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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 7, 2017 | ื™ืดื˜ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • 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 9

Study Guide Shevuot 9. The gemara begins to analyze the 3 opinions brought in the mishna regarding the purposes of the goat sin offerings brought on the outer altar on Yom Kippur and on the regalim and Rosh Chodesh.

ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื”

only once a year.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื‘ืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืืžืื™ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

According to the mishna, the internal goat atones for a case in which there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who says: For a case in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, that person is liable to bring an offering, for what does the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atone? The Gemara answers: It atones for a case in which one did not have awareness, neither in the beginning, nor in the end.

ื”ืื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ืฉื•ื” ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื•

The Gemara challenges this answer: But for that case, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The atonement effected by all the goats offered as part the additional offerings, i.e., those of the New Moons, the Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same: They all atone for various cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืืœื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืชืงืฉ ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ืžื™ ืžื” ืคื ื™ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช ืืฃ ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But if Rabbi Yishmael holds that the internal goat atones for a situation in which there was no awareness at all, with regard to what halakha does the Torah juxtapose the internal goat with the external goat? The Gemara explains: The juxtaposition teaches that just as the internal goat does not atone for other transgressions, so too, the external goat does not atone for other transgressions. Rather, they both atone only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The mishna teaches: For the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, the goats brought as sin-offerings as part of the additional offerings of the Festivals and the goats brought as sin-offerings as part of the additional offerings of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขื–ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืœื”ืณ ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืณ ื™ื”ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื–ื” ืžื›ืคืจ

The Gemara elaborates: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states with regard to additional offerings of the New Moons: โ€œAnd one goat for a sin-offering to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 28:15). The final phrase, which literally means: A sin to the Lord, alludes to the fact that this goat atones for a sin of which only the Lord is aware, i.e., where there was no awareness either at the beginning or at the end.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžื” ื ืฉืชื ื” ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื• ืœื”ืณ ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื–ื” ื™ื”ื ื›ืคืจื” ืขืœ ืฉืžื™ืขื˜ืชื™ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื—

The Gemara objects: But this phrase is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says: What is different about the goat brought as a sin-offering of the New Moon that it is stated with regard to it: โ€œTo the Lord,โ€ a term not written with regard to other sin-offerings? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says, as it were: This goat shall be an atonement for the fact that I diminished the size of the moon.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืขืœ ื”ืณ ืžืื™ ืœื”ืณ ืœื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ

The Gemara resolves the problem: If so, i.e., if the phrase was needed only for that statement, let the verse state only: A sin-offering for the Lord. For what reason does it state: โ€œTo the Lordโ€? In order to expound it in accordance with that which we have said, that it atones only for a sin that the Lord alone is aware of.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืณ ืžืื™ ืœื”ืณ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the whole of the phrase comes exclusively to teach this halakha, and not to expound it in accordance with Reish Lakishโ€™s statement at all? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: A sin-offering of the Lord. For what reason does it state: โ€œTo the Lordโ€? You can conclude two conclusions from it.

ื•ื ื›ืคืจ ื ืžื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืงื‘ื•ืข ืžื” ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ืืฃ ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But let the goat atone even for other transgressions that a person never became aware of. Why does Rabbi Yehuda limit the scope of its atonement? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since this goat of the New Moon is brought at a fixed time, and that goat of Yom Kippur is brought at a fixed time, they must atone for similar transgressions. Just as that goat of Yom Kippur atones only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, so too, this goat of the New Moon atones only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืื™ ืžื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชื“ื™ืจ ืื™ ืžื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ื›ืคืจืชื• ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื

The Gemara says: We found a source teaching that the goats of the New Moons atone for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. From where do we derive that the goats of the Festivals also atone for such cases? And if you would say that this can also be derived in accordance with that which the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that suggestion can be refuted as follows: If you try to derive it through a comparison to the goats of the New Moon, the comparison is flawed, as those goats are more frequent than those of the Festivals. And if you try to derive it through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, that comparison is also flawed, as that goat has a more extensive atonement, since it atones for all sins. And if you would say:

ื”ื ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืžื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ืคืจื›ื™ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื›ืคืจื” ืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื’ืœื•ื™ื™ ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื›ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ

Donโ€™t we derive the atonement of the goat of the New Moon through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur and we did not refute it by saying that the atonement of the goat of Yom Kippur is more extensive, that is not relevant: There, with regard to the goat of the New Moon, the basic fact that it provides atonement is written in the verse, as Rav Yehuda explains above, and the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur is merely revealing a matter, i.e., it teaches in what way its atonement is limited. But here, with regard to the goats of the Festivals, the verse does not mention any details about atonement, so it is valid to say that we do not derive the entire matter from the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, as it provides a more extensive atonement.

ืืœื ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืื™ืชืงื™ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืืฃ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

Rather, the atonement of the goats of the Festivals is derived just as Rabbi แธคama, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The matter is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals (see Numbers, chapters 28โ€“29) the verses that mention the goat could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: โ€œAnd a goat.โ€ Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ indicates that the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed with the goat of the New Moon, which are mentioned at the beginning of that passage, and teaches that they all effect a similar atonement. Just as the goats of the New Moon atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, so too, the goats of the Festivals atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ืื‘ืœ ื—ื˜ื ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ื›ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื˜ื ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ื ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืณ ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื”

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda says that the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, does that statement apply only to a sin that will never eventually become known, e.g., where no one was present when the person became ritually impure, but with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, it is considered to be like a case of one who has awareness of his sin at the end, and therefore only the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone for it? Or perhaps, even with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, right now, at least, before it becomes known, I can call it a sin of which only God is aware, and therefore the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for it.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ื—ื˜ื ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara concludes: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: For a case in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and it is a sin that will eventually become known, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone for a case in which one never had awareness of his transgression, but the goats of the New Moons do not. Rather, the latter atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืืชื” ื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื ืœืฉืืช ืืช ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžืฆื™ืฅ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17), and this verse is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon. And its capacity to atone is derived from the frontplate through a verbal analogy between the words โ€œsinโ€ in this verse, and the word โ€œsinโ€ stated with regard to the frontplate. The verse there states: โ€œAnd it shall be on Aaronโ€™s forehead and Aaron will bear the sin of the sacred offeringsโ€ (Exodus 28:38). The verbal analogy teaches as follows: It is stated here, with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œSin,โ€ and it is stated there, with regard to the frontplate: โ€œSin.โ€ Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where such meat is placed on the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where a ritually pure person partakes of it.

ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara asks: If the two cases are to be compared, then one could take the comparison further: Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œTo bear the sin of the congregation.โ€ This indicates that it atones for the personal sin of partaking of sacrificial meat that was to be consumed by an individual, which became ritually impure.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžื™ื’ืžืจ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื›ืคืจ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืื“ืฆื™ืฅ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืฉื‘ืจ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara suggests: Now, the atonement of the goats of the New Moon and that of the frontplate are derived from one another by a verbal analogy. If so, let the goat of the New Moon atone for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the frontplate normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where the frontplate was broken. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œTo bear the sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, only one sin, but it does not bear two sins.

ื•ื ื›ืคืจ ืฆื™ืฅ ืื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ืื™ืจืขื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจืช ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: But let the frontplate atone for itself, i.e., for those cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the goats of the New Moon normally atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that occurred between the goat offering of this New Moon and that New Moon which follows. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but another does not bear that sin.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื” ืขื“ื” ื•ืœื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื”ืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื ืขื“ื”

Rav Ashi states another proof for the opinion that each atones in a different case: It is stated here with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œThe sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it atones for the sin of the congregation, but not for the sin involving sacred offerings. And there, with regard to the frontplate, it is written: โ€œThe sin of the sacred offerings,โ€ which indicates that it atones for the sin involving sacred offerings, but not for the sin of the congregation.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara says: We found a source for Rabbi Shimonโ€™s opinion about the goats of the New Moons, that they atone for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. From where do we derive his opinion about the goats of the Festivals, that they atone for cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end?

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ

The Gemara answers: It is derived just as Rabbi แธคama, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says, in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals the verses that mention the goats could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon that is mentioned at the beginning of that passage. Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon, which is mentioned at the beginning of that passage.

  • 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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 9

ืืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื ื”

only once a year.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื‘ืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืืžืื™ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

According to the mishna, the internal goat atones for a case in which there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who says: For a case in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, that person is liable to bring an offering, for what does the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atone? The Gemara answers: It atones for a case in which one did not have awareness, neither in the beginning, nor in the end.

ื”ืื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืฉืขื™ืจื™ื ื›ืคืจืชืŸ ืฉื•ื” ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื•

The Gemara challenges this answer: But for that case, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The atonement effected by all the goats offered as part the additional offerings, i.e., those of the New Moons, the Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same: They all atone for various cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืืœื ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืชืงืฉ ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ืžื™ ืžื” ืคื ื™ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช ืืฃ ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But if Rabbi Yishmael holds that the internal goat atones for a situation in which there was no awareness at all, with regard to what halakha does the Torah juxtapose the internal goat with the external goat? The Gemara explains: The juxtaposition teaches that just as the internal goat does not atone for other transgressions, so too, the external goat does not atone for other transgressions. Rather, they both atone only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The mishna teaches: For the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, the goats brought as sin-offerings as part of the additional offerings of the Festivals and the goats brought as sin-offerings as part of the additional offerings of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขื–ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืœื”ืณ ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืณ ื™ื”ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื–ื” ืžื›ืคืจ

The Gemara elaborates: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states with regard to additional offerings of the New Moons: โ€œAnd one goat for a sin-offering to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 28:15). The final phrase, which literally means: A sin to the Lord, alludes to the fact that this goat atones for a sin of which only the Lord is aware, i.e., where there was no awareness either at the beginning or at the end.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžื” ื ืฉืชื ื” ืฉืขื™ืจ ืฉืœ ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื• ืœื”ืณ ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื–ื” ื™ื”ื ื›ืคืจื” ืขืœ ืฉืžื™ืขื˜ืชื™ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื—

The Gemara objects: But this phrase is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says: What is different about the goat brought as a sin-offering of the New Moon that it is stated with regard to it: โ€œTo the Lord,โ€ a term not written with regard to other sin-offerings? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says, as it were: This goat shall be an atonement for the fact that I diminished the size of the moon.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืขืœ ื”ืณ ืžืื™ ืœื”ืณ ืœื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ

The Gemara resolves the problem: If so, i.e., if the phrase was needed only for that statement, let the verse state only: A sin-offering for the Lord. For what reason does it state: โ€œTo the Lordโ€? In order to expound it in accordance with that which we have said, that it atones only for a sin that the Lord alone is aware of.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืณ ืžืื™ ืœื”ืณ ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the whole of the phrase comes exclusively to teach this halakha, and not to expound it in accordance with Reish Lakishโ€™s statement at all? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: A sin-offering of the Lord. For what reason does it state: โ€œTo the Lordโ€? You can conclude two conclusions from it.

ื•ื ื›ืคืจ ื ืžื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื•ืช ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืงื‘ื•ืข ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืงื‘ื•ืข ืžื” ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ืืฃ ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื•

The Gemara asks: But let the goat atone even for other transgressions that a person never became aware of. Why does Rabbi Yehuda limit the scope of its atonement? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since this goat of the New Moon is brought at a fixed time, and that goat of Yom Kippur is brought at a fixed time, they must atone for similar transgressions. Just as that goat of Yom Kippur atones only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, so too, this goat of the New Moon atones only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืื™ ืžื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชื“ื™ืจ ืื™ ืžื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ื›ืคืจืชื• ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื

The Gemara says: We found a source teaching that the goats of the New Moons atone for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. From where do we derive that the goats of the Festivals also atone for such cases? And if you would say that this can also be derived in accordance with that which the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that suggestion can be refuted as follows: If you try to derive it through a comparison to the goats of the New Moon, the comparison is flawed, as those goats are more frequent than those of the Festivals. And if you try to derive it through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, that comparison is also flawed, as that goat has a more extensive atonement, since it atones for all sins. And if you would say:

ื”ื ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืžื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ืคืจื›ื™ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื›ืคืจื” ืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื’ืœื•ื™ื™ ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื›ื•ืœื” ืžื™ืœืชื ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ

Donโ€™t we derive the atonement of the goat of the New Moon through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur and we did not refute it by saying that the atonement of the goat of Yom Kippur is more extensive, that is not relevant: There, with regard to the goat of the New Moon, the basic fact that it provides atonement is written in the verse, as Rav Yehuda explains above, and the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur is merely revealing a matter, i.e., it teaches in what way its atonement is limited. But here, with regard to the goats of the Festivals, the verse does not mention any details about atonement, so it is valid to say that we do not derive the entire matter from the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, as it provides a more extensive atonement.

ืืœื ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืื™ืชืงื™ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื” ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืืฃ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ

Rather, the atonement of the goats of the Festivals is derived just as Rabbi แธคama, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The matter is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals (see Numbers, chapters 28โ€“29) the verses that mention the goat could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: โ€œAnd a goat.โ€ Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ indicates that the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed with the goat of the New Moon, which are mentioned at the beginning of that passage, and teaches that they all effect a similar atonement. Just as the goats of the New Moon atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, so too, the goats of the Festivals atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ืื‘ืœ ื—ื˜ื ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ื›ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื˜ื ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ื ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืณ ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื”

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda says that the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, does that statement apply only to a sin that will never eventually become known, e.g., where no one was present when the person became ritually impure, but with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, it is considered to be like a case of one who has awareness of his sin at the end, and therefore only the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone for it? Or perhaps, even with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, right now, at least, before it becomes known, I can call it a sin of which only God is aware, and therefore the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for it.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ื—ื˜ื ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara concludes: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: For a case in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and it is a sin that will eventually become known, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื”ืจื’ืœื™ื ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone for a case in which one never had awareness of his transgression, but the goats of the New Moons do not. Rather, the latter atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืืชื” ื ืชืŸ ืœื›ื ืœืฉืืช ืืช ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื” ื•ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื‘ืฉืขื™ืจ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžืฆื™ืฅ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17), and this verse is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon. And its capacity to atone is derived from the frontplate through a verbal analogy between the words โ€œsinโ€ in this verse, and the word โ€œsinโ€ stated with regard to the frontplate. The verse there states: โ€œAnd it shall be on Aaronโ€™s forehead and Aaron will bear the sin of the sacred offeringsโ€ (Exodus 28:38). The verbal analogy teaches as follows: It is stated here, with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œSin,โ€ and it is stated there, with regard to the frontplate: โ€œSin.โ€ Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where such meat is placed on the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where a ritually pure person partakes of it.

ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara asks: If the two cases are to be compared, then one could take the comparison further: Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œTo bear the sin of the congregation.โ€ This indicates that it atones for the personal sin of partaking of sacrificial meat that was to be consumed by an individual, which became ritually impure.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžื™ื’ืžืจ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื›ืคืจ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืื“ืฆื™ืฅ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืฉื‘ืจ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara suggests: Now, the atonement of the goats of the New Moon and that of the frontplate are derived from one another by a verbal analogy. If so, let the goat of the New Moon atone for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the frontplate normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where the frontplate was broken. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œTo bear the sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, only one sin, but it does not bear two sins.

ื•ื ื›ืคืจ ืฆื™ืฅ ืื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ืื™ืจืขื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื•ืชื” ืื•ืชื” ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ืจืช ื ื•ืฉื ืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: But let the frontplate atone for itself, i.e., for those cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the goats of the New Moon normally atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that occurred between the goat offering of this New Moon and that New Moon which follows. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œAnd He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but another does not bear that sin.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืขื“ื” ืขื“ื” ื•ืœื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ื”ืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื•ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื ืขื“ื”

Rav Ashi states another proof for the opinion that each atones in a different case: It is stated here with regard to the goat of the New Moon: โ€œThe sin of the congregation,โ€ which indicates that it atones for the sin of the congregation, but not for the sin involving sacred offerings. And there, with regard to the frontplate, it is written: โ€œThe sin of the sacred offerings,โ€ which indicates that it atones for the sin involving sacred offerings, but not for the sin of the congregation.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืขืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžื ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ื“ืžื›ืคืจื™ ืขืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara says: We found a source for Rabbi Shimonโ€™s opinion about the goats of the New Moons, that they atone for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. From where do we derive his opinion about the goats of the Festivals, that they atone for cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end?

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ

The Gemara answers: It is derived just as Rabbi แธคama, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says, in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals the verses that mention the goats could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon that is mentioned at the beginning of that passage. Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: โ€œAnd a goat,โ€ teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon, which is mentioned at the beginning of that passage.

Scroll To Top