Shevuot 9bשבועות ט׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
9bט׳ ב

הא גמרינן ר"ח מדיוה"כ ולא פרכינן התם כפרה מיכתב כתיבא גלויי מילתא בעלמא הוא אבל הכא איכא למימר כולה מילתא לא גמרינן

Don’t we derive the atonement of the goat of the New Moon through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur and we did not refute it by saying that the atonement of the goat of Yom Kippur is more extensive, that is not relevant: There, with regard to the goat of the New Moon, the basic fact that it provides atonement is written in the verse, as Rav Yehuda explains above, and the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur is merely revealing a matter, i.e., it teaches in what way its atonement is limited. But here, with regard to the goats of the Festivals, the verse does not mention any details about atonement, so it is valid to say that we do not derive the entire matter from the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, as it provides a more extensive atonement.

אלא כדא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שעיר ושעיר ה"נ שעיר ושעיר ואיתקוש שעירי רגלים לשעירי ראשי חדשים מה שעירי ראשי חדשים אינן מכפרין אלא על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף אף שעירי הרגלים אינן מכפרין אלא על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף:

Rather, the atonement of the goats of the Festivals is derived just as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The matter is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals (see Numbers, chapters 28–29) the verses that mention the goat could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: “And a goat.” Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: “And a goat,” indicates that the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed with the goat of the New Moon, which are mentioned at the beginning of that passage, and teaches that they all effect a similar atonement. Just as the goats of the New Moon atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, so too, the goats of the Festivals atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

איבעיא להו כי אמר ר' יהודה על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף הני מילי בחטא שאין סופו ליודע אבל חטא שסופו ליודע כמי שיש ידיעה בסוף דמי ושעיר הנעשה בחוץ ויוה"כ מכפר או דלמא אפילו חטא שסופו ליודע השתא מיהא חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ה' קרינא ביה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda says that the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, does that statement apply only to a sin that will never eventually become known, e.g., where no one was present when the person became ritually impure, but with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, it is considered to be like a case of one who has awareness of his sin at the end, and therefore only the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone for it? Or perhaps, even with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, right now, at least, before it becomes known, I can call it a sin of which only God is aware, and therefore the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for it.

ת"ש דתניא על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף וחטא שסופו ליודע שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ר"ח מכפרים דברי ר"י:

The Gemara concludes: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: For a case in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and it is a sin that will eventually become known, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ר"ש אומר שעירי הרגלים מכפרין אבל לא שעירי ר"ח וכו':

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone for a case in which one never had awareness of his transgression, but the goats of the New Moons do not. Rather, the latter atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food.

א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא מאי טעמיה דר"ש אמר קרא (ויקרא י, יז) ואותה נתן לכם לשאת את עון העדה והאי קרא בשעיר דר"ח כתיב ויליף עון עון מציץ נאמר כאן עון ונאמר להלן (שמות כח, מג) עון מה להלן טומאת בשר אף כאן טומאת בשר

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states: “And He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), and this verse is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon. And its capacity to atone is derived from the frontplate through a verbal analogy between the words “sin” in this verse, and the word “sin” stated with regard to the frontplate. The verse there states: “And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead and Aaron will bear the sin of the sacred offerings” (Exodus 28:38). The verbal analogy teaches as follows: It is stated here, with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “Sin,” and it is stated there, with regard to the frontplate: “Sin.” Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where such meat is placed on the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where a ritually pure person partakes of it.

אי מה להלן עולין אף כאן עולין עון העדה כתיב

The Gemara asks: If the two cases are to be compared, then one could take the comparison further: Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “To bear the sin of the congregation.” This indicates that it atones for the personal sin of partaking of sacrificial meat that was to be consumed by an individual, which became ritually impure.

מכדי מיגמר גמרי מהדדי נכפר דר"ח אדידיה ואדציץ נפקא מינה להיכא דנשבר הציץ אמר קרא עון עון אחד הוא נושא ואין נושא ב' עונות

The Gemara suggests: Now, the atonement of the goats of the New Moon and that of the frontplate are derived from one another by a verbal analogy. If so, let the goat of the New Moon atone for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the frontplate normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where the frontplate was broken. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “To bear the sin of the congregation,” which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, only one sin, but it does not bear two sins.

ונכפר ציץ אדידיה ואדר"ח נפקא מינה לטומאה דאירעה בין זה לזה אמר קרא אותה אותה נושא עון ואין אחרת נושא עון

The Gemara suggests: But let the frontplate atone for itself, i.e., for those cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the goats of the New Moon normally atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that occurred between the goat offering of this New Moon and that New Moon which follows. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “And He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation,” which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but another does not bear that sin.

רב אשי אמר כתיב הכא עון העדה עדה ולא קדשים והתם כתיב עון הקדשים קדשים ולא עדה

Rav Ashi states another proof for the opinion that each atones in a different case: It is stated here with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “The sin of the congregation,” which indicates that it atones for the sin of the congregation, but not for the sin involving sacred offerings. And there, with regard to the frontplate, it is written: “The sin of the sacred offerings,” which indicates that it atones for the sin involving sacred offerings, but not for the sin of the congregation.

אשכחן שעירי ראשי חדשים דמכפרי על טהור שאכל את הטמא שעירי רגלים דמכפרי על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף מנלן

The Gemara says: We found a source for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion about the goats of the New Moons, that they atone for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. From where do we derive his opinion about the goats of the Festivals, that they atone for cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end?

כדאמר ר' חמא ברבי חנינא שעיר ושעיר ה"נ שעיר ושעיר

The Gemara answers: It is derived just as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says, in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals the verses that mention the goats could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: “And a goat,” teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon that is mentioned at the beginning of that passage. Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: “And a goat,” teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon, which is mentioned at the beginning of that passage.