Parallel
שבועות 8
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
With reference to incest also, 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. With reference to bloodshed also, how is it possible? If it was witting transgression, the transgressor suffers the death penalty; if unwitting, he is exiled? — [Yes, it may atone] for witting transgression without warning, or unwitting transgression before it becomes known to him, or for cases where the punishment of exile is not inflicted. The Master has stated: ‘I might have thought that for these three types of uncleannesses this goat atones, therefore the text says, of the uncleannesses, and not "all the uncleannesses." What do we find that the text has differentiated from all other uncleannesses? — The uncleanness connected with Temple and holy food; so here also [the text refers to] the uncleanness connected with Temple and holy food. This is the opinion of R. Judah.’ What is the differentiation [alluded to]? — [In that] he [alone] brings a sliding scale sacrifice. Then include idolatry; and as to the differentiation, it is in that the sinner brings a she-goat and not a lamb? — R. Kahana said: We mean a differentiation to relax, but this is a differentiation to restrict. Then include a woman after childbirth, for the text differentiates in her case in that she brings a sliding scale sacrifice? — R. Hoshaia said: [The verse says,] all their sins, and not ‘all their uncleannesses.’ And according to R. Simeon b. Yohai who said that a woman after childbirth is also a sinner, what shall we say? — R. Simeon is consistent in that he holds ‘from its own text it may be deduced.’ Then include a leper [who also brings a sliding scale sacrifice]? — R. Hoshaia said [the verse says]: all their sins; and not ‘all their uncleannesses’. And according to R. Samuel b. Nahman who said, for seven sins leprous affections afflict man, what shall we say? — There the leprosy itself atones for him; and the sacrifice is merely to permit him to join the congregation. Then include a Nazirite who has become unclean, for the text differentiates in his case in that he brings turtledoves or young pigeons? — R. Hoshaia said [the verse says]: all their sins, and not ‘all their uncleannesses.’ And according to R. Eleazar ha-Kappar who said that a Nazirite is also a sinner, what shall we say? — He agrees with R. Simeon who holds that ‘from its own text it may be deduced.’ The Master has stated: ‘R. Simeon said from its own text it may be deduced, for it says: And he shall make atonement for the holy place, of the uncleannesses . . . of the uncleannesses of the holy place.’ R. Simeon argues well. [Why then does not] R. Judah [accept this deduction]? — He may say to you that [and he shall make atonement . . . ] is required [to teach us] that just as he does in the Holy of Holies, so shall he do [outside the veil] in the Temple. And how does R. Simeon [deduce this]? — He deduces it from and so shall he do. And R. Judah [cannot he also deduce it from this phrase? — No!] From this phrase we might have thought that he must bring another bullock and goat to do [the service outside the veil in the Temple], therefore the text teaches us [and he shall make atonement for the holy place, implying that he shall use the same bullock and goat, and so shall he do means that he shall repeat the service outside the veil]. And R. Simeon [why does he not agree with this argument of R. Judah? — Because the phrase] and so shall he do for the tent of meeting implies everything. The Master stated: ‘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: but a sin which is liable for sacrifice is exclude, i,e., the inner goat does not atone for it].’ Which is it [that is excluded]? Where there is knowledge at the beginning and at the end. [Surely for such a sin] the transgressor must bring a sliding scale sacrifice! The deduction is not necessary save in the case where the sin becomes known to the transgressor near sunset [on the eve of the Day of Atonement]. I might have thought that [in the meantime] until he brings his sacrifice,
—
the inner goat should hold the sin in suspense, therefore the text teaches us [that it does not]. The Master stated: ‘How do we know that, when there is knowledge at the beginning and not at the end, this goat holds the sin in suspense?’ ‘How do we know’! What is his question? — This is his question: Now that you say, ‘sins are equated with transgressions: just as transgressions are not liable for sacrifice, so sins are those which are not liable for sacrifice;’ you might logically argue, just as transgressions are never liable for sacrifice, so sins are those which are never liable for sacrifice; and which are they? Those where there is no knowledge at the beginning but knowledge at the end; but where there is knowledge at the beginning and not at the en, since, when the knowledge comes to him at the end, he is liable to bring a sacrifice, let us say that the inner goat should not hold the sin in suspense! And if you should say, where there is no knowledge at the beginning but knowledge at the end, the outer goat together with the Day of Atonement atones? — I might have thought that we should reverse [the atonements]. Therefore the text says: even all their sins, so that we may infer that they are ultimately liable for a sin offering [i.e., the inner goat holds in suspense those sins where there is knowledge at the beginning but not at the end]. But why should it not atone completely [instead of merely holding the sin in suspense till he brings his sacrifice]? — If it had been written: ‘[And he shall make atonement . . . of their transgressions and] of their sins,’ I should have agreed with you: but now that it is written: ‘[of their transgressions], even all their sins,’ [the text means that it holds in suspense] such transgressions as may ultimately be atoned for by sin offerings. Now since it does not atone completely, what is the purpose of holding it in suspense? — R. Zera said: So that if he dies [before the knowledge comes to enable him to bring his sacrifice] — he dies without sin. Said Raba to him: If he dies, his death purges him from sin; but, said Raba, the inner goat [by holding the sin in suspense] shields him from suffering [until he brings his sacrifice]. WHERE THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING BUT KNOWLEDGE AT THE END THE GOAT SACRIFICED ON THE OUTER ALTAR AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT ATONE, etc. Now, they have been equated with each other; let the inner goat, then, atone for its own [where there is knowledge at the beginning and not at the end] and for that for which the outer goat atones [where there is no knowledge at the beginning but at the end], and the outcome of this would be [that there would be atonement] in such case where the outer goat was not sacrificed. [No!] The text says: [And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it] once [in the year; with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it]: one atonement it atones, but it does not effect two atonements. Well, let the outer goat atone for its own and for that for which the inner goat atones; and the outcome of this would be [that there would be atonement] in such case where uncleanness occurred between the offering of this [inner goat] and that [outer goat. No!] The text says: once in the year — this atonement shall be
—