וכתיב התם (במדבר יט, יג) טמא יהיה עוד טומאתו בו מה להלן טומאת מקדש אף כאן טומאת מקדש
and it is written there with regard to the red heifer: “Whoever touches the corpse of a man who died and is not sprinkled, he will have contaminated the Tabernacle of God…he will be impure, his impurity is still upon him” (Numbers 19:13). This verbal analogy teaches that just as there the verse is referring to the defiling of the Temple, so too here, the sliding-scale offering is brought to atone for the defiling of the Temple.
ואלא בה למה לי
The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “through which” (Leviticus 5:3)? The Gemara earlier derived from this term that one who is impure and unwittingly eats teruma is not liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Gemara has now derived that the sliding-scale offering atones specifically for the unwitting defiling of the Temple. If so, it is obvious that one is not liable for unwittingly eating teruma, and the phrase is superfluous.
לרבות נבלת עוף טהור
The Gemara answers: The term “through which” serves to include one who was rendered impure by eating the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. Unlike other impure items, which render impure any person who touches them, the carcass of a kosher bird renders a person impure only if he eats it. Therefore, one might have thought he would not be liable for entering the Temple if he was rendered impure by having eating the carcass of a kosher bird. The extra term is therefore necessary to teach that one is liable.
הא אמרת בה מיעוטא הוא משום דמיעוטא הוא אייתר כתיב (ויקרא ה, ג) או כי יגע דבר נגיעה אין דלאו בר נגיעה לא וכתיב בה מיעוטא הוה מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבו':
The Gemara challenges: But didn’t you say above that the term “through which” is a restriction? How can you now use it to include additional cases? The Gemara explains: It is precisely because it is a restriction that it includes additional cases. As it is written at the beginning of that verse: “Or if he will touch an impurity of a man” (Leviticus 5:3), which indicates that one who is impure with a form of impurity that can impart impurity through touching, yes, he is liable for defiling the Temple by entering it in his impure state. But if one is impure with a form of impurity that cannot impart impurity through touching, then one would not be liable. Therefore, the verse opens with a restriction, and when the verse continues, and it is written “through which,” which is also a restriction, this constitutes a restriction after a restriction, and a restriction after a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha, applying it to additional cases.
יש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף שעיר הנעשה בפנים וכו': ת"ר (ויקרא טז, טז) וכפר על הקדש מטומאות בני ישראל וגו'
§ The mishna continues: For cases in which one had awareness at the beginning, but then transgressed during a lapse of awareness and still had no awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, suspend any punishment that he deserves until he becomes aware of his transgression, at which point he must bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the internal goat offering: “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).
יש לי בענין זה להביא שלש טומאות טומאת ע"ז וטומאת גילוי עריות וטומאת שפיכות דמים
With regard to this matter, i.e., the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the goat, I can state that this verse serves to amplify the atonement by teaching that the goat offering atones for the following three sins, which the Torah is referring to as impurities: The impurity of the sin of idol worship, and the impurity of engaging in forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of perpetrating bloodshed.
בע"ז הוא אומר (ויקרא כ, ג) למען טמא את מקדשי בגילוי עריות הוא אומר (ויקרא יח, ל) ושמרתם את משמרתי לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות וגו' ולא תטמאו בהם בשפיכות דמים הוא אומר (במדבר לה, לד) ולא תטמא את הארץ יכול על ג' טומאות הללו יהא שעיר מכפר ת"ל (ויקרא טז, טז) מטומאות בני ישראל ולא כל טומאות
The baraita demonstrates that each of these sins is referred to as impurity: With regard to idol worship the verse states: “For he had given his offspring to Molekh in order to render impure My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 20:3). With regard to forbidden sexual relations the verse states: “You shall safeguard My charge not to do any of the abominable traditions that were done before you and not to render yourself impure through them” (Leviticus 18:30). With regard to bloodshed the verse states: “The land will not atone for the blood that was spilled on it except through the blood of the one who spilled it; you shall not render the land impure” (Numbers 35:34). One might have thought that the goat offering would atone for these three types of impurities. To counter this, the verse states: “From the impurities of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 16:16). The restrictive term “from” indicates that it atones for some impurities but not for all impurities.
מה מצינו שחלק הכתוב מכלל כל טומאות הוי אומר טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אף כאן בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דברי ר' יהוד'
The baraita derives the type of impurity for which the goat offering does atone: What do we find is the impurity that the verse differentiates from all other impurities? You must say that the verse is referring 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.
ר"ש אומר ממקומו הוא מוכרע הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא טז, טז) וכפר על הקדש מטומאות מטומאות של קודש
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: “And he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary [hakodesh] from the impurities of the children of Israel,” which should be interpreted as saying that it atones for the defiling of anything sacred [kodesh], i.e., the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
יכול על כל טומאה שבקודש יהא שעיר זה מכפר תלמוד לומר (ויקרא טז, טז) ומפשעיהם לכל חטאתם חטאים דומיא דפשעים מה פשעים שאינם בני קרבן אף חטאים שאינם בני קרבן
The baraita continues: 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: “And from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16), which indicates that the goat offering atones only for sins that are similar to acts of rebellion. Just as it atones for acts of rebellion that are not subject to atonement through an offering, as sin-offerings brought by an individual are brought only for unwitting sins, so too, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering. As long as one does not become aware of his sin, it cannot be atoned for through the sliding-scale offering. Accordingly, the goat will atone for it.
ומנין ליש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף ששעיר זה תולה ת"ל לכל חטאתם חייבי חטאות במשמע
The baraita continues. And from where is it derived for a case in which one 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 verse states “for all their sins,” from which it is indicated that the goat offering 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.
אמר מר יש לי בענין זה להביא ג' טומאות טומאת ע"ז וטומאת גילוי עריות וטומאת שפיכות דמים
The Gemara clarifies some of the details of the baraita. The Master said: With regard to this matter, I can state that this verse serves to amplify the atonement by teaching that the goat offering atones for the following three sins, which the Torah is referring to as impurities: The impurity of the sin of idol worship, and the impurity of engaging in forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of perpetrating bloodshed.
האי ע"ז היכי דמי אי במזיד בר קטלא הוא אי בשוגג בר קרבן הוא
The Gemara asks: Concerning this sin of idol worship, for which one might have thought the goat would atone, 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 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 the goat will not atone for him.
במזיד ולא אתרו ביה בשוגג ולא אתיידע ליה
The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, and therefore 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 and therefore he was not liable to bring an offering.