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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 6, 2017 | 讬状讞 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 8

The braita which聽extrapolated exactly for what sin is the goat sin offering whose blood is sprinkled inside the kodesh kodashim聽meant to atone for is explained in detail.

讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 谞诪讬 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 further: With regard to forbidden sexual relations, for which one might have thought the goat offering would atone as well, 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 so 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 so 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, so 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, so he was not liable to bring an offering.

砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘诪讝讬讚 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘砖讜讙讙 讘专 讙诇讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks further: Concerning the bloodshed for which one might have thought that the goat would atone as well, 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, so 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 subject to go into exile, so the goat offering 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 讗转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讛谞讱 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讙诇讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, and so 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, so he was not liable to bring an offering. Alternatively, it is referring to those cases for which the perpetrator is not subject to exile, e.g., where the death was caused in a way that was almost unavoidable, or where it was very close to being considered intentional.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪讟诪讗讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 诪讻诇诇 讻诇 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讘讟讜诪讗转 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

搂 The Gemara continues to analyze the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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. What do we find is the impurity that the verse differentiates from all other impurities? We find it with regard 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.

诪讗讬 讞诇拽 讚诪讬讬转讬 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讗讬诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讗讬 讞诇拽

The Gemara asks: In what way does the Torah differentiate the impurity of this transgression from other types of transgressions? It is differentiated in that one brings a sliding-scale offering to atone for it. But if that is a sufficient distinction, then say instead that the goat offering atones for idol worship, and in what way does the Torah differentiate it from other types of transgressions?

(住讬诪谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬讜诇讚转 诪爪讜专注 谞讝讬专 讜讻讜壮)

Before answering, the Gemara interjects with a mnemonic that summarizes which cases it will suggest the goat offering should atone for: Idol worship, a woman after childbirth, a leper, a nazirite, etc.

讚诪讬讬转讬 砖注讬专讛 讜诇讗 讻砖讘讛

The Gemara returns to answer its question: It is differentiated in that he brings a she-goat as a sin-offering and not an ewe, which is the animal brought as a sin-offering for other transgressions.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗谞谉 讞诇拽 诇讛拽诇 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讞诇拽 诇讛讞诪讬专 讛讜讗

Rav Kahana said: We said that the goat offering should atone for a transgression that the Torah differentiates in order to be lenient relative to other transgressions, but this case of idol worship is one that the Torah differentiates in order to be stringent relative to other transgressions. Accordingly, the verse cannot be referring to idol worship.

讗讬诪讗 讬讜诇讚转 讚讞诇拽 讚诪讬讬转讗 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转诐

The Gemara asks: Why not say instead that the goat offering atones for a woman after childbirth, as the Torah differentiates her from other people who must bring a sin-offering following a period of impurity in that she brings a sliding-scale offering, whereas others bring a fixed sin-offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16), and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a woman after childbirth is not to atone for a sin, but due to the fact that she went through a period of ritual impurity, the goat offering will not atone for her.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讚讗诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗转 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专注

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says: A woman after childbirth brings an offering because she is also a sinner, what is there to say? Under the intense pain of childbirth a woman is apt to take an oath not to engage in intercourse in order to avoid becoming pregnant again. This is regarded as a sin because she will certainly violate that oath. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said in the baraita: From its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement of the goat offering itself, it can be determined what the goat offering atones for.

讗讬诪讗 诪爪讜专注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转诐

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the goat offering atones for a leper, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring a fixed offering following a period of impurity in that he brings a sliding-scale offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins鈥 and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a leper is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讘讗讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛转诐 谞讙注讬讛 讚讗讻驻专 诇讬讛 讜拽专讘谉 诇讗讬砖转专讜讬讬 讘拽讛诇

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani, who says: Leprous marks come upon a person for seven matters, i.e., seven different sins, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, it is his leprous mark that atones for his sin, and the offering is brought in order to permit him to reenter the congregation, after having been ostracized while he was a leper.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讚讞诇拽 讚诪讬讬转讬 转讜专讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转诐

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the goat offering atones for a nazirite who became ritually impure, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring an offering following a period of impurity in that he brings doves or young pigeons? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins鈥 and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a nazirite is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专注

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: A nazirite is also a sinner because he unnecessarily ab-stained from wine, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the baraita: From its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement of the goat itself, it can be determined what the goat offering atones for.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪讟诪讗讜转 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 讻讜壮 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讘讛讬讻诇

搂 The Gemara continues to clarify the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, asking: Rabbi Shimon is saying well; why does Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that in the same manner that he performs the blood presentation in the innermost sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that is how he shall later perform them in the Sanctuary.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讻谉 讬注砖讛 谞驻拽讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬转讬 驻专 讜砖注讬专 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜谞注讘讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon derive that halakha? That halakha is derived from the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,鈥 i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from that part of the verse? The Gemara explains: He holds that if this halakha would be derived only from that part of the verse, I would say that he should bring another bull and goat, slaughter them, and perform the blood presentations in the Sanctuary with their blood. Therefore, the first part of verse: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary,鈥 teaches us that all the presentations are made with blood from the same bull and goat. The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Shimon not need the first part of the verse to derive this? The Gemara explains that the verse: 鈥淎nd so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,鈥 itself indicates that the blood used in the Tent of Meeting, i.e., in the Sanctuary, is from the same bull and goat.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 注诇 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 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 诪驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 讛讗讬 讘专 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara cites the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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 transgressions with regard to which the perpetrator is not subject to bring an offering brought by an individual to atone for himself. The Gemara asks: What is the case for which the goat offering does not atone? Where one had awareness at the beginning and had awareness at the end. The Gemara objects: But the person in that case is subject to atonement through an offering. If so, even without this verse it would be obvious that the goat offering would not atone for him and absolve him from his obligation to bring an offering.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讬讚注 诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讚诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara explains: No, the verse is necessary to teach that the goat does not atone for him in a case in which he became aware of his transgression close to sunset before the onset of Yom Kippur and was unable to bring his offering before Yom Kippur. In such a case it might enter your mind to say that until he brings his sliding-scale offering the day after Yom Kippur,

谞讬转诇讬 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

the goat would suspend any punishment that he deserved. Therefore, the verse teaches us that since the transgression is of a type that is subject to an offering brought by an individual, the goat does not effect any atonement for it.

讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讬砖 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 诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites the next part of the baraita: The Master said: From where is it derived that if a person 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 Gemara challenges: Why does the baraita ask: From where is it derived? What is it that the baraita finds difficult about this that it searches for a proof for it?

讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 谞诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗讬诪讗 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 讗讘诇 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讘专 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬转诇讬

The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita finds difficult: Now that you have said that the goat atones only for sins that are similar to acts of rebellion, such that just as it atones for acts of rebellion that are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, why not compare them in a more restrictive manner and say: Just as it atones only for acts of rebellion that are never subject to atonement through an offering, so too, it atones, or suspends punishment, only for sins that are never and will never be subject to atonement through an offering? And what types of transgressions are they? They are in cases where one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end. But where he had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, since when he becomes aware, he is subject to an offering, one could say that the goat will not even suspend his punishment.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

And if you would say that the comparison should not be understood in this way, because for one who did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone, that is difficult. If atonement is achieved through them, it is unnecessary for the verse to teach that atonement is not effected by the internal goat. Perforce, the comparison must be understood as the baraita presents it. What then is the difficulty of the baraita?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬驻讜讱 诪讬驻讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讘谞讬 讞讟讗讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: It could enter your mind to say that we should reverse our conclusions about which offering atones for which type of transgression. In other words, one could say that the internal goat atones for the sin of one who did not have awareness at the beginning and the external goat atones for the sin of one who did have awareness at the beginning. If so, the comparison could be fully extended, as the Gemara suggested, and accordingly one could have thought that the internal goat would not atone for one who had awareness at the beginning. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins,鈥 which indicates by inference that the internal goat 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.

讜谞转讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 诪讞讟讗转诐 讻讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诇讛谞讱 讚讗转讜 诇讻诇诇 讞讟讗转

The Gemara challenges: But let one who is still not aware of his transgression achieve complete atonement, so that even should he later become aware of his transgression, he will not have to bring an offering. Why does the baraita say that the goat only suspends the punishment? The Gemara answers: If it were written: From their sins, it would be interpreted as you say, but now that it is written: 鈥淔or all their sins,鈥 this indicates that it is referring to those sins whose commission will potentially cause the transgressor to become subject to an obligation to bring a sin-offering.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 诇诪讛 转讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗诐 诪转 诪转 讘诇讗 注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 诪转 诪讬转讛 诪诪专拽转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讛讙谉 注诇讬讜 诪谉 讛讬住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But once it has been determined that the goat does not effect complete atonement, to what end does it suspend punishment? Rabbi Zeira said: The baraita means to say that if he dies before he brings his offering, he dies without liability for sin. Rava said to him: If he dies, he does not need the offering to atone for him, since death itself cleanses him of all his sins. Rather, Rava said there is a different explanation: The baraita means to say that the goat serves to protect him from being punished with suffering before he has brought his offering.

讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: For cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but had awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone. This is derived from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the internal and external goats to teach that both atone only for cases in which one had awareness of his transgression at some point, although each offering atones in a different case.

诪讻讚讬 讗讬转拽讜砖讬 讗讬转拽讜砖 诇讛讚讚讬 讜谞讻驻专 驻谞讬诪讬 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讚讞讬爪讜谉 讜谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讞讬爪讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞转 讻驻专讛 讗讞转 诪讻驻专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 砖转讬 讻驻专讜转

The Gemara comments: Now, the verse juxtaposes the two goats with each other to teach that they effect atonement for similar cases. But then let the internal goat atone both for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the external goat normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where, for some reason, the service of the external goat was not performed. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis of the repeated term 鈥渙nce鈥 teaches that the goat effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases.

讜谞讻驻专 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 驻谞讬诪讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬专注讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讻驻专讛 讝讜 诇讗 转讛讗

The Gemara challenges: But then let the external goat atone both for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the internal goat normally does atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods that occurred between the offering of this goat and that goat. If it occurs after the internal goat鈥檚 blood presentation, then the external goat will effect atonement for it. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year鈥 (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on the term 鈥渙nce a year鈥 teaches that this atonement, for the specific case that it atones for, should be

  • 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 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 8

讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 谞诪讬 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 further: With regard to forbidden sexual relations, for which one might have thought the goat offering would atone as well, 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 so 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 so 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, so 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, so he was not liable to bring an offering.

砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘诪讝讬讚 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘砖讜讙讙 讘专 讙诇讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks further: Concerning the bloodshed for which one might have thought that the goat would atone as well, 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, so 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 subject to go into exile, so the goat offering 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 讗转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讛谞讱 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讙诇讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, and so 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, so he was not liable to bring an offering. Alternatively, it is referring to those cases for which the perpetrator is not subject to exile, e.g., where the death was caused in a way that was almost unavoidable, or where it was very close to being considered intentional.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪讟诪讗讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 诪讻诇诇 讻诇 讛讟讜诪讗讜转 讘讟讜诪讗转 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

搂 The Gemara continues to analyze the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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. What do we find is the impurity that the verse differentiates from all other impurities? We find it with regard 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.

诪讗讬 讞诇拽 讚诪讬讬转讬 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讗讬诪讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讗讬 讞诇拽

The Gemara asks: In what way does the Torah differentiate the impurity of this transgression from other types of transgressions? It is differentiated in that one brings a sliding-scale offering to atone for it. But if that is a sufficient distinction, then say instead that the goat offering atones for idol worship, and in what way does the Torah differentiate it from other types of transgressions?

(住讬诪谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬讜诇讚转 诪爪讜专注 谞讝讬专 讜讻讜壮)

Before answering, the Gemara interjects with a mnemonic that summarizes which cases it will suggest the goat offering should atone for: Idol worship, a woman after childbirth, a leper, a nazirite, etc.

讚诪讬讬转讬 砖注讬专讛 讜诇讗 讻砖讘讛

The Gemara returns to answer its question: It is differentiated in that he brings a she-goat as a sin-offering and not an ewe, which is the animal brought as a sin-offering for other transgressions.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗谞谉 讞诇拽 诇讛拽诇 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讞诇拽 诇讛讞诪讬专 讛讜讗

Rav Kahana said: We said that the goat offering should atone for a transgression that the Torah differentiates in order to be lenient relative to other transgressions, but this case of idol worship is one that the Torah differentiates in order to be stringent relative to other transgressions. Accordingly, the verse cannot be referring to idol worship.

讗讬诪讗 讬讜诇讚转 讚讞诇拽 讚诪讬讬转讗 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转诐

The Gemara asks: Why not say instead that the goat offering atones for a woman after childbirth, as the Torah differentiates her from other people who must bring a sin-offering following a period of impurity in that she brings a sliding-scale offering, whereas others bring a fixed sin-offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16), and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a woman after childbirth is not to atone for a sin, but due to the fact that she went through a period of ritual impurity, the goat offering will not atone for her.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讚讗诪专 讬讜诇讚转 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗转 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专注

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says: A woman after childbirth brings an offering because she is also a sinner, what is there to say? Under the intense pain of childbirth a woman is apt to take an oath not to engage in intercourse in order to avoid becoming pregnant again. This is regarded as a sin because she will certainly violate that oath. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said in the baraita: From its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement of the goat offering itself, it can be determined what the goat offering atones for.

讗讬诪讗 诪爪讜专注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转诐

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the goat offering atones for a leper, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring a fixed offering following a period of impurity in that he brings a sliding-scale offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins鈥 and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a leper is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讘讗讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛转诐 谞讙注讬讛 讚讗讻驻专 诇讬讛 讜拽专讘谉 诇讗讬砖转专讜讬讬 讘拽讛诇

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani, who says: Leprous marks come upon a person for seven matters, i.e., seven different sins, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, it is his leprous mark that atones for his sin, and the offering is brought in order to permit him to reenter the congregation, after having been ostracized while he was a leper.

讜讗讬诪讗 谞讝讬专 讟诪讗 讚讞诇拽 讚诪讬讬转讬 转讜专讬诐 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇 讟讜诪讗转诐

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the goat offering atones for a nazirite who became ritually impure, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring an offering following a period of impurity in that he brings doves or young pigeons? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins鈥 and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a nazirite is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讚讗诪专 谞讝讬专 谞诪讬 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗 诪讜讻专注

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: A nazirite is also a sinner because he unnecessarily ab-stained from wine, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the baraita: From its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement of the goat itself, it can be determined what the goat offering atones for.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪讟诪讗讜转 诪讟讜诪讗转讜 砖诇 拽讜讚砖 讻讜壮 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚注讘讬讚 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讘讛讬讻诇

搂 The Gemara continues to clarify the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, asking: Rabbi Shimon is saying well; why does Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that in the same manner that he performs the blood presentation in the innermost sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that is how he shall later perform them in the Sanctuary.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讻谉 讬注砖讛 谞驻拽讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬转讬 驻专 讜砖注讬专 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜谞注讘讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon derive that halakha? That halakha is derived from the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎nd so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,鈥 i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from that part of the verse? The Gemara explains: He holds that if this halakha would be derived only from that part of the verse, I would say that he should bring another bull and goat, slaughter them, and perform the blood presentations in the Sanctuary with their blood. Therefore, the first part of verse: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary,鈥 teaches us that all the presentations are made with blood from the same bull and goat. The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Shimon not need the first part of the verse to derive this? The Gemara explains that the verse: 鈥淎nd so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,鈥 itself indicates that the blood used in the Tent of Meeting, i.e., in the Sanctuary, is from the same bull and goat.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 注诇 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讜转 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 诪驻砖注讬讛诐 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 讛讗讬 讘专 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara cites the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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 transgressions with regard to which the perpetrator is not subject to bring an offering brought by an individual to atone for himself. The Gemara asks: What is the case for which the goat offering does not atone? Where one had awareness at the beginning and had awareness at the end. The Gemara objects: But the person in that case is subject to atonement through an offering. If so, even without this verse it would be obvious that the goat offering would not atone for him and absolve him from his obligation to bring an offering.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讬讚注 诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讚诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara explains: No, the verse is necessary to teach that the goat does not atone for him in a case in which he became aware of his transgression close to sunset before the onset of Yom Kippur and was unable to bring his offering before Yom Kippur. In such a case it might enter your mind to say that until he brings his sliding-scale offering the day after Yom Kippur,

谞讬转诇讬 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

the goat would suspend any punishment that he deserved. Therefore, the verse teaches us that since the transgression is of a type that is subject to an offering brought by an individual, the goat does not effect any atonement for it.

讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讬砖 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 诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites the next part of the baraita: The Master said: From where is it derived that if a person 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 Gemara challenges: Why does the baraita ask: From where is it derived? What is it that the baraita finds difficult about this that it searches for a proof for it?

讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讞讟讗讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻砖注讬诐 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 谞诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 讗讬诪讗 诪讛 驻砖注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 讞讟讗讬诐 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 拽专讘谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 讗讘诇 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 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讘专 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬转诇讬

The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita finds difficult: Now that you have said that the goat atones only for sins that are similar to acts of rebellion, such that just as it atones for acts of rebellion that are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, why not compare them in a more restrictive manner and say: Just as it atones only for acts of rebellion that are never subject to atonement through an offering, so too, it atones, or suspends punishment, only for sins that are never and will never be subject to atonement through an offering? And what types of transgressions are they? They are in cases where one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end. But where he had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, since when he becomes aware, he is subject to an offering, one could say that the goat will not even suspend his punishment.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

And if you would say that the comparison should not be understood in this way, because for one who did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone, that is difficult. If atonement is achieved through them, it is unnecessary for the verse to teach that atonement is not effected by the internal goat. Perforce, the comparison must be understood as the baraita presents it. What then is the difficulty of the baraita?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬驻讜讱 诪讬驻讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讘谞讬 讞讟讗讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara explains: It could enter your mind to say that we should reverse our conclusions about which offering atones for which type of transgression. In other words, one could say that the internal goat atones for the sin of one who did not have awareness at the beginning and the external goat atones for the sin of one who did have awareness at the beginning. If so, the comparison could be fully extended, as the Gemara suggested, and accordingly one could have thought that the internal goat would not atone for one who had awareness at the beginning. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淔or all their sins,鈥 which indicates by inference that the internal goat 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.

讜谞转讻驻专 讻驻专讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 诪讞讟讗转诐 讻讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诇讛谞讱 讚讗转讜 诇讻诇诇 讞讟讗转

The Gemara challenges: But let one who is still not aware of his transgression achieve complete atonement, so that even should he later become aware of his transgression, he will not have to bring an offering. Why does the baraita say that the goat only suspends the punishment? The Gemara answers: If it were written: From their sins, it would be interpreted as you say, but now that it is written: 鈥淔or all their sins,鈥 this indicates that it is referring to those sins whose commission will potentially cause the transgressor to become subject to an obligation to bring a sin-offering.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 诇诪讛 转讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗诐 诪转 诪转 讘诇讗 注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 诪转 诪讬转讛 诪诪专拽转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讛讙谉 注诇讬讜 诪谉 讛讬住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But once it has been determined that the goat does not effect complete atonement, to what end does it suspend punishment? Rabbi Zeira said: The baraita means to say that if he dies before he brings his offering, he dies without liability for sin. Rava said to him: If he dies, he does not need the offering to atone for him, since death itself cleanses him of all his sins. Rather, Rava said there is a different explanation: The baraita means to say that the goat serves to protect him from being punished with suffering before he has brought his offering.

讗讬谉 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘住讜祝 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: For cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but had awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone. This is derived from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the internal and external goats to teach that both atone only for cases in which one had awareness of his transgression at some point, although each offering atones in a different case.

诪讻讚讬 讗讬转拽讜砖讬 讗讬转拽讜砖 诇讛讚讚讬 讜谞讻驻专 驻谞讬诪讬 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讚讞讬爪讜谉 讜谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讞讬爪讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞转 讻驻专讛 讗讞转 诪讻驻专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 砖转讬 讻驻专讜转

The Gemara comments: Now, the verse juxtaposes the two goats with each other to teach that they effect atonement for similar cases. But then let the internal goat atone both for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the external goat normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where, for some reason, the service of the external goat was not performed. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis of the repeated term 鈥渙nce鈥 teaches that the goat effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases.

讜谞讻驻专 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 驻谞讬诪讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讬专注讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讻驻专讛 讝讜 诇讗 转讛讗

The Gemara challenges: But then let the external goat atone both for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the internal goat normally does atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods that occurred between the offering of this goat and that goat. If it occurs after the internal goat鈥檚 blood presentation, then the external goat will effect atonement for it. The Gemara explains: The verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year鈥 (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on the term 鈥渙nce a year鈥 teaches that this atonement, for the specific case that it atones for, should be

Scroll To Top