Shevuot 13b:10שבועות י״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
13bי״ג ב

כרת דיממא לרבי לית ליה

It must be that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that Yom Kippur does not atone for one who violates the day itself and does not repent, as if you do not say so, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there would be no instance in which a person would be liable to receive karet for violating Yom Kippur in the daytime.

אלמה לא משכחת לה דאכל אומצא וחנקיה ומית אי נמי דאכל סמוך לשקיעת החמה דלא הוה שהות לכפורי ליה:

The Gemara questions this proof: Why not? You could find it in a case where he ate a piece of meat, and while he was eating it choked him and he died, or in a case where he ate immediately before sunset at the end of the day. Even if one holds that Yom Kippur does atone for violations of the day itself, in these cases it could not, as there was no time after the violation for the day to atone for him, in the first case because he was already dead, and in the second case because it was no longer Yom Kippur.

אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח:

§ The mishna (2b) states: Israelites and priests and the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, equally achieve atone-ment. What is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? The difference is only that the priests achieve atonement for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods through the bull that the High Priest offers on Yom Kippur, whereas the Israelites achieve atonement for their transgressions through the goats that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur.

הא גופא קשיא קתני אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח והדר תני מה בין ישראל לכהנים ולכהן משוח אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח מתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות ואין חילוק ביניהן ומה בין ישראל לכהנים ולכהן משוח אלא שהפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכו'

The Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult, as it teaches: Both Israelites and priests and the anointed priest equally achieve atonement. But then it teaches: What is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Both Israelites and priests and the anointed priest equally achieve atonement through the scapegoat for transgressions other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, and in this regard there is no distinction between them. But what is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? The difference is only that the bull of the High Priest that he offers on Yom Kippur atones for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, whereas the Israelites achieve atonement for their transgressions through the goats that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur.

ומני רבי יהודה היא דתניא (ויקרא טז, לג) וכפר את מקדש הקדש זה לפני ולפנים את אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו יכפר אלו עזרות כהנים כמשמעו עם הקהל אלו ישראל יכפר אלו הלוים

And whose opinion is expressed by the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita in exposition of the verse: “He shall bring atonement upon the sanctum of the sacred, and he shall effect atonement upon the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and upon the priests and upon all the people of the congregation shall he bring atonement” (Leviticus 16:33): “He shall bring atonement upon the sanctum of the sacred”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the Holy of Holies. “Upon the Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary. “And the altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning. “He shall effect atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards. “And upon the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning. “And upon all the people”; these are the Israelites. “Shall he bring atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.

הושוו כולן לכפרה אחת שמתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות דברי ר' יהודה

All of them are equated with regard to the fact that they are all atoned for through one atonement, i.e., that they are atoned for by the scapegoat for all transgressions other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי שמעון אומר כשם שדם שעיר הנעשה בפנים מכפר על ישראל על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו כך דם הפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכשם שוידויו של שעיר המשתלח מכפר על ישראל בשאר עבירות כך וידויו של פר מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the blood of the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary atones for Israelites for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, so too, the blood of the bull of the High Priest, whose blood presentation is also performed inside the Sanctuary, atones for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. And just as the confession made over the scapegoat atones for Israelites for other transgressions, so too, the confession made over the bull atones for the priests for other transgressions. It is apparent from the baraita that it is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priests.

ולרבי שמעון הא ודאי הושוו מאי הושוו דבני כפרה נינהו מיהו כל חד וחד מכפר בדנפשיה

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Shimon’s opinion: And according to Rabbi Shimon, one can ask: Weren’t both Israelites and priests certainly equated in the verse in Leviticus? The Gemara explains: According to his opinion, in what way are they equated in the verse? They are equated in that they are all subject to atonement on Yom Kippur; but each one of the groups achieves atonement in its own way.

מאי טעמיה דרבי שמעון דכתיב (ויקרא טז, ז) ולקח את שני השעירים איתקש שעיר המשתלח לשעיר הנעשה בפנים מה שעיר הנעשה בפנים אינו מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו דכתיב ביה אשר לעם אף שעיר המשתלח אינו מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that priests are not atoned for by the scapegoat? As it is written: “He shall take the two goats” (Leviticus 16:7); one is used for the scapegoat and the other for the internal goat. With this verse, the scapegoat is juxtaposed with the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary. It teaches that just as the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside does not atone for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, as it is written with regard to that goat: “The goat sin-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:15), which indicates that it atones for Israelites and not for the priests, so too, the scapegoat does not atone for the priests for their other transgressions.

ורבי יהודה אמר לך להכי איתקוש שיהו שוים במראה ובקומה ובדמים הוא דאתא

And as for Rabbi Yehuda, how does he understand the juxtaposition? He could have said to you: It is only for this reason that the goats are juxtaposed: The juxtaposition comes to teach that they should be similar in appearance and in height and in value. They are not similar in the atonement that they effect.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן ושחט את שעיר החטאת אשר לעם שאין הכהנים מתכפרין בו ובמה מתכפרין בפרו של אהרן

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the internal goat: “He shall slaughter the goat sin-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:15); the term “of the people” excludes Aaron and the priests, and therefore indicates that the priests do not achieve atonement through that goat. But then, through what do they achieve atonement? Presumably, through the bull of Aaron, i.e., the bull of the High Priest.

יכול לא יתכפרו בפרו של אהרן שהרי כבר נאמר אשר לו מעתה אין להן כפרה כשהוא אומר יכפר על הכהנים מצינו להן כפרה

One might have thought that they would also not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as it is already stated: “Aaron shall bring near his own bull sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:6), which indicates that it atones only for Aaron’s transgressions, not for the transgressions of others. And if that is so, then they do not have any means through which to achieve atonement. But when the verse states: “And he shall effect atonement…upon the priests” (Leviticus 16:33), we have clearly found that they do have a means of achieving atonement.

במה הן מתכפרין מוטב שיתכפרו בפרו של אהרן שהרי הותר מכללו אצל ביתו ואל יתכפרו בשעיר הנעשה בפנים שלא הותר מכללו אצל ביתו

The baraita continues: Through which means then do they achieve atonement? Do they achieve it through the internal goat or the bull of Aaron? It is better to say that they achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as in any event, with regard to his household, an exception was made to its rule that it atones only for Aaron, and his household also achieves atonement from his bull. It is therefore not unreasonable to say that the priesthood should also achieve atonement from his bull. And one should not say that they achieve atonement through the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, as it is not found with regard to Aaron’s household that an exception was made to its rule that it atones for the people, as his household does not achieve atonement from the scapegoat.

ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר (תהלים קלה, יט) בית אהרן ברכו את ה' בית הלוי ברכו את ה' יראי ה' ברכו את ה'

And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can cite another proof, as the verse states: “House of Israel, bless the Lord; house of Aaron, bless the Lord; house of Levi, bless the Lord; those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord” (Psalms 135:19–20). It is apparent from this verse that “house of Aaron” is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron’s immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron’s bull should atone for them.

מאן תנא אמר ר' ירמיה דלא כר' יהודה דאי ר' יהודה האמר כהנים יש להן כפרה בשעיר המשתלח ומני רבא אמר ר' שמעון היא דאמר כהנים אין להם כפרה בשעיר המשתלח

The Gemara repeats its question about this baraita: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita? Rabbi Yirmeya says: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as, if one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one can counter: Doesn’t he say that the priests have a means of atonement through the scapegoat, whereas the baraita indicates that they do not, as it states that if they do not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, then they do not have any means through which to achieve atonement? But then, whose opinion is expressed? Rava says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests do not have a means of achieving atonement through the scapegoat.

אביי אמר אפי' תימא ר' יהודה הכי קאמר מעתה אין להם כפרה בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו כשהוא אומר יכפר על הכהנים מצינו שיש להן כפרה בשאר עבירות וכמו דמצינו שיש להן כפרה בשאר עבירות כך יש להן כפרה

Abaye said: You may even say that the baraita is accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this is what it is saying: If that is so, that the priests do not achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, then they do not have any means through which to achieve atonement for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. When the verse states: “And he shall effect atonement…upon the priests,” we have clearly found that they do have a means of atonement for other transgressions. And it follows that just as we have found that they have a means of atonement for other transgressions, as Israelites do, so too, they must also have a means of atonement