קיץ כבנות שוח למזבח והכתיב (ויקרא ב, יא) כי כל שאור וכל דבש וגו' תני רב חנינא כבנות שוח לאדם They would bring from them dessert, like white figs, for the altar. The Gemara asks: Are white figs ever offered on the altar? But isn’t it written: “For any leavening or fruit honey you shall not cause to go up in smoke as a fire-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11)? The term “fruit honey” includes all tree fruits. The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥanina teaches: The supplementary offerings are to the altar like white figs for a person.
דרש ר"נ בר רב חסדא אין מקיצין בעולת העוף אמר רבא הא בורכא א"ל ר"נ בר יצחק לרבא מאי בורכתא אנא אמריתה ניהליה ומשמיה דרב שימי מנהרדעא אמריתה ניהליה דאמר רב שימי מנהרדעא מותרות לנדבת צבור אזלי ואין עולת עוף בצבור The Gemara discusses what may be used for the supplementary offerings: Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: One does not supplement the offerings of the altar with a bird burnt-offering. Rava said: This ruling is an absurdity [burkha]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What is the absurdity? The ruling has a basis. I said this ruling to Rav Naḥman, and said it to him in the name of Rav Shimi of Neharde’a, as Rav Shimi of Neharde’a says: The surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings are allocated for communal gift offerings, and there is not a bird burnt-offering that is offered by the community.
ואף שמואל סבר להא דר' יוחנן דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל קרבנות צבור סכין מושכתן למה שהן The Gemara notes: And also Shmuel holds in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who taught that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs consecrated for the daily offering that were not used are brought as supplementary offerings, even though they were not originally consecrated for that purpose, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to communal offerings, their consecration serves only to define which general category of offering they are included in, e.g., whether they are a sin-offering or burnt-offering, but it is the purpose for which they are ultimately slaughtered with a knife that defines what their precise nature is.
תניא נמי הכי ומודה ר"ש בשעיר שאם לא קרב ברגל יקרב בר"ה ואם לא קרב בר"ח יקרב ביוה"כ ואם לא קרב ביוה"כ יקרב ברגל ואם לא קרב ברגל זה יקרב ברגל אחר שמתחלתו לא בא אלא לכפר על מזבח החיצון The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita with regard to sin-offerings: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to a goat consecrated to be used as part of the additional offerings on the pilgrimage Festivals that if it was not sacrificed on a pilgrimage Festival it can be sacrificed on a New Moon, and if was not sacrificed on a New Moon it can be sacrificed on Yom Kippur, and if it was not sacrificed on Yom Kippur it can be sacrificed on a pilgrimage Festival, and if was not sacrificed on this pilgrimage Festival, it can be sacrificed on another pilgrimage Festival. This is because from the outset, by virtue of its consecration, it came only to atone by having its blood presented upon the external altar, but its precise nature is defined only by the purpose for which it is ultimately slaughtered.
(תנא לא הוקדש אלא לכפר על מזבח החיצון): Another baraita teaches the same ruling: It is taught: The sin-offering was consecrated only to atone by having its blood presented upon the external altar.
"ועל זדון טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שעיר הנעשה בפנים כו'" מנהני מילי § The mishna teaches: And for cases in which the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods was carried out intentionally, the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
דת"ר (ויקרא טז, טז) וכפר על הקדש מטומאות בני ישראל וגו' פשעים אלו המרדים וכן הוא אומר (מלכים ב ג, ז) מלך מואב פשע בי ואומר (מלכים ב ח, כב) אז תפשע לבנה בעת ההיא חטאות אלו השגגות וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא ד, ב) נפש כי תחטא בשגגה: The Gemara answers: They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the High Priest sacrificing the internal goat of Yom Kippur: “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). The verse is referring to two categories of sin. The first category is acts of rebellion [pesha’im]; these are the rebellious sins, and so the verse states that King Jehoram of Israel said to King Jehoshaphat of Judah: “The king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me” (II Kings 3:7). And the verse states with regard to a rebellion against Judah: “Then Libnah rebelled [tifsha] at that time” (II Kings 8:22). The second category is sins [ḥataot]; these are unwitting sins, and so the verse states: “If an individual person shall transgress [teḥeta] unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:2).
"על שאר עבירות שבתורה הקלות והחמורות הזדונות והשגגות כו'" § The mishna teaches: For all other transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether they are the minor ones or the major ones, whether they were intentional or unwitting, whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them until after Yom Kippur, whether they involve a positive mitzva or a prohibition, whether the transgressors are subject to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], or to one of the court-imposed death penalties, the scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur atones.
היינו קלות היינו עשה ולא תעשה חמורות היינו כריתות ומיתות ב"ד הודע היינו מזיד לא הודע היינו שוגג The Gemara notes that the mishna appears repetitious: Minor ones are the same as a standard positive mitzva and prohibition, major ones are the same as transgressions that are subject to karet and to court-imposed death penalties, transgressions that one became aware of are the same as intentional transgressions, and transgressions that one did not become aware of are the same as unwitting transgressions.
אמר רב יהודה ה"ק על שאר עבירות שבתורה בין קלות בין חמורות בין שעשאן בשוגג בין שעשאן במזיד אותן שעשאן בשוגג בין נודע לו ספיקן בין לא נודע לו ספיקן ואלו הן קלות עשה ולא תעשה ואלו הן חמורות כריתות ומיתות ב"ד Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: For all other transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether they are the minor ones or the major ones, whether they were performed unwittingly or whether they were performed intentionally, they each have their own halakhot. For those that were performed unwittingly, in cases where there was an uncertainty whether the act was forbidden at all, atonement is effected whether the uncertainty with regard to the transgressions became known to him before Yom Kippur or whether the uncertainty with regard to them did not become known to him until after Yom Kippur. And these are the minor ones the mishna is referring to: A standard positive mitzva and a prohibition. And these are the major ones it is referring to: Transgressions that are subject to karet and to court-imposed death penalties.
האי עשה ה"ד אי דלא עבד תשובה (משלי כא, כז) זבח רשעים תועבה אי דעבד תשובה כל יומא נמי דתניא עבר על מצות עשה ועשה תשובה לא זז משם עד שמוחלין לו The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this positive mitzva in the mishna? If it is a case where he did not repent, the offering cannot atone for him, as the verse states: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” (Proverbs 21:27). If he did repent, then why is the mishna referring to Yom Kippur? He will achieve atonement on any other day as well, as it is taught in a baraita: If one transgressed a positive mitzva and repented, he does not move from there until he is forgiven.
אמר רבי זירא Rabbi Zeira said: