Parallel
שבועות 7
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
a sliding scale sacrifice should perhaps be, as in the case of ‘hearing the voice of adjuration’ and ‘swearing clearly with the lips’ [where a sliding scale sacrifice is brought for unwitting transgression, though neither Kareth nor death [by divine intervention] is inflicted for wilful transgression]? — Scripture says: [Whatsoever his uncleanness be] by which [he becomes unclean.] By which, excludes Terumah. Let us rather say that by which excludes Temple [and holy food] in that a sliding scale sacrifice shall not suffice, but a fixed sacrifice be necessary? Raba said of Rabbi: He draws water from deep pits; for it was taught: Rabbi said: I read, [If any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean] beast [or the carcass of unclean cattle . . . ]. Why should cattle be written? — [To deduce the following:] Here it is said unclean cattle, and further on it is said unclean cattle. Just as there it refers to eating holy food while unclean, so here it refers to eating holy food while unclean. Thus we deduce the law regarding eating holy food while unclean; whence do we deduce the law regarding entering the Temple while unclean? — Scripture says: She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary. Sanctuary is equated with holy food. — If so, Terumah also [should be included for sliding scale sacrifice, if eaten while unclean], for it has been said that she shall touch no hallowed thing includes Terumah? — [No!] Scripture limits the application of the law by the expression, by which. — Let us say that the expression by which excludes Temple [and not Terumah]? — It is reasonable not to exclude Temple, because the same punishment, Kareth, is inflicted [for wilfully entering the Temple, or eating holy food, while unclean]. — On the contrary, Terumah should not be excluded, because the act of transgression consists of eating, just as in the case of holy food [whereas in the case of the Temple, it is entering it which constitutes the transgression]? Well then, said Raba: Why is the punishment of Kareth for eating peace offerings [i.e., holy food] while unclean mentioned three times in Holy Writ? — Once for a general statement, once for a particular, and once for the uncleanness written in the Torah without being defined, so that I know not what it means. You may say, then, it means eating holy food while unclean; and since it is unnecessary to have another prohibition for eating holy food while unclean, for I deduce that from Rabbi's statement, you may utilise the prohibition for entering the Temple while unclean. — But this [extra Kareth] we require for R. Abbahu's deduction! For R. Abbahu said: Why does Scripture mention Kareth three times for eating peace offerings [while unclean]? — Once for a general statement, once for a particular, and once for things which are not eaten. And according to R. Simeon who holds that things which are not eaten are not punishable by Kareth if eaten during uncleanness, [we still require the extra Kareth to deduce that] the ‘inner’ sin offerings are included; for we might have thought that, since R. Simeon holds that sacrifices which are not offered on the outer altar, as are peace offerings, are not subject to the law of piggul, therefore they are also not subject to the law of uncleanness; he therefore teaches us that they are. [The third Kareth, then, is necessary for this deduction. How then shall we deduce that an unclean person entering the Temple brings a sliding scale sacrifice?] — Well then, the Nehardeans say in the name of Raba: Why does Scripture mention ‘uncleanness’ three times in connection with peace offerings? — Once for a generalisation, once for a particular, and once for the uncleanness written in the Torah without being explained, so that I know not what it means. You may say then, it refers to eating holy food while unclean, and since it is unnecessary to have another prohibition for that, for I deduce that from Rabbi's statement, you may utilise the prohibition for entering the Temple while unclean. But this [extra word ‘uncleanness’] we also require; since Scripture had to write [the extra] Kareth for R. Abbahu's deduction, it perforce had to write also [the extra] ‘uncleanness’, for without it the phrase would have been meaningless? — Well then, said Raba: We deduce [that an unclean person entering the Temple brings a sliding scale sacrifice] from [the similarity of phrases] ‘his uncleanness’, ‘his uncleanness’. Here it is written: [If he touch the uncleanness of man] whatsoever his uncleanness be.25
—
And there it is written: He shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him. Just as there it refers to entering the Temple while unclean, so here it refers to entering the Temple while unclean. — If so, why is the expression by which necessary? — To include [that he who eats] the carcass of a clean bird [and enters the Temple or eats holy food must bring a sliding scale sacrifice]. — But you said that by which is intended to exclude [and not include]! For the very reason that it does exclude it is superfluous: it is written: Or if he touch [the uncleanness] — this implies that only that which defiles by touch is included [in the regulation of the sliding scale sacrifice], but that which does not defile by touch is not included. Then it is written also: by which which implies limitation. We have, then, limitation after limitation; and limitation after limitation serves to amplify. WHERE THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING BUT NOT AT THE END, THE GOAT THE BLOOD OF WHICH IS SPRINKLED WITHIN THE VEIL etc. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the Children of Israel . . . It is possible in this phrase to include three types of uncleanness — the uncleanness of idolatry, the uncleanness of incest, and the uncleanness of bloodshed. Of idolatry the verse says: [He hath given of his seed unto Molech] to defile My sanctuary. Of incest it says: Ye shall keep My charge, that ye do not any of these abominable customs . . . that ye defile not yourselves therein. Of bloodshed it says: And thou shalt not defile the land. Now, I might have thought that for these three types of uncleanness this [‘inner’] goat atones, therefore the text says: Of the uncleannesses of the Children of Israel, and not ‘all the uncleannesses’. [These three are excluded, because] what [uncleanness] do we find that the text has differentiated from all other uncleannesses? — You must say, it is the uncleanness of [the transgressor who enters] the Temple or [eats] holy food; so here also [the text in stating that the inner goat atones for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness refers to] the uncleanness connected with Temple and holy food. This is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Simeon says: From its own text it may be deduced, for it says. And he shall make atonement for the holy place, of the uncleannesses . . ., [i.e.,] of the uncleannesses of the holy place. Now, I might have thought that for every uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food this goat atones, therefore the text says: And of their transgressions, even all their sins — sins are equated with transgressions; just as transgressions are not liable for sacrifice, so sins [in this verse] are those which are not liable for sacrifice. And how do we know that [only] when there is knowledge at the beginning and not at the end does this goat hold the sin in suspense? — Because the text says, even all their sins — implying sins for which a sin offering may ultimately be brought. The Master stated: ‘It is possible in this phrase to include three types of uncleanness — the uncleanness of idolatry, the uncleanness of incest, and the uncleanness of bloodshed.’ With reference to idolatry, how is it possible? If it was witting transgression, the transgressor suffers the death penalty; if unwitting, he brings a sacrifice. — [Yes, it may atone] for witting transgression without warning, or unwitting transgression before it becomes known to him.27
—