Keritot

: Nebelah1 is subject to a suspensive guilt-offering. Said the latter to him: Have we not learnt, THE SAGES HOLD THAT ONE MAY NOT BRING A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING EXCEPT FOR A [PARTICULAR] SIN. THE WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO KARETH AND THE INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A SIN-OFFERING? And should you follow R. Eliezer's view, behold he maintains that it may be offered as a freewill sacrifice!2 — Replied the former: Why do you not study [thoroughly]? Many a time I put this question before the Master, namely Rabbah, and he replied: This represents the view of R. Eliezer as [suggested] by ‘those who spoke to him’,3 as we have learnt: BUT THEY SAID UNTO ME, WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE COME TO A STATE OF DOUBT. Said Raba, What is the reason of ‘those that spoke to him?’ — The text reads. And [doeth] through error [any one of all the things] which [the Lord his God hath commanded] not to be done, and is guilty.4 Raba also said: What is the reason of the Rabbis who maintain that one may not bring a suspensive guilt-offering except for a [particular] sin the wilful transgression of which is subject to kareth and the inadvertent transgression of which is subject to a sin-offering? They derive [their ruling] from the sin-offering for heleb5 by the analogy based upon the common term mitzwoth:6 As in that instance7 [it is brought] for a sin that is subject to kareth in the case of wilfulness and to a sin-offering in the case of error, so also in our instance,8 [it is brought] for such sins as are subject to kareth in the case of wilfulness and to a sin-offering in the case of error. Our Rabbis taught: The five guilt-offerings9 effect [complete] atonement; the suspensive guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement. How is this to be understood? — Said Rab Joseph. As follows: The five guilt-offerings effect complete atonement,10 the suspensive guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement;11 thus dissenting from R. Eliezer, who holds that nebelah is subject to a suspensive guilt-offering.12 Rabina said: It is to be understood thus: In respect of the five guilt-offerings nothing else can take their place to effect atonement, for when it is known to him he must still bring it;13 with reference to the suspensive guilt-offering. however, something else can take its place to effect atonement, for when it is known to him he does not bring it;14 as we have learnt: THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS OR TO UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERINGS AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT HAD INTERVENED, ARE STILL BOUND TO OFFER THEM AFTER THE DAY OF ATONEMENT; THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT. THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS OR TO UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERINGS etc. It is stated, THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS OR TO UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERINGS AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT HAD INTERVENED, ARE STILL BOUND TO OFFER THEM AFTER THE DAY OF ATONEMENT; THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT. Whence do we know this? — When Rab Dimi arrived,15 he said in the name of R. Ammi, who reported it in the name of R. Hanina. The verse reads, And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins;16 ‘sins’ are analogous to ‘transgressions’: as ‘transgressions’17 are not subject to a sacrifice, so also only those ‘sins’ which are not subject to a sacrifice are atoned for [by the Day of Atonement]; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for.18 Said Abaye to him: But this verse refers to the goat that is offered up within,19 which does not atone for the conscious transgression of a law; the scapegoat, however, which does atone for the conscious transgression of a law, I may say will atone also for sins that are subject to a sacrifice! Rather said Abaye: It is derived from the following [text]: And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins;20 ‘sins’ are analogous to transgressions: as transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, so also only those ‘sins’ which are not subject to a sacrifice are atoned for [by the Day of Atonement]; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for by it. Scripture has thus suggested a limitation [in the text] relating to the ‘scapegoat’, to teach us that it does not atone for sins that are subject to a sacrifice. Said to him Rab Dimi: Whence do you know that the ‘transgressions’ referred to are those that are not subject to a sacrifice? Perhaps they are those that are subject to a sacrifice; as we have learnt: Four persons offer a sacrifice for wilful as for inadvertent transgression!21 In confirmation of his [Abaye's] view it was stated: When Rabin arrived,22 he said in the name of R. Jose, who reported it in the name of Resh Lakish: ‘And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their sins; sins are analogous to ‘transgressions’: as ‘transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, and are atoned for [by the Day of Atonement], so also only those ‘sins’ which are not subject to a sacrifice are atoned for by it; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for by it. Remarked Abaye: I, too, derived it from this text, but Rab Dimi objected: Whence do we know that the ‘transgressions’ referred to are those that are not subject to a sacrifice; perhaps they are those that are subject to a sacrifice, as we have learnt: Four persons offer a sacrifice for wilful as for inadvertent transgression? — Replied Rabin to him: The majority of ‘transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice.23 Said the other to him: Does the passage mention ‘majority’? — Rather, said Abaye: [The proof comes] from the beginning of this same verse: And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel. And it was taught: ‘Iniquities’ denote wilful transgressions, and so it is written, His iniquity shall be upon him.24 Now, why did the verse add, ‘and all their transgressions, even all their sins’;25 to establish an analogy to ‘transgressions’: as transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, so also only those ‘sins’ are implied which are not subject to a sacrifice; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for [by the Day of Atonement]. THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS etc. Whence do we learn this?26 — Said R. Eleazar: The Scriptural text reads, From all your sins [shall ye be clean] before the Lord:27 The Day of Atonement expiates sins that are known to the Lord alone. Said Rab Tahlifa, the father of Rab Huna, in the name of Raba: Also the preceding instance28 need no longer error is, therefore, not subject to a sin-offering advised to bring a suspensive guilt-offering except with reference to a specific sin. R. Hiyya lets us know that this sin may be a prohibition which involves stripes and not kareth. reference to the sin-offering of the prince. It should rather read here: Which (the Lord hath commanded) not to be done, though he know it not, yet he is guilty, of Lev. V, 17 (v. Rabbenu Gershom). This passage suggests that that guilt-offering is offered only for a particular transgression prohibited by the Lord. suspensive guilt-offering; v. also supra 22b. leper (ibid. XIV, 12), for connection with a designated bondmaid (ibid. XIX, 20f.) and for the nazirite (Num. VI, 12). the doubt is thus its final expiation. not for certain sins liable to a sin-offering. atonement, which was offered upon the inner altar of the Temple on the Day of Atonement. In addition, the scapegoat’, i.e., the goat that was removed, or made to ‘escape’ into the wilderness, symbolizing the removal of the guilt of the community, was also offered on this day. expiated by a sacrifice. ohtyj ,’sins’, on the other hand, denotes unintentional deviation from the law. guilt-offering is an exception for reasons that will be explained further on. sacrifice are expiated on the Day of Atonement. departure from the law of God. sins of which he is unaware by reason of their doubtfulness. paragraph by Abaya and R. Dimi. These expositions are regarded as unsatisfactory by reason of the above objections that were raised against them.