Shevuot 10bשבועות י׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 10b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
10bי׳ ב

חטאת הכפורים ואיתקוש חיצון לפנימי:

the sin-offering of the atonements” (Numbers 29:11). “One goat for a sin-offering” is referring to the external goat, and “the sin-offering of the atonements” is referring to the internal goat. With this verse, the external goat is juxtaposed with the internal goat, and therefore the limitations imposed on the atonement of the internal goat are also to be applied to the external goat.

רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משמו כו':

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon a version of his opinion that differs from that of the mishna above: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. The goats of the Festivals exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and also atone for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods where one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end. The goats of Yom Kippur further exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end; and they also atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end.

מאי שנא דראשי חדשים דלא מכפרי אדרגלים דאמר קרא (ויקרא י, יז) עון עון אחד הוא נושא ואינו נושא שני עונות דרגלים נמי לא ניכפרו אדראשי חדשים דאמר קרא (ויקרא י, יז) אותה אותה הוא נושא עון ואין אחר נושא עון אותה לא משמע ליה

The Gemara asks: What is different about the goats of the New Moons that they do not atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone? The Gemara answers: As the verse states with regard to any one of the goats of the New Moons: “And He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), which teaches that it bears, i.e., atones for, one sin but does not bear two sins. The Gemara asks: If so, the goats of the Festivals should also not atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone, as that same verse states: “And He gave it to you,” which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but nothing else bears that sin. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of the Festivals do atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the word “it.” Accordingly, he holds that any one of the goats of the Festivals can atone for two different sins.

מ"ש דרגלים דלא מכפרי אדיום הכפורים דאמר קרא (שמות ל, י) אחת בשנה כפרה זו לא תהא אלא אחת בשנה אי הכי דיום הכפורים נמי לא ניכפרו אדרגלים אחת כתיב כפרה אחת מכפר ואינו מכפר שתי כפרות אחת לא משמע ליה

The Gemara asks further: What is different about the goats of the Festivals that they do not atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone? As the verse states with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: “Once a year” (Exodus 30:10), which teaches that this atonement for the specific case that it atones for should be only once a year, and therefore no other offering can atone for it. The Gemara challenges: If so, the goats of Yom Kippur should also not atone for that which the goats of the Festivals atone, as it is written: “Once a year,” which teaches that the goats effect one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two cases. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of Yom Kippur atone for everything that the goats of the Festivals atone for? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the word “once.” Accordingly, he holds that the goats of Yom Kippur can atone for three different cases.

אמאי דכי כתיב אחת בשעיר הנעשה בפנים כתיב אי הכי דרגלים נמי נכפרו אדיום הכפורים דכי כתיב אחת בשעיר הנעשה בפנים כתיב

The Gemara asks: Why doesn’t he expound the word “once”? He does not expound it because when the word “once” is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, and so the halakha derived from that verse has no bearing on the capacity of the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary to atone. The Gemara asks: If so, the goats of the Festivals also should atone for that which the goats of Yom Kippur atone, as when the phrase “once a year” is written, it is written with regard to the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, so the halakha derived from that verse has no bearing on whether another offering can atone for that which the external goat atones.

לעולם אחת משמע ליה ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (שמות ל, י) וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה קרנותיו דמזבח הפנימי הוא דכפרה אחת מכפר ואינו מכפר שתי כפרות הא דחיצון אפילו שתי כפרות

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does learn a halakha from the word “once,” and he holds that it also teaches about the capacity of the external goat to atone, as the Gemara explained above. But it is different here, with regard to the derivation that the goat cannot effect two atonements, as the verse states: “And Aaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year” (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on “upon its corners” teaches that it is only with regard to the internal goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners of the internal altar, that it effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases, but the external goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners of the external altar, can effect even two different atonements.

אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן תמידין שלא הוצרכו לצבור נפדין תמימים

§ Animals purchased with funds collected for public offerings may be sacrificed only during the fiscal year in which those funds were given. For this purpose, the fiscal year begins on the first of Nisan. Generally, once an animal has been consecrated as an offering, then even if for some reason it may no longer be sacrificed, it still cannot be redeemed unless it develops a blemish. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches an exception to this halakha: Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public during the fiscal year in which they were purchased are redeemed, even if they are unblemished, and they may then be used for non-sacred purposes.

יתיב רבה וקאמר לה להא שמעתא א"ל רב חסדא מאן ציית לך ולר' יוחנן רבך וכי קדושה שבהן להיכן הלכה

Rabba was sitting and reciting this halakha. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who will listen to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher, with regard to this halakha? Rav Ḥisda clarified: But the sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone? Since these animals were consecrated as offerings, they should have been endowed with inherent sanctity. Only sanctity that inheres in an item’s value, i.e., an item consecrated to the Temple treasury, can be desacralized through redemption, but an item with inherent sanctity can never be desacralized.

אמר ליה את לא תסברא דלא אמרינן קדושה שבהן להיכן הלכה והתנן מותר הקטורת מה היו עושין בה מפרישין ממנה שכר האומנין ומחללין אותה על מעות האומנין ונותנין אותה לאומנין בשכרן וחוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה

Rabba said to him: Don’t you also hold that we do not say that the question: The sanctity that was inherent in them, to where has it gone, poses a difficulty? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 4:5): In any fiscal year, one may use only incense that was purchased with funds collected for that year. Accordingly, the mishna asks: With regard to the surplus incense that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year, what would the Temple treasurers do with it in order to render it usable for the following year? They would separate from the Temple treasury the wages for the artisans who worked for the Temple, and those funds would thereby be desacralized. And then they would desacralize the surplus incense by transferring its sanctity to that money that had been set aside for the artisans. Then, they would give the now-desacralized incense to the artisans as their wages, and finally, they would repurchase it with funds from the new collection carried out for the coming year.

ואמאי נימא קדושה שבהן להיכן הלכה

Rabba explains the proof from the mishna: One could ask: But why should the method described work? Let us say: The sanctity that was inherent in the incense, to where has it gone? It cannot be removed by redeeming it. Perforce, even you must concede that this question does not pose a difficulty.

א"ל קטורת קאמרת שאני קטורת

Rav Ḥisda said to him: Did you say that there is a proof from the halakhot of incense? One cannot compare incense to animals consecrated for the daily offerings, since incense is different,