Parallel
שבועות 12
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[It may be retorted,] Incense is different, because it cannot be put to pasture. Well, then, the Rabbis [who State the law] of the red heifer. [But again it may be urged:] Perhaps the red heifer is different, because it is expensive! — Well, then, the Rabbis [of our Mishnah] who argued with him. [But here again,] how do you know that it is R. Judah [who argues with R Simeon], and that thus he argues with him: ‘It is right according to my view, holding as I do that the Beth din make a mental stipulation; therefore the goat set apart for one day may be offered on another; but according to you who say, no, [we do not say the Beth din make a mental stipulation], why should the goat set apart for one day be offered on another?’ — [How do you know this?] Perhaps it is R. Meir [who argues with R. Simeon], and thus he argues with him: ‘It is right according to my view, holding as I do that all the goats bring equal atonement, therefore the goat set apart for one day may be offered on another; but according to you [who do not hold that all the goats bring equal atonement], why should the goat set apart for one day be offered on another?’ [Who, then, are the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon, holding that the Beth din make a mental stipulation?] — But. R. Johanan had a tradition that, according to R. Simeon, they [the daily offerings] are not redeemed [unblemished]; and, according to the Sages, they are redeemed. And according to R. Simeon who does not hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation [that the daily offerings which are not required should be redeemed], what is done with them? R. Isaac said that R. Johanan said: They are offered as dessert to the altar. R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said: R. Simeon admits, however, that the goats for a sin-offering are not themselves offered as dessert for the altar, but their money equivalent; for here [in the case of the surplus daily offering], it was originally intended for a burnt-offering, and it is now also a burnt-offering; but there [in the case of the sin-offering], it was originally intended for a sin-offering, and now it will be a burnt-offering; [it is, therefore, not permitted to be offered up itself,] a restriction being imposed even after [the congregation have had] atonement [with another sin-offering], as a preventive measure [in case it may be offered up] before [the congregation have had] atonement [with another]. Abaye said: We have also learnt [in a Baraitha]: The bullock and [inner] goat of the Day of Atonement which were lost, others being set apart in their stead; and also the goats to atone for idolatry which were lost, others being set apart in their stead — they all die: this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: They pasture till they become unfit [for sacrifice], and then they are sold, the money going as a donation [to the Temple treasury], for a congregational sin-offering does not die! — Now, why [should they pasture till they become blemished and then be sold]? Let them be offered up themselves as burnt-offerings [as dessert for the altar]. Obviously, therefore, [since they do not say this], we may deduce that a restriction is imposed [even] after atonement as a preventive measure [in case they may be offered up] before atonement. Raba said: We have also learnt: . . . and the second one pastures till it becomes unfit [for sacrifice], when it is sold, and the money goes as a donation [to the Temple treasury]. Now, why [should it pasture till it becomes blemished and then be sold]? Let it be offered up itself as a burnt-offering [as dessert for the altar]. Obviously, therefore, [since this is not done,] we may deduce that a restriction is imposed [even] after atonement as a preventive measure [in case it may be offered up] before atonement, Rabina said: We have also learnt: A guilt offering the owner of which died, or obtained atonement [with another], pastures till it becomes unfit [for sacrifice], when it is sold, and the money goes as a donation [to the Temple treasury]. R. Eliezer says: It dies. R. Joshua says: He brings a burnt-offering for its money. Now, let it be offered up itself as a burnt-offering [as dessert for the altar]. Obviously, therefore, [since this is not done,] we may deduce that a restriction is imposed [even] after atonement as a preventive measure [in case it may be offered up] before atonement. This is conclusive. This has also been taught [in the following Baraitha]: What do they bring from the surplus [congregational offerings]?
—
Dessert like white figs for the altar. But it is written: For any leaven or honey ye shall not offer up as smoke, as an offering made by fire unto the Lord? — R. Hanina explained: [The burnt-offerings are dessert for the altar] as white figs are [dessert] for man. R. Nahman son of R. Hisda expounded: A burnt-offering of a bird is not offered as dessert for the altar. Raba said: This is an absurdity! Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to Raba: Wherein lies its absurdity? I told it him; and in the name of R. Shimi of Nehardea I told it him; for R. Shimi of Nehardea said: The surplus offerings are utilised as congregational donations; and a burnt-offering of a bird cannot be a congregational burnt offering. And Samuel also agrees with R. Johanan, for Rab Judah said that Samuel said: In the case of congregational offerings, it is the knife that draws them to what they are. It has also been taught likewise: And R. Simeon admits that the goat which was not offered on a festival may be offered on the New Moon; and if it was not offered on the New Moon, it may be offered on the Day of Atonement; and if it was not offered on the Day of Atonement, it may be offered on a festival; and if it was not offered on this festival, it may be offered on another festival; for it was originally intended only to make atonement on the outer altar. AND FOR WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAWS OF UNCLEANNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE AND HOLY FOOD THEREOF THE GOAT OFFERED WITHIN [THE VEIL] AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT ITSELF BRING ATONEMENT. How do we know this? For our Rabbis learnt. [Scripture says:] And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins: Transgressions mean rebellious acts, and thus it says, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me; and also, Then did Libnah revolt at the same time. Sins mean unwitting sins, and thus it says: If any one shall sin through error. FOR OTHER TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE TORAH, LIGHT AND HEAVY, WILFUL AND UNWITTING, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, THOSE PUNISHABLE BY KARETH AND THOSE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH AT THE HAND OF THE BETH DIN FOR ALL THESE THE SCAPEGOAT BRINGS ATONEMENT. Surely LIGHT is equivalent to POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE; HEAVY is equivalent to THOSE PUNISHABLE BY KARETH AND THOSE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH AT THE HAND OF THE BETH DIN; KNOWN is equivalent to WILFUL; and UNKNOWN is equivalent to in UNWITTING! — Rab Judah said: Thus he means: For other transgressions of the Torah, whether light or heavy, whether committed unwittingly or wilfully — those committed unwittingly, whether their doubtful commission was known to him or not known to him; and these are the light transgressions: positive and negative; and these are the heavy transgressions: those punishable by kareth and those punishable by death at the hand of the Beth din. That positive precept [for transgression of which the scapegoat atones] — how is this [to be understood]? If he did not repent, [why should the scapegoat atone? Surely it is written:] The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination! If he did repent, [why do we require the scapegoat? Repentance on] any day avails, for it was taught: If he transgressed a positive precept and repented, he does not move from there until he is forgiven! — R. Zera said:
—