Shevuot — Daf 10a

ואיתקוש שעירי הרגלים לשעירי ראשי חדשים מה שעיר דראש חודש במילתא דקודש מכפרי אף שעירי רגלים במילתא דקודש מכפרי

וכי תימא ניכפרו אדראש חדש הא אמרינן אותה אותה נושא עון ואין אחר נושא עון

וכי תימא ניכפרו אדיום הכפורים הא אמרי' (ויקרא טז, לד) אחת בשנה כפרה זו לא תהא אלא אחת בשנה

אמאי מכפרי

אי על שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה ויש בה ידיעה בסוף האי בר קרבן הוא אי על שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף האי שעיר הנעשה בפנים ויום הכפורים תולה אי על שאין בה ידיעה בתחלה אבל יש בה ידיעה בסוף האי שעיר הנעשה בחוץ ויום הכפורים מכפר

על כרחך אינו מכפר אלא על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף:

ר' מאיר אומר כל השעירים כפרתן שוה כו':

אמר ר' חמא בר ר' חנינא מאי טעמא דר' מאיר אמר קרא שעיר ושעיר הוקשו כל השעירים זה לזה וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון

קסלקא דעתך כל חד וחד מחבריה גמר והאמר ר' יוחנן כל התורה כולה למידין למד מלמד חוץ מקדשים שאין למידין למד מלמד

הא לא קשיא כולהו מקמא גמרי

תינח כל דכתב ביה ושעיר עצרת ויוה"כ דלא כתב ביה ושעיר מנלן

אלא אמר ר' יונה אמר קרא (במדבר כט, לט) אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכ' הוקשו כל המועדי' כולן זה לזה: והא ר"ח לאו מועד הוא

איברא ר"ח נמי איקרי מועד כדאמר אביי דאמר אביי תמוז דההיא שתא מלויי מליוהו דכתיב (איכה א, טו) קרא עלי מועד לשבור בחורי

אמר רבי יוחנן ומודה ר"מ בשעיר הנעשה בפנים שהוא אינו מכפר כפרתן והן אינן מכפרין כפרתו

הוא אינו מכפר כפרתן כפרה אחת מכפר ואינו מכפר שתי כפרות הן אינן מכפרין כפרתו אמר קרא אחת בשנה כפרה זו לא תהא אלא אחת בשנה

תניא נמי הכי על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף ועל שאין בה ידיעה בתחלה אבל יש בה ידיעה בסוף ועל טהור שאכל את הטמא שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים ושעיר הנעשה בחוץ מכפרין דברי ר' מאיר

ואילו שעיר הנעשה בפנים שיירה וכפרתן נמי שיירה:

היה ר' שמעון אומר שעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין על טהור שאכל את הטמא כו':

בשלמא דראשי חדשים לא מכפרי אדרגלים דאמר קרא עון עון אחד הוא נושא ואינו נושא שני עונות אלא דרגלים ניכפרו אדראשי חדשים אמר קרא אותה אותה נושא עון ואין אחר נושא עון

בשלמא דרגלים לא מכפרין אדיום הכפורים דאמר קרא אחת בשנה כפרה זו לא תהא אלא אחת בשנה אלא דיום הכפורים ניכפרו אדרגלים אמר קרא אחת כפרה אחת מכפר ואינו מכפר שתי כפרות

והא כי כתיב אחת בשעיר הנעשה בפנים הוא דכתיב אמר קרא (במדבר כט, יא) מלבד

Thus the festival goats are equated with the New Moon goats; just as the New Moon goats atone for something connected with holy things, so the festival goats atone for something connected with holy things. And if you should say, let them [the festival goats] atone for that for which the New Moon goat atones, [we would reply. No! for] we have said: it [hath He given to you to bear the iniquity] — it [the New Moon goat] bears the iniquity, and no other bears the iniquity. And if you should say, let them atone for that for which the Day of Atonement [outer] goat atones,1 [we would reply. No! for] we have said: once in the year [shall he make atonement for it]2 — this atonement [of the Day of Atonement outer goat] shall be only once a year. For what, then, do they [the festival goats] atone? If for a case where there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end, the transgressor must bring a [sliding scale] sacrifice? If for a case where there is knowledge at the beginning and not at the end, this is a case where the inner goat and the Day of Atonement hold the sin in suspense? If for a case where there is no knowledge at the beginning but at the end, for this the outer goat and the Day of Atonement atone? Of necessity, therefore, they [the festival goats] atone for a case where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end. R. MEIR SAYS ALL THE GOATS HAVE EQUAL POWERS OF ATONEMENT, etc. Said R. Hama b. Hanina: what is R. Meir's reason? — The text [could have] said: ‘one goat’, [but it says:] ‘and one goat’ — all the goats are thus equated with each other: the conjunction and adds to the preceding subject. It was at first assumed that each deduced [its additional powers of atonement] from its neighbour;3 [but that cannot be, for] R. Johanan said: In the whole Torah a law may be deduced by analogy from another law which has itself been deduced by analogy, except in the case of holy things, where a law may not be deduced by analogy from another law which has itself been deduced by analogy.4 — This need cause no difficulty: they may all deduce from the first.5 Granted, in every case where the text has ‘and one goat’,6 but in the case of Pentecost and the Day of Atonement where the text has not ‘and one goat’, how can we deduce [their laws]? — Well then, said R. Jonah, the verse says: ‘These ye shall offer unto the Lord in your festivals’7 — all the festivals are equated with each other.8 But the New Moon is not a festival! Verily, the New Moon is also called a festival, as Abaye said [elsewhere], — for Abaye said Tammuz of that year9 they made a full month [of thirty days], as it is written: He hath called a solemn assembly [or, festival] against me to crush my young men.10 R. Johanan said: R. Meir agrees that the goat offered within [the veil on the Day of Atonement] does not atone their11 atonements, nor do they atone his atonement. He does not atone their atonements: he atones one atonement, and does not atone two atonements;12 they do not atone his atonement, for the verse says: once in the year [shall he make atonement]13 — this atonement shall be only once in the year. It was likewise taught [in a Baraitha]: For a case where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, and for a case where there is no knowledge at the beginning but knowledge at the end, and for a clean man who ate unclean holy food, the festival goats and the New Moon goats and the goat offered outside [the veil on the Day of Atonement] bring atonement: this is the opinion of R. Meir. The inner goat, however, he leaves out, and that they [the others] atone [his atonement] he also leaves out.14 NOW, R. SIMEON SAYS THE NEW MOON GOATS ATONE FOR A CLEAN MAN WHO ATE UNCLEAN HOLY FOOD, etc. Granted that the New Moon goats do not atone for that for which the festival goats atone, because the text says: [It hath He given you to bear] the iniquity15 — one iniquity it bears, but it does not bear two iniquities; but let the festival goats atone for that for which the New Moon goats atone? — [No!] The text says: it16 [hath He given you to bear the iniquity] — it bears the iniquity, but no other bears the iniquity.17 Granted that the festival goats do not atone for that for which the Day of Atonement goat atones, because the text says: once in the year [shall he make atonement]18 — this atonement shall be only once a year; but let the Day of Atonement goat atone for that for which the festival goats atone? [No!] The text says: [And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it] once19 — one atonement it atones, but it does not atone two atonements. But once is written in connection with the inner goat [and not the outer]! — The text says: [One goat for a sin offering,]20 beside with it, and therefore, like it, atones for a clean man who ate unclean holy food (R. Meir agreeing with R. Simeon that the New Moon goat atones for a clean man who ate unclean holy food.) The Tabernacles goat (Num. XXIX, 16), mentioned immediately after the Day of Atonement goat, is equated with it, and therefore, like it, atones for a case where there is no knowledge at the beginning but at the end; and the Day of Atonement goat, being equated with the Tabernacles goat, atones, like it, for a case where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end. Similarly, all the goats deduce the necessary laws from each other, each one from its nearest neighbour in Holy Writ; the result is that they all equally atone for all things which they atone for individually. holy food? This has to be deduced first from the Tabernacles goat, which in its turn (being likened to the Passover goat) has to be deduced from the New Moon goat? simultaneously deduce from the New Moon goat to atone for a clean man who ate unclean holy food; and the New Moon goat may deduce from them (the festival goats) to atone for a case where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end. And all may deduce from the Day of Atonement goat to atone for a case where there is no knowledge at the beginning but at the end; and the Day of Atonement goat from them for a case where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end. Sivan, and returned on the 8th of Ab (the 2 last days of Sivan, 30 days of Tammuz, and 8 days of Ab 40 days). And the people wept that night (Num. XIV, 1), i.e., on the eve of the 9th of Ab. Because they wept for no reason that night, it was fixed as an annual night of weeping for the future. (The first and second Temples were destroyed on that date); v. Ta'an. 29a. extra day, making Tammuz 30 days, so that the 30th day was proclaimed New Moon (festival), in order to crush my young men, in order that the night of weeping (9th of Ab) would coincide with the date my young men were to be crushed centuries later at the time of the destruction of the Temple. where there is knowledge at the beginning but not at the end.