Shevuot 8aשבועות ח׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shevuot 8a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
8aח׳ א

גילוי עריות נמי היכי דמי אי במזיד בר קטלא הוא אי בשוגג בר קרבן הוא

The Gemara asks further: With regard to forbidden sexual relations, for which one might have thought the goat offering would atone as well, 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 so 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 so the goat will not atone for him.

במזיד ולא אתרו ביה בשוגג ולא אתידע ליה

The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, so 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, so he was not liable to bring an offering.

שפיכות דמים נמי ה"ד במזיד בר קטלא הוא אי בשוגג בר גלות הוא

The Gemara asks further: Concerning the bloodshed for which one might have thought that the goat would atone as well, 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, so 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 subject to go into exile, so the goat offering will not atone for him.

במזיד ולא אתרו ביה בשוגג ולא אתידע ליה אי נמי בהנך דלאו בני גלות נינהו

The Gemara answers: The goat offering atones in a case where he transgressed intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him about his transgression, and so 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, so he was not liable to bring an offering. Alternatively, it is referring to those cases for which the perpetrator is not subject to exile, e.g., where the death was caused in a way that was almost unavoidable, or where it was very close to being considered intentional.

אמר מר יכול על שלש טומאות הללו יהא שעיר מכפר ת"ל (ויקרא טז, טז) מטומאות ולא כל טומאות מה מצינו שחלק הכתוב מכלל כל הטומאות בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו אף כאן בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דברי רבי יהודה

§ The Gemara continues to analyze the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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. What do we find is the impurity that the verse differentiates from all other impurities? We find it with regard 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.

מאי חלק דמייתי בעולה ויורד אימא ע"ז ומאי חלק

The Gemara asks: In what way does the Torah differentiate the impurity of this transgression from other types of transgressions? It is differentiated in that one brings a sliding-scale offering to atone for it. But if that is a sufficient distinction, then say instead that the goat offering atones for idol worship, and in what way does the Torah differentiate it from other types of transgressions?

(סימן ע"ז יולדת מצורע נזיר (וכו'))

Before answering, the Gemara interjects with a mnemonic that summarizes which cases it will suggest the goat offering should atone for: Idol worship, a woman after childbirth, a leper, a nazirite, etc.

דמייתי שעירה ולא כשבה

The Gemara returns to answer its question: It is differentiated in that he brings a she-goat as a sin-offering and not an ewe, which is the animal brought as a sin-offering for other transgressions.

אמר רב כהנא אנן חלק להקל קאמרינן והאי חלק להחמיר הוא

Rav Kahana said: We said that the goat offering should atone for a transgression that the Torah differentiates in order to be lenient relative to other transgressions, but this case of idol worship is one that the Torah differentiates in order to be stringent relative to other transgressions. Accordingly, the verse cannot be referring to idol worship.

אימא יולדת דחלק דמייתא עולה ויורד אמר רב הושעיא (ויקרא טז, טז) לכל חטאתם ולא לכל טומאתם

The Gemara asks: Why not say instead that the goat offering atones for a woman after childbirth, as the Torah differentiates her from other people who must bring a sin-offering following a period of impurity in that she brings a sliding-scale offering, whereas others bring a fixed sin-offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: “For all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16), and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a woman after childbirth is not to atone for a sin, but due to the fact that she went through a period of ritual impurity, the goat offering will not atone for her.

ולר' שמעון בן יוחאי דאמר יולדת נמי חוטאת היא מאי איכא למימר רבי שמעון לטעמיה דאמר ממקומו הוא מוכרע

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says: A woman after childbirth brings an offering because she is also a sinner, what is there to say? Under the intense pain of childbirth a woman is apt to take an oath not to engage in intercourse in order to avoid becoming pregnant again. This is regarded as a sin because she will certainly violate that oath. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he said in the baraita: From its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement of the goat offering itself, it can be determined what the goat offering atones for.

אימא מצורע אמר רב הושעיא לכל חטאתם ולא לכל טומאתם

The Gemara asks: Why not say that the goat offering atones for a leper, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring a fixed offering following a period of impurity in that he brings a sliding-scale offering? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: “For all their sins” and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a leper is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him.

ולר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר על שבעה דברים נגעים באין מאי איכא למימר התם נגעיה דאכפר ליה וקרבן לאישתרויי בקהל

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, who says: Leprous marks come upon a person for seven matters, i.e., seven different sins, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: There, it is his leprous mark that atones for his sin, and the offering is brought in order to permit him to reenter the congregation, after having been ostracized while he was a leper.

ואימא נזיר טמא דחלק דמייתי תורים ובני יונה אמר רב הושעיא לכל חטאתם ולא לכל טומאתם

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the goat offering atones for a nazirite who became ritually impure, as the Torah differentiates him from other people who must bring an offering following a period of impurity in that he brings doves or young pigeons? Rav Hoshaya said: The verse states: “For all their sins” and not: For all their impurities. Accordingly, since the offering brought by a nazirite is not to atone for a sin, the goat offering will not atone for him.

ולר' אלעזר הקפר דאמר נזיר נמי חוטא הוא מאי איכא למימר סבר לה כר' שמעון דאמר ממקומו הוא מוכרע

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: A nazirite is also a sinner because he unnecessarily ab-stained from wine, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the baraita: From its own place, i.e., from the verse about the atonement of the goat itself, it can be determined what the goat offering atones for.

אמר מר ר' שמעון אומר ממקומו הוא מוכרע הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא טז, טז) וכפר על הקדש מטומאות מטומאתו של קודש כו' שפיר קאמר רבי שמעון ורבי יהודה אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה כי היכי דעביד לפני ולפנים הכי נעביד בהיכל

§ The Gemara continues to clarify the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, asking: Rabbi Shimon is saying well; why does Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse is necessary to teach that in the same manner that he performs the blood presentation in the innermost sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, that is how he shall later perform them in the Sanctuary.

ורבי שמעון ההוא (ויקרא טז, טז) מוכן יעשה נפקא ורבי יהודה אי מההיא הוה אמינא ניתי פר ושעיר אחריני ונעביד קמ"ל ור' שמעון וכן יעשה לאהל מועד מיניה משמע

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon derive that halakha? That halakha is derived from the continuation of the verse: “And so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,” i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from that part of the verse? The Gemara explains: He holds that if this halakha would be derived only from that part of the verse, I would say that he should bring another bull and goat, slaughter them, and perform the blood presentations in the Sanctuary with their blood. Therefore, the first part of verse: “And he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary,” teaches us that all the presentations are made with blood from the same bull and goat. The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Shimon not need the first part of the verse to derive this? The Gemara explains that the verse: “And so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,” itself indicates that the blood used in the Tent of Meeting, i.e., in the Sanctuary, is from the same bull and goat.

אמר מר יכול על כל טומאות שבקודש יהא שעיר זה מכפר ת"ל מפשעיהם לכל חטאתם וגו' מאי ניהו יש בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף האי בר קרבן הוא

§ The Gemara cites the next part of the baraita: The Master said: 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 transgressions with regard to which the perpetrator is not subject to bring an offering brought by an individual to atone for himself. The Gemara asks: What is the case for which the goat offering does not atone? Where one had awareness at the beginning and had awareness at the end. The Gemara objects: But the person in that case is subject to atonement through an offering. If so, even without this verse it would be obvious that the goat offering would not atone for him and absolve him from his obligation to bring an offering.

לא צריכא דאתידע ליה סמוך לשקיעת החמה ס"ד אמינא אדמייתי

The Gemara explains: No, the verse is necessary to teach that the goat does not atone for him in a case in which he became aware of his transgression close to sunset before the onset of Yom Kippur and was unable to bring his offering before Yom Kippur. In such a case it might enter your mind to say that until he brings his sliding-scale offering the day after Yom Kippur,