והאי נמי מיבעי ליה איידי דבעי למכתב כרת לכדרבי אבהו כתב נמי טמאות דלא סגי לה בלאו הכי

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.

אלא אמר רבא אתיא טומאתו טומאתו כתיב הכא לכל טומאתו

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

וכתיב התם טמא יהיה עוד טמאתו בו מה להלן טומאת מקדש אף כאן טומאת מקדש

and it is written there with regard to the red heifer: “Whoever touches the corpse of a man who died and is not sprinkled, he will have contaminated the Tabernacle of God…he will be impure, his impurity is still upon him” (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.

ואלא בה למה לי

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “through which” (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.

לרבות נבלת עוף טהור

The Gemara answers: The term “through which” 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.

הא אמרת בה מיעוטא הוא משום דמיעוטא הוא אייתר כתיב או כי יגע דבר נגיעה אין דלאו בר נגיעה לא וכתיב בה מיעוטא הוה מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות

The Gemara challenges: But didn’t you say above that the term “through which” 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: “Or if he will touch an impurity of a man” (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 “through which,” 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.

יש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף שעיר הנעשה בפנים וכו׳ תנו רבנן וכפר על הקדש מטמאת בני ישראל וגו׳

§ 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: “And 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” (Leviticus 16:16).

יש לי בענין זה להביא שלש טומאות טומאת עבודה זרה וטומאת גילוי עריות וטומאת שפיכות דמים

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.

בעבודה זרה הוא אומר למען טמא את מקדשי בגילוי עריות הוא אומר ושמרתם את משמרתי לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבת וגו׳ ולא תטמאו בהם בשפיכות דמים הוא אומר ולא תטמא את הארץ יכול על שלש טומאות הללו יהא שעיר מכפר תלמוד לומר מטמאת בני ישראל ולא כל טומאות

The baraita demonstrates that each of these sins is referred to as impurity: With regard to idol worship the verse states: “For he had given his offspring to Molekh in order to render impure My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 20:3). With regard to forbidden sexual relations the verse states: “You 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” (Leviticus 18:30). With regard to bloodshed the verse states: “The 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” (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: “From the impurities of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 16:16). The restrictive term “from” indicates that it atones for some impurities but not for all impurities.

מה מצינו שחלק הכתוב מכלל כל טומאות הוי אומר טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אף כאן בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דברי רבי יהודה

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.

רבי שמעון אומר ממקומו הוא מוכרע הרי הוא אומר וכפר על הקדש מטמאת מטומאות של קודש

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: “And he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary [hakodesh] from the impurities of the children of Israel,” which should be interpreted as saying that it atones for the defiling of anything sacred [kodesh], i.e., the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

יכול על כל טומאה שבקודש יהא שעיר זה מכפר תלמוד לומר ומפשעיהם לכל חטאתם חטאים דומיא דפשעים מה פשעים שאינם בני קרבן אף חטאים שאינם בני קרבן

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: “And from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins” (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.

ומנין ליש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף ששעיר זה תולה תלמוד לומר לכל חטאתם חייבי חטאות במשמע

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 “for all their sins,” 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.

אמר מר יש לי בענין זה להביא שלש טומאות טומאת עבודה זרה וטומאת גילוי עריות וטומאת שפיכות דמים

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.

האי עבודה זרה היכי דמי אי במזיד בר קטלא הוא אי בשוגג בר קרבן הוא

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.

במזיד ולא אתרו ביה בשוגג ולא אתיידע ליה

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.