אלא אחת בשנה: only once a year.
ולר' ישמעאל דאמר אין בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף בר קרבן הוא שעיר הנעשה בחוץ אמאי מכפר על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף According to the mishna, the internal goat atones for a case in which there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who says: For a case in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end, that person is liable to bring an offering, for what does the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary atone? The Gemara answers: It atones for a case in which one did not have awareness, neither in the beginning, nor in the end.
האי שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין סבר לה כר"מ דאמר כל השעירים כפרתן שוה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו The Gemara challenges this answer: But for that case, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The atonement effected by all the goats offered as part the additional offerings, i.e., those of the New Moons, the Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same: They all atone for various cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
אלא למאי הלכתא איתקש חיצון לפנימי מה פנימי אינו מכפר בשאר עבירות אף חיצון אינו מכפר בשאר עבירות: The Gemara asks: But if Rabbi Yishmael holds that the internal goat atones for a situation in which there was no awareness at all, with regard to what halakha does the Torah juxtapose the internal goat with the external goat? The Gemara explains: The juxtaposition teaches that just as the internal goat does not atone for other transgressions, so too, the external goat does not atone for other transgressions. Rather, they both atone only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
על שאין בה ידיעה בתחלה ולא בסוף שעירי רגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין דברי ר' יהודה: § The mishna teaches: For the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, the goats brought as sin-offerings as part of the additional offerings of the Festivals and the goats brought as sin-offerings as part of the additional offerings of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר קרא (במדבר כח, טו) ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לה' חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' יהא שעיר זה מכפר The Gemara elaborates: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states with regard to additional offerings of the New Moons: “And one goat for a sin-offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:15). The final phrase, which literally means: A sin to the Lord, alludes to the fact that this goat atones for a sin of which only the Lord is aware, i.e., where there was no awareness either at the beginning or at the end.
והאי מיבעי ליה לכדר"ל דאמר ר"ל מה נשתנה שעיר של ר"ח שנאמר בו לה' אמר הקב"ה שעיר זה יהא כפרה על שמיעטתי את הירח The Gemara objects: But this phrase is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish says: What is different about the goat brought as a sin-offering of the New Moon that it is stated with regard to it: “To the Lord,” a term not written with regard to other sin-offerings? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says, as it were: This goat shall be an atonement for the fact that I diminished the size of the moon.
א"כ לימא קרא על ה' מאי לה' לכדאמרן The Gemara resolves the problem: If so, i.e., if the phrase was needed only for that statement, let the verse state only: A sin-offering for the Lord. For what reason does it state: “To the Lord”? In order to expound it in accordance with that which we have said, that it atones only for a sin that the Lord alone is aware of.
ואימא כוליה להכי הוא דאתא א"כ נימא קרא חטאת ה' מאי לה' שמעת מינה תרתי The Gemara asks: But why not say that the whole of the phrase comes exclusively to teach this halakha, and not to expound it in accordance with Reish Lakish’s statement at all? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: A sin-offering of the Lord. For what reason does it state: “To the Lord”? You can conclude two conclusions from it.
ונכפר נמי אפי' בשאר עבירות תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל הואיל וזה בא בזמן קבוע וזה בא בזמן קבוע מה זה אינו מכפר אלא על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אף זה אינו מכפר אלא על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו The Gemara asks: But let the goat atone even for other transgressions that a person never became aware of. Why does Rabbi Yehuda limit the scope of its atonement? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since this goat of the New Moon is brought at a fixed time, and that goat of Yom Kippur is brought at a fixed time, they must atone for similar transgressions. Just as that goat of Yom Kippur atones only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, so too, this goat of the New Moon atones only for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
אשכחן שעירי ראשי חדשים שעירי הרגלים מנלן וכי תימא הא נמי כדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל איכא למיפרך אי מדראש חדש שכן תדיר אי מדיום הכפורים שכן מרובה כפרתו וכי תימא The Gemara says: We found a source teaching that the goats of the New Moons atone for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. From where do we derive that the goats of the Festivals also atone for such cases? And if you would say that this can also be derived in accordance with that which the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that suggestion can be refuted as follows: If you try to derive it through a comparison to the goats of the New Moon, the comparison is flawed, as those goats are more frequent than those of the Festivals. And if you try to derive it through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, that comparison is also flawed, as that goat has a more extensive atonement, since it atones for all sins. And if you would say: