Shevuot 8bשבועות ח׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
8bח׳ ב

ניתלי ליה קמ"ל

the goat would suspend any punishment that he deserved. Therefore, the verse teaches us that since the transgression is of a type that is subject to an offering brought by an individual, the goat does not effect any atonement for it.

אמר מר מנין שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף ששעיר זה תולה מנין מאי קא קשיא ליה

§ The Gemara cites the next part of the baraita: The Master said: From where is it derived that if a person 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 Gemara challenges: Why does the baraita ask: From where is it derived? What is it that the baraita finds difficult about this that it searches for a proof for it?

הכי קא קשיא ליה השתא דאמרת חטאים דומיא דפשעים מה פשעים דלאו בני קרבן אף חטאים נמי דלאו בני קרבן אימא מה פשעים דלאו בני קרבן לעולם אף חטאים דלאו בני קרבן לעולם ומאי נינהו אין בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף אבל יש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף כיון דכי מתידע ליה בר קרבן הוא אימא לא ליתלי

The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita finds difficult: Now that you have said that the goat atones only for sins that are similar to acts of rebellion, such that just as it atones for acts of rebellion that are not subject to atonement through an offering, so too, it atones only for sins that are not subject to atonement through an offering, why not compare them in a more restrictive manner and say: Just as it atones only for acts of rebellion that are never subject to atonement through an offering, so too, it atones, or suspends punishment, only for sins that are never and will never be subject to atonement through an offering? And what types of transgressions are they? They are in cases where one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end. But where he had awareness at the beginning but did not have awareness at the end, since when he becomes aware, he is subject to an offering, one could say that the goat will not even suspend his punishment.

וכי תימא אין בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף שעיר הנעשה בחוץ ויוה"כ מכפר

And if you would say that the comparison should not be understood in this way, because for one who did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone, that is difficult. If atonement is achieved through them, it is unnecessary for the verse to teach that atonement is not effected by the internal goat. Perforce, the comparison must be understood as the baraita presents it. What then is the difficulty of the baraita?

ס"ד אמינא ניפוך מיפך אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, טז) לכל חטאתם מכלל דבני חטאות נינהו

The Gemara explains: It could enter your mind to say that we should reverse our conclusions about which offering atones for which type of transgression. In other words, one could say that the internal goat atones for the sin of one who did not have awareness at the beginning and the external goat atones for the sin of one who did have awareness at the beginning. If so, the comparison could be fully extended, as the Gemara suggested, and accordingly one could have thought that the internal goat would not atone for one who had awareness at the beginning. To counter this, the verse states: “For all their sins,” which indicates by inference that the internal goat 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.

ונתכפר כפרה גמורה אי כתיב מחטאתם כדקא אמרת השתא דכתיב לכל חטאתם להנך דאתו לכלל חטאת

The Gemara challenges: But let one who is still not aware of his transgression achieve complete atonement, so that even should he later become aware of his transgression, he will not have to bring an offering. Why does the baraita say that the goat only suspends the punishment? The Gemara answers: If it were written: From their sins, it would be interpreted as you say, but now that it is written: “For all their sins,” this indicates that it is referring to those sins whose commission will potentially cause the transgressor to become subject to an obligation to bring a sin-offering.

וכי מאחר שאינו מכפר למה תולה אמר ר' זירא לומר שאם מת מת בלא עון א"ל רבא אם מת מיתה ממרקת אלא אמר רבא להגן עליו מן היסורין:

The Gemara asks: But once it has been determined that the goat does not effect complete atonement, to what end does it suspend punishment? Rabbi Zeira said: The baraita means to say that if he dies before he brings his offering, he dies without liability for sin. Rava said to him: If he dies, he does not need the offering to atone for him, since death itself cleanses him of all his sins. Rather, Rava said there is a different explanation: The baraita means to say that the goat serves to protect him from being punished with suffering before he has brought his offering.

אין בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף שעיר הנעשה בחוץ ויוה"כ מכפר כו':

§ The mishna teaches: For cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but had awareness at the end, the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., the goat of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone. This is derived from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the internal and external goats to teach that both atone only for cases in which one had awareness of his transgression at some point, although each offering atones in a different case.

מכדי איתקושי איתקוש להדדי ונכפר פנימי אדידיה ואדחיצון ונפקא מינה להיכא דלא עבד חיצון אמר קרא (שמות ל, י) אחת כפרה אחת מכפר ואינו מכפר שתי כפרות

The Gemara comments: Now, the verse juxtaposes the two goats with each other to teach that they effect atonement for similar cases. But then let the internal goat atone both for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the external goat normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where, for some reason, the service of the external goat was not performed. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “Aaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis of the repeated term “once” teaches that the goat effects one atonement for only one case but cannot effect two atonements for two different cases.

ונכפר חיצון אדידיה ואמאי דעביד פנימי נפקא מינה לטומאה דאירעה בין זה לזה אמר קרא (שמות ל, י) אחת בשנה כפרה זו לא תהא

The Gemara challenges: But then let the external goat atone both for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the internal goat normally does atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods that occurred between the offering of this goat and that goat. If it occurs after the internal goat’s blood presentation, then the external goat will effect atonement for it. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “Aaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year” (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on the term “once a year” teaches that this atonement, for the specific case that it atones for, should be