שבועות 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹for the sins of uncleanness in connection with the Temple and holy food thereof. 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. And if you desire to say anything, [I may add another argument, for] Scripture says: O house of Aaron, bless ye the Lord, etc. What [is meant by]: If you desire to say anything? You might say, it is written: [He shall atone for himself and for] his house, [therefore I add the argument that] all [priests] are called his house, for it is said: O house of Aaron, bless ye the Lord . . . ye that fear the Lord, bless ye the Lord. Now, as to the phrase, that is for the people, does it come for this purpose? Surely it is required [to deduce] that the Divine Law means it should be from the people's [funds]! — This we may deduce from: And from the congregation of the Children of Israel [he shall take two goats]. Now, as to the phrase, which is for himself, does it come for this purpose? Surely it is required [to deduce] that which was taught: From his own [funds] he brings [the bullock], and he does not bring it from public funds. I might think that he does not bring it from public funds, because the congregation do not obtain atonement with it, but he may bring it from [funds subscribed by] his brother priests, for his brother priests obtain atonement with it, therefore Scripture says: which is for himself. I might think that he should not bring it [from priestly subscriptions], but if he did, it is still valid, therefore Scripture says once more: which is for himself; the verse repeats it in order to make [this condition] indispensable! — The Tanna meant thus in his argument: Why do they [the priests] not obtain atonement with [the goat of] the people? — Because they spend no money on it, for it is written: that is for the people; [then we should say, that since] on Aaron's [bullock] they also spend no money, [they should not obtain atonement with it,] therefore he says, they are all called his house. It is right according to R. Simeon that Scripture mentions two confessions and the blood of the bullock: one instead of the goat offered within [the veil], one instead of the goat offered outside, and one instead of the scapegoat. But according to R. Judah, why do we require two confessions and the blood of the bullock? One confession and the blood should suffice! — One for himself and one for his household; as it was taught in the Academy of R. Ishmael: Thus the nature of justice is practiced: it is better that the innocent should come and atone for the guilty, and not that the guilty should come and atone for the guilty. MISHNAH. THE LAWS CONCERNING THE DISCOVERY OF HAVING UNCONSCIOUSLY SINNED THROUGH UNCLEANNESS ARE TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR; [IF] HE BECAME UNCLEAN AND WAS AWARE OF IT, THEN THE UNCLEANNESS BECAME HIDDEN FROM HIM, THOUGH HE REMEMBERED THE HOLY FOOD; [IF THE FACT THAT IT WAS] HOLY FOOD WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM, THOUGH HE REMEMBERED THE UNCLEANNESS; [IF] BOTH WERE HIDDEN FROM HIM; AND HE ATE HOLY FOOD, AND WAS NOT AWARE, AND WHEN HE HAD EATEN, BECAME AWARE: — IN THESE CASES HE BRINGS A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. [IF] HE BECAME UNCLEAN AND WAS AWARE OF IT, THEN THE UNCLEANNESS BECAME HIDDEN FROM HIM, THOUGH HE REMEMBERED THE TEMPLE; [IF THE FACT THAT IT WAS] THE TEMPLE WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM, THOUGH HE REMEMBERED THE UNCLEANNESS; [IF] BOTH WERE HIDDEN FROM HIM; AND HE ENTERED THE TEMPLE, AND WAS NOT AWARE, AND WHEN HE HAD GONE OUT, BECAME AWARE: — IN THESE CASES HE BRINGS A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. IT IS THE SAME WHETHER ONE ENTERS THE TEMPLE COURT OR THE ADDITION TO THE TEMPLE COURT, FOR ADDITIONS ARE NOT MADE TO THE CITY [OF JERUSALEM], OR TO THE TEMPLE COMPARTMENTS EXCEPT BY KING, PROPHET, URIM AND TUMMIN, SANHEDRIN OF SEVENTY ONE, TWO [LOAVES] OF THANKSGIVING, AND SONG; AND THE BETH DIN WALKING IN PROCESSION, THE TWO [LOAVES] OF THANKSGIVING [BEING BORNE] AFTER THEM, AND ALL ISRAEL [FOLLOWING] BEHIND THEM.^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^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:What argument could be used to refute this reasoning?
^ᵇnote:Limiting the atonement to his household, and excluding other priests.
^ᶜnote:Lev. XVI, 15.
^ᵈnote:To limit the atonement by the inner goat to Israelites, and to exclude priests.
^ᵉnote:Though the bullock of the High Priest is bought from his own private means.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XVI, 5
^ᵍnote:Ibid. 6.
^ʰnote:To limit the atonement by the bullock to the High Priest, and to exclude others.
^ⁱnote:Lev. XVI, 11: uk rat, which may be translated which is his, i.e., bought with his own money.
^ʲnote:Sometimes an action which is not directly permissible before it is done is declared legitimate after it has been done, a distinction being drawn between vkj,fk (before the act) and scghs (after the act).
^ᵏnote:Lev. XVI, 11. uk rat occurs twice in this verse, and once in verse 6. The first, in verse 6, prohibits the buying of the High Priest's bullock from public funds; the second, in verse 11, prohibits its purchase from priestly funds; and the third, in verse 11, is cfgk, to emphasize that it must be bought from his own funds, and that even if it had already been bought from priestly funds it is invalid.
^ˡnote:The phrase uk rat is, therefore, necessary for this deduction. How then could the Tanna suggest that it would come to limit the atonement by the bullock to the High Priest, and exclude other priests, were it not for the further arguments adduced to include them?
^ᵐnote:From which we have deduced that it must be bought from the people's money, and not from the priest's money. More accurately, this deduction was made from the phrase: from the congregation of the Children of Israel; v. supra, and Tosaf.
^ⁿnote:For it must be bought from the High Priest's private means, as deduced from uk rat.
^ᵒnote:The Tanna, therefore, in stating that from the phrase uk rat we might be inclined to exclude other priests from the atonement of the bullock, meant that, because from this phrase we deduced that other priests must not subscribe to it, we would, for that very reason, exclude them from the atonement.
^ᵖnote:All priests are included in the house of Aaron, and therefore obtain atonement with his bullock, though they are not permitted to subscribe towards its cost.
^ᵠnote:Who holds that the priests obtain all their atonement with the bullock, and have no atonement at all, even for the other sins, with the scapegoat.
^ʳnote:Lev. XVI, 6, 11: And he shall make atonement occurs twice. It refers to the verbal confession before the bullock is killed (Yoma 36b).
^ˢnote:Ibid. 14: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it etc.
^ᵗnote:Which holds in suspense the sin in connection with uncleanness where there was knowledge at the beginning but not at the end.
^ᵘnote:Which atones for the case where there was no knowledge at the beginning but knowledge at the end.
^ᵛnote:Which atones for other sins. And for these three types of sin for which Israelites obtain atonement with the three goats, the priests obtain atonement with the two confessions and the blood sprinkling of the bullock.
^ʷnote:Who holds that the priests obtain atonement for other sins with the scapegoat.
^ˣnote:One instead of the inner goat, and one instead of the outer goat.
^ʸnote:He confesses his own sins, and then, being innocent, is in a position to make confession for the other priests.
^ᶻnote:Yoma 43b.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., common sense dictates this.
^ᵃᵇnote:This Mishnah, elaborating the statement of the Mishnah, supra 2a, explains fully which are the four: forgetfulness of uncleanness (in connection with eating holy food), forgetfulness of holy food, forgetfulness of uncleanness (in connection with entering the Temple), forgetfulness of Temple, v. infra 14b.
^ᵃᶜnote:Either immediately or later.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., was aware that it was holy food he was eating.
^ᵃᵉnote:That he was unclean, or that the food was holy, or both.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., that the place he had entered was the Temple.
^ᵃᵍnote:That he was unclean, or that it was the Temple he had entered, or both.
^ᵃʰnote:The additional portion is as holy as the original, for it is consecrated with full ceremonial. An unclean person entering the additional portion must, therefore, also bring a sacrifice. The whole of the Temple court was 187 cubits long and 135 cubits wide; and was divided into a number of compartments (Mid. V.). An unclean person was prohibited from entering anywhere within the court.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. Ex. XXVIII, 30; and Rashi, a.l.
^ᵃʲnote:The great Sanhedrin sitting in Jerusalem; there were minor courts in each town composed of 3 members, for deciding monetary questions, and of 23 members, for deciding questions of life and death; v. Sanh. 2a.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. infra 15a.
^ᵃˡnote:V. infra 15b.

²THE INNER ONE IS EATEN, AND THE OUTER ONE IS BURNT. AND AS TO ANY ADDITION THAT WAS MADE WITHOUT ALL THESE — HE WHO ENTERS IT [WHILE UNCLEAN] IS NOT LIABLE. IF HE BECAME UNCLEAN IN THE TEMPLE COURT [AND WAS AWARE OF IT], AND THE UNCLEANNESS THEN BECAME HIDDEN FROM HIM, THOUGH HE REMEMBERED THE TEMPLE; [OR, THE FACT THAT IT WAS] THE TEMPLE BECAME HIDDEN FROM HIM, THOUGH HE REMEMBERED THE UNCLEANNESS; [OR,] BOTH BECAME HIDDEN FROM HIM, AND HE PROSTRATED HIMSELF, OR TARRIED THE PERIOD OF PROSTRATION, OR WENT OUT THE LONGER WAY, HE IS LIABLE; THE SHORTER WAY, HE IS NOT LIABLE; THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE TEMPLE FOR WHICH THEY [THE BETH DIN] ARE NOT LIABLE. AND WHICH IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE? [THIS:] IF ONE COHABITED WITH A CLEAN WOMAN, AND SHE SAID TO HIM: ‘I HAVE BECOME UNCLEAN!’; AND HE WITHDREW IMMEDIATELY, HE IS LIABLE, BECAUSE HIS WITHDRAWAL IS AS PLEASANT TO HIM AS HIS ENTRY. R. ELIEZER SAID: [SCRIPTURE SAYS: ‘IF ANY ONE TOUCH. . . THE CARCASS OF] AN UNCLEAN CREEPING THING, AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM’: WHEN THE UNCLEAN CREEPING THING IS HIDDEN FROM HIM, HE IS LIABLE; BUT HE IS NOT LIABLE, WHEN THE TEMPLE IS HIDDEN FROM HIM. R. AKIBA SAID: [SCRIPTURE SAYS:] ‘AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM THAT HE IS UNCLEAN’: WHEN IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM THAT HE IS UNCLEAN, HE IS LIABLE; BUT HE IS NOT LIABLE, WHEN THE TEMPLE IS HIDDEN FROM HIM. R. ISHMAEL SAID: [SCRIPTURE SAYS:] ‘AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM’ TWICE, IN ORDER TO MAKE HIM LIABLE BOTH FOR THE FORGETFULNESS OF THE UNCLEANNESS AND THE FORGETFULNESS OF THE TEMPLE. GEMARA. Said R. Papa to Abaye: TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR! They are two, subdivided into six! Knowledge of the uncleanness at the beginning and at the end; knowledge of the holy food at the beginning and at the end; knowledge of the Temple at the beginning and at the end! — But [even] according to your argument, they should be eight; for there is the uncleanness in connection with eating holy food, and the uncleanness in connection with entering the Temple, [necessitating knowledge] both at the beginning and at the end! This is no question; the name uncleanness is the same. [But] nevertheless [there remains the question] there are six? — R. Papa said: Verily, they are eight: the first four which do not make him liable for a sacrifice are not counted; but the last four which make him liable for a sacrifice are counted. Some say: [Thus] said R. Papa: Verily, they are eight: the first four which occur nowhere else in the whole Torah are counted; but the last four which occur elsewhere in the Torah are not counted. R. Papa asked; If the laws of uncleanness were hidden from him, what [is the ruling]? How do you mean? Shall we say that he did not know whether a reptile is unclean, or a frog is unclean? Surely, this is taught in school! — Well then, he did know that a reptile is unclean, but, for example, he touched [a portion of a reptile] the size of a lentil; and he did not know whether the size of a lentil contaminates or not: What [is the ruling]? [Shall we say] since he knew that a reptile contaminates, this is counted knowledge; or, since he did not know whether the size of a lentil contaminates or not, it is counted as unawareness? — The question remains undecided. R. Jeremiah asked: If a Babylonian went up to Palestine, and the place of the Temple was hidden from him; what [is the ruling]? — According to whose view? If according to R. Akiba, who holds there must be knowledge at the beginning, [the question does not arise, for] he does not make him liable for [uncleanness in connection with] forgetfulness of the Temple; if according to R. Ishmael, who does make him liable for [uncleanness in connection with] forgetfulness of the Temple, [again the question does not arise, for] he does not require knowledge at the beginning? — It is not necessary [to ask this question except] according to Rabbi, who requires knowledge at the beginning, and makes him liable in the case of forgetfulness of the Temple, and who holds, furthermore, that knowledge gained from a teacher is counted knowledge; what [is the ruling]? [Shall we say], since he knew that there was a Temple in existence, this is called knowledge; or, since its place was not known to him it is counted as unawareness? — The question remains undecided. IT IS THE SAME WHETHER ONE ENTERS THE TEMPLE COURT, etc. How do we know? — R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: Because Scripture says: According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all its vessels,^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^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ

^ᵃᵐnote:Ibid.
^ᵃⁿnote:Because it is not holy.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. infra 16b.
^ᵃᵖnote:Num. V, 2: Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp . . . whosoever is unclean. If uncleanness occurs to him while in the precincts of the Temple, he must leave immediately by the shortest route.
^ᵃᵠnote:If the Beth din give an erroneous ruling, permitting that which is prohibited, they must bring a bullock for a sin-offering: If the whole congregation of Israel shall err . . . and do any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done . . . the assembly shall offer a young bullock (Lev. IV, 13, 14). Congregation of Israel refers to the Beth din (Great Sanhedrin); v. Hor. 4b. In the present instance, if the Beth din give an erroneous ruling in connection with uncleanness occurring to a person while in the Temple, they do not bring a bullock, for they only bring a bullock for an erroneous ruling on a matter which, when unwittingly done by an individual, must be atoned for by a sin-offering, but not for an erroneous ruling on a matter which, when unwittingly done by an individual, is atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice; v. Hor. 8b.
^ᵃʳnote:Lev. XV, 31: Ye shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; v. infra 18b. For an erroneous ruling on this the Beth din bring a bullock, because an individual, for an unwitting transgression of this precept, brings a sin offering.
^ᵃˢnote:This is similar to entering the Temple legitimately while clean, and becoming unclean while in the Temple.
^ᵃᵗnote:And brings a sin offering.
^ᵃᵘnote:Coition; the remedy is to remain passive till the genital member becomes quiescent, when he withdraws.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lev. V, 2.
^ᵃʷnote:He brings a sliding scale sacrifice for entering the Temple when unclean only when be has forgotten that he is unclean through contact with the carcass of a creeping thing, and not when he has forgotten that it is the Temple he is entering.
^ᵃˣnote:Lev. V, 2.
^ᵃʸnote:V. infra 18b for an explanation of the difference between the views of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lev. V, 2, 3.
^ᵇᵃnote:The Mishnah uses the expression vtnuyv ,ughsh, states of knowledge (or, awareness) of the uncleanness. Had the Mishnah used the word ,unkgv, states of forgetfulness (or, unawareness), it would have been justified in stating that there are only four (v. supra p. 66, n. 1); states of awareness are, however, eight; for each state of unawareness must be preceded and followed by a state of awareness.
^ᵇᵇnote:The states of unawareness of the uncleanness both in connection with eating holy food and entering the Temple are reckoned as coming under one category. There are, therefore, only six states of awareness; before and after, in connection with the unawareness of the holy food; before and after, in connection with the unawareness of the Temple; before and after, in connection with the unawareness of the uncleanness (whether with reference to eating holy food or entering the Temple).
^ᵇᶜnote:The states of awareness are definitely eight, v. n. 1.
^ᵇᵈnote:For, if he remains unaware at the end, he cannot, obviously, bring a sacrifice.
^ᵇᵉnote:Elsewhere, with reference to the commission of other transgressions, there need be no awareness before the act that it was forbidden.
^ᵇᶠnote:E.g., he touched a dead toad (cm, Lev. XI, 29) which resembles a frog, and did not know the law that a toad contaminates. A dead frog does not contaminate by touch (Ker. 13b).
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘go, read it in school’. All children know that the carcass of a reptile contaminates (Lev. XI, 29, 30). His temporary forgetfulness of this law is, therefore, immaterial. He is reckoned as having knowledge at the beginning, and later, when eating holy food (having forgotten that he is unclean), there is unawareness in the middle; ultimately, when the knowledge at the end comes to him, he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. Had ignorance of the law been counted as unawareness, there would have been, in this case, no knowledge at the beginning, and he would not be liable for a sacrifice.
^ᵇʰnote:Therefore, there is no knowledge at the beginning.
^ᵇⁱnote:Lit., ‘Let it stand’.
^ᵇʲnote:And he entered the Temple whilst unclean, and had never been aware that this building was the Temple.
^ᵇᵏnote:Supra 4a.
^ᵇˡnote:Supra Mishnah 14b.
^ᵇᵐnote:Ibid.
^ᵇⁿnote:Infra 19b.
^ᵇᵒnote:Supra 4a-b.
^ᵇᵖnote:Supra 5a.
^ᵇᵠnote:And there is no knowledge at the beginning. The fact that he knew there is a Temple in existence does not constitute ‘knowledge gained from a teacher’, because he never knew its site; but in the case where he became unclean by touching a carcass though he was not aware at the moment of contact that this contact made him unclean, it is nevertheless counted as knowledge at the beginning (knowledge gained from a teacher), because he had been aware at one time that contact with a carcass makes him unclean, and he had been aware at the moment of contact that he was touching a carcass.
^ᵇʳnote:That king, prophet, etc. are necessary for consecrating an addition to the Temple court.