שבועות 13 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[It refers to the case of a man] who persists in his rebellion; and it is in accordance with Rabbi's view, for it was taught: Rabbi said: For all transgressions of the Torah, whether he repented or not, the Day of Atonement brings atonement, except in the case of one who throws off the yoke, perverts the teachings of the Torah, and rejects the covenant in the flesh — [in these cases,] if he repented, the Day of Atonement brings atonement, and if not — the Day of Atonement does not bring atonement. What is Rabbi's reason? For it was taught: [Scripture says:] Because he hath despised the word of the Lord: this refers to one who throws off the yoke, or perverts the teachings of the Torah; and hath broken His commandment: this refers to one who rejects the covenant in the flesh; that soul shall utterly be cut off: to be cut off before the Day of Atonement; he shall be cut off, after the Day of Atonement. I might think that [this is the case] even if he repented, therefore Scripture says: his iniquity shall be upon him. I did not say [that the Day of Atonement does not bring atonement] except when his iniquity is still on him. And the Rabbis? — [They may reply: Scripture means] to be cut off, in this world; he shall be cut off in the world to come. His iniquity shall be upon him: if he repented and died, death wipes out [the sin]. But how can you establish [our Mishnah as being] in accordance with the view of Rabbi? Surely since the last clause is in accordance with R. Judah's view, the first clause must also be in accordance with R. Judah's view! For the last clause states — [THE SCAPEGOAT BRINGS ATONEMENT FOR] ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. Now, who holds this view? R. Judah. Therefore the first clause must also be in accordance with R. Judah’ view! — R. Joseph said: It is really in accordance with Rabbi's view, and he is in agreement with R. Judah. Said Abaye to him: Do you, Master, mean particularly that Rabbi agrees with R. Judah, but R. Judah does not agree with Rabbi; or that just as [you say,] Rabbi agrees with R. Judah, so also R. Judah agrees with Rabbi, but you state, as is customary, that a disciple agrees with his master? — He replied: I mean particularly that Rabbi agrees with R. Judah, but R. Judah does not agree with Rabbi; for it was taught: I might think that the Day of Atonement should atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent; and [although] an analogy [might be adduced to the contrary thus]: since sin-offering and guilt-offering atone, and the Day of Atonement atones, [we might therefore say,] just as the sin-offering and guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, so the Day of Atonement atones only for those who repent, [yet we could argue,] sin-offering and guilt-offering do not atone for wilful transgression as for unwitting, [therefore they atone only for those who repent], but the Day of Atonement atones for wilful as for unwitting transgression, [therefore let us say that] just as it atones for wilful as for unwitting transgression, so let it atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent — therefore Scripture says: Howbeit [on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement] — this limits [the power of the Day of Atonement]. Now, who is the author of any anonymous statement in the Sifra? — R. Judah; and it states that [the Day of Atonement atones] for only those who repent, and not for those who do not repent. But there is a contradiction between one anonymous statement in the Sifra and another! For it was taught: I might think that the Day of Atonement should not atone unless he fasted on it, and called it a holy convocation, and did no work on it; but if he did not fast on it, and did not call it a holy convocation, and worked on it — whence do we deduce [that the Day atones for him]? Scripture says: It is a Day of Atonement — in all cases [it atones]. Abaye said: This is no question; this [latter statement] is in accordance with the view of Rabbi, and that [former statement] is in accordance with the view of R. Judah. Raba said: Both statements are in accordance with Rabbi's view; but Rabbi admits [that the Day does not atone for] the kareth of the Day itself; for, if you will not say this, does not Rabbi hold that there is kareth for the Day of Atonement! Why not? It is possible, for example, in the case where he committed [the sin] at night, and died, so that the Day did not come to atone for him! — But, say:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:I.e., who did not repent, nevertheless the scapegoat atones for him, according to Rabbi; and the verse, the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, which implies that a wicked man (i.e., who does not repent) cannot obtain atonement with a sacrifice, has reference to a sacrifice on any other day, except the Day of Atonement.
^ᵇnote:Denying the existence of God.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘reveals an aspect of the Torah (not in accordance with the correct interpretation)’, or ‘acts in a bare-faced manner against the Torah.’ For a full discussion of the phrase, v. Sanh. 99a and Aboth III, 11.
^ᵈnote:Circumcision. V. loc. cit.
^ᵉnote:Num. XV, 31. Lit., ‘to be cut off, he shall be cut off’. ,rf, ,rfv: the infinitive preceding the finite verb is taken as emphatic.
^ᶠnote:I.e., the Day of Atonement shall not have the power is wipe out the sin.
^ᵍnote:I.e., when he did not repent. According to Rabbi, therefore, it is only for these three sins that the Day of Atonement brings no atonement without repentance; but for other sins it brings atonement even without repentance.
^ʰnote:Who disagree with Rabbi, holding that the Day does not atone even for other sins, without repentance. How will they interpret the emphasis of Scripture on that soul shall utterly be cut off?
^ⁱnote:In the case of these three sins, if the sinner does not repent; and even death cannot wipe out these sins without repentance; but in the case of other sins, if he does not repent, death has the power to wipe them out. The Day of Atonement, however, has not the power to wipe out even other sins without repentance.
^ʲnote:His iniquity being no longer upon him.
^ᵏnote:Whereas in the case of other sins, apart from these three, death without repentance wipes them out.
^ˡnote:That for all sins, except these three, the Day of Atonement brings atonement, even without repentance; and that the Mishnah, in stating that the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement atones for the transgression of positive precepts, refers to cases of non-repentance, in accordance even Rabbi's view.
^ᵐnote:Supra 2b.
^ⁿnote:Infra 13b: that the scapegoat brings atonement for the priests.
^ᵒnote:And not Rabbi's.
^ᵖnote:That the scapegoat brings atonement for the priests.
^ᵠnote:That the Day of Atonement brings atonement even when there is no repentance.
^ʳnote:R. Judah the Prince was a disciple of R. Judah b. Il'ai; and therefore you said that Rabbi agrees with R. Judah, but the reverse is also true.
^ˢnote:Lev. V, 5: he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned (sin-offering); Num. V, 7: they shall confess their sin (guilt-offering); (cf. verse 8, and Lev. V, 15).
^ᵗnote:V. Rashi: the majority of sin offerings and guilt offerings atone only for unwitting transgressions, but there are a few exceptions.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XXIII, 27. Heb. lt implies limitation: that the Day should atone only for those who repent. V. Sifra, a.l.
^ᵛnote:Sanh. 86a: an accepted Talmudic maxim. The Sifra is the tannaitic exposition of Leviticus (v. Sanh. p. 567, n. I).
^ʷnote:Hence R. Judah, who is the author of the anonymous passage quoted from the Sifra, does not agree with Rabbi.
^ˣnote:By including in the prayers on that day: Blessed art Thou, O Lord . . . Who sanctifiest Israel and the Day of Atonement; and by wearing holiday garments to signify his acceptance of the Day as holy. V. Ker. 7a, Tosaf.
^ʸnote:Lev. XXIII, 28. V. Sifra, a.l.
^ᶻnote:Hence this anonymous statement in the Sifra holds that the Day atones even for those who do not repent (but actually sin on the very Day); it, therefore, contradicts the other statement in the Sifra.
^ᵃᵃnote:That the Day atones even for those who do not repent. It is not an anonymous statement, but should be mentioned in the Sifra as being the view of Rabbi.
^ᵃᵇnote:The first anonymous statement that the Day does not atone for whose who do not repent refers only to the sins, punishable by kareth, of the Day itself, such as non-fasting and working; the second statement that the Day does atone, even when the person does not fast, refers to other sins, i.e., the Day atones for other sins committed during the year even without fasting on the Day; but it cannot atone for the sin of non-fasting on the Day itself.
^ᵃᶜnote:If the Day atones for all sins, even connected with the Day itself, without repentance, why does Scripture decree the punishment of Kareth for transgressing the Day (Lev. XXIII, 29)? It can never be put into effect. Obviously, therefore, Rabbi must make the distinction which Raba suggests.
^ᵃᵈnote:Rabbi may hold that the Day atones even for the kareth which it itself carries, and yet it is possible to find a case where kareth is inflicted.
^ᵃᵉnote:Punishable by kareth, e.g., non-fasting.
^ᵃᶠnote:The night of Atonement cannot atone; Only the Day has the power of atonement: For on this Day shall atonement be made for you (Lev. XVI, 30).

²Does not Rabbi hold that there is kareth for the day [of the Day of Atonement]? Why not? It is possible in the case where he ate a piece of meat, which choked him, so that he died; or, he ate it almost at the setting of the sun, so that there was not time to atone for him. [THE SCAPEGOAT BRINGS ATONEMENT EQUALLY FOR] ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. This itself is contradictory: he states that [THE SCAPEGOAT BRINGS ATONEMENT EQUALLY FOR] ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST; then he states WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST? Rab Judah said, thus he means: Israelites, priests, and the anointed High Priest all equally obtain atonement with the scapegoat for other sins, and there is no difference between them [in this respect]; but what is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed High Priest? [This:] the bullock atones for the priests for transgression of the laws of uncleanness in connection with the Temple and holy food thereof [whereas for Israelites the inner and outer goats atone for these transgressions]. And who holds this view? R. Judah; for it was taught: [Scripture says:] And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, this means the Holy of Holies; and the tent of meeting, this means the Holy place; and the altar — in its usual sense; he shall atone, this means for the various compartments in the Temple court; and for the priests — in the usual sense; and for all the people of the assembly; this means the Israelites; he shall atone, this means for the Levites; they are all equated for one atonement, in that they obtain atonement with the scapegoat for other sins: this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Simeon Says: Just as the blood of the goat offered within [the veil] atones for Israelites for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof, so the blood of the bullock atones for the priests for transgression of the laws of uncleanliness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof; and just as the confession pronounced over the scapegoat atones for Israelites for other sins, so the confession pronounced over the bullock atones for the priests for other sins. But according to R. Simeon [it may be asked]: Surely they have been equated! — In what respect are they equated? In that they all obtain atonement, but each obtains atonement with his own. What is R. Simeon's reason? — It is written: And he shall take the two goats: the scapegoat is equated with the goat offered within [the veil]; just as the goat offered within [the veil] does not atone for the priests for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof, because it is written concerning it: [the goat of the sin offering] that is for the people; so the scapegoat does not atone for the priests for other sins. And R. Judah? — He may say to you: For this reason they are equated, that they should be alike in colour, height, and value. Who is the Tanna who made this statement which the Rabbis taught. [viz., Scripture says:] He shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people: [this teaches] that the priests do not obtain atonement with it; and with what do they obtain atonement? With the bullock of Aaron. I might think that they should not obtain atonement with the bullock of Aaron, for it has already been said: [And Aaron shall offer the bullock of the sin offering] which is for himself; hence they would have no atonement at all. But when Scripture says: And he shall make atonement for the priests, we find that they have atonement. With what do they obtain atonement? It is better that they should obtain atonement with the bullock of Aaron, for it was released from its implication, in order to include also his house; and that they should not obtain atonement with the goat offered within [the veil], which was not released from its implication. in order to include also his house. And if you desire to say anything, [I may add another argument, for] Scripture says: O house of Aaron, bless ye the Lord; O house of Levi, bless ye the Lord; ye that fear the Lord, bless ye the Lord. Who is the Tanna [of this Baraitha]? — R. Jeremiah said: It is not R. Judah, for if R. Judah, surely he says the priests obtain atonement with the scapegoat! Then who is it? Raba said: It is R. Simeon who holds that the priests do not obtain atonement with the scapegoat. Abaye said: You may even say that it is R. Judah, and thus he reasons: Hence they would have no atonement at all for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof; but when Scripture says: And he shall make atonement for the priest, we find that they have atonement for other sins; and just as we find that they have atonement for other sins, so they have atonement^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ

^ᵃᵍnote:If he holds that the Day atones even for transgression of the Day itself, the punishment of kareth decreed for transgressing the Day can never he put into effect; yet Scripture says: For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people (Lev. XXIII, 29).
^ᵃʰnote:Rabbi may still hold that the Day atones even for the kareth which it carries, and yet it is possible to have a case where kareth operates.
^ᵃⁱnote:So that not even a moment of the Day passed after the eating of it; but had he lived a moment after eating, the Day would have atoned.
^ᵃʲnote:At the termination of the Day.
^ᵃᵏnote:Hence it is possible that Rabbi holds the Day atones even for the kareth it involves, and Raba's distinction does not necessarily follow.
^ᵃˡnote:Supra 2b.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ibid.
^ᵃⁿnote:That the scapegoat atones also for priests for other sins.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XVI, 33.
^ᵃᵖnote:From this verse it is deduced that the High Priest on the Day of Atonement makes atonement with the bullock and goat for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness in the Holy of Holies, holy place, altar, etc. If one, that is to say, became unclean in the Holy of Holies, and tarried for such time as he could prostrate himself (v. infra 16b), or if he offered incense on the golden altar while unclean, or entered other compartments of the Temple court while unclean, he has transgressed the law of uncleanness, and for this the bullock atones for priests, and the goat for Israelites.
^ᵃᵠnote:Priests, Levites, and Israelites, are all deduced from this latter part of the verse, which is superfluous, as obtaining equal atonement; but this equal atonement cannot refer to the atonement for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food, because in this case the atonements are not equal, the bullock atoning for priests, and the inner and outer goats for Israelites and Levites. The equal atonement, consequently, refers to the scapegoat which atones for priests, Israelites, and Levites, for other sins.
^ᵃʳnote:V. supra p. 4, n. 7.
^ᵃˢnote:The verse quoted by R. Judah above seemingly implying that both Israelites and priests obtain atonement with the scapegoat for other sins.
^ᵃᵗnote:Priest with the bullock, and Israelite with the goat.
^ᵃᵘnote:For stating that the scapegoat does not atone for priests for other sins.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lev. XVI, 7: the inner goat and the scapegoat.
^ᵃʷnote:Ibid. 15.
^ᵃˣnote:How will he explain this equation of the two goats?
^ᵃʸnote:Yoma VI. 1.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lev. XVI, 15.
^ᵇᵃnote:Or his successor in the High Priest's office.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lev. XVI, 6.
^ᵇᶜnote:Neither with the goat, which is for the people, nor with the bullock, which is for Aaron.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lev. XVI, 33.
^ᵇᵉnote:The Biblical statement, which is for himself, implies that the bullock atones only for himself, and for other priests.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lev. XVI, 6: And he shall make atonement for himself in for his house, i.e., household. The bullock, therefore, atones for more than himself; it may, therefore, atone also for the other priests.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lev. XVI, 15: The goat of the sin offering that is for the people.
^ᵇʰnote:In refutation of this argument.
^ᵇⁱnote:Ps. CXXXV, 19, 20. All priests are included in House of Aaron; therefore the priests obtain atonement with Aaron's bullock, for Scripture says: And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house.
^ᵇʲnote:Which states that if the priests would not obtain atonement with Aaron's bullock, they would have no atonement at all.
^ᵇᵏnote:At least for other sins; whereas, according to the Baraitha, it appears that their atonement depends entirely on the bullock of Aaron.
^ᵇˡnote:R. Judah who is the Tanna of the Baraitha.
^ᵇᵐnote:If we should say that the priests can obtain atonement neither with the inner goat of the people nor with bullock of the High Priest for the sins of uncleanness connected with the Temple, the result would be that they would have no atonement at all for these sins; though for other sins they would still obtain atonement with the scapegoat.