Shevuot

With reference to incest also, how is it possible? If it was witting transgression, the transgressor suffers the death penalty;1 if unwitting, he brings a sacrifice.2 — [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;3 if unwitting, he is exiled?4 — [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.5 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]6 brings a sliding scale sacrifice.7 Then include idolatry;8 and as to the differentiation, it is in that the sinner brings a she-goat and not a lamb?9 — R. Kahana said: We mean a differentiation to relax,10 but this is a differentiation to restrict. 11 Then include a woman after childbirth, for the text differentiates in her case in that she brings a sliding scale sacrifice?12 — R. Hoshaia said: [The verse says,] all their sins,13 and not ‘all their uncleannesses.’ And according to R. Simeon b. Yohai who said that a woman after childbirth is also a sinner,14 what shall we say?15 — R. Simeon is consistent in that he holds ‘from its own text it may be deduced.’16 Then include a leper [who also brings a sliding scale sacrifice]?17 — R. Hoshaia said [the verse says]: all their sins; and not ‘all their uncleannesses’.18 And according to R. Samuel b. Nahman who said, for seven sins leprous affections afflict man,19 what shall we say?20 — There the leprosy itself atones for him;21 and the sacrifice is merely to permit him to join the congregation. Then include a Nazirite22 who has become unclean, for the text differentiates in his case in that he brings turtledoves or young pigeons?23 — R. Hoshaia said [the verse says]: all their sins, and not ‘all their uncleannesses.’24 And according to R. Eleazar ha-Kappar who said that a Nazirite is also a sinner,25 what shall we say?26 — He agrees with R. Simeon who holds that ‘from its own text it may be deduced.’27 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]?28 — 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,29 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.30 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.31 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].’32 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!33 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].34 I might have thought that [in the meantime] until he brings his sacrifice, according to his means (v. p. 1, n. 7) — a differentiation characteristic of the inner goat of the Day of Atonement, which is a sacrifice bought from public funds, and secures for the individual sinner the suspension of his sin. inner goat has already atoned for her, and she need not bring a sacrifice. brings a sacrifice merely to cleanse her from her uncleanness, so that she may partake of holy food. atones only for the sin of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food from its own text; v. supra p. 26. hair grow; v. Num. VI, 1-21. Temple and holy food; v. supra p. 26. bring an extra bullock and goat. Therefore the phrase and he shall make atonement for the holy place, of the uncleannesses is superfluous, and hence may of be utilised for the deduction that the inner goat atones only for the uncleannesses of the holy place, i.e., Temple and holy food. 20b).