שבועות 9 — Soncino English Talmud

¹only once a year. And according to R. Ishmael who holds that where there is no knowledge at the beginning but knowledge at the end the transgressor must bring a [sliding scale] sacrifice, for which sin will the outer goat atone? For that where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end. But for this the goats offered on the festivals and New Moons make atonement! He agrees with R. Meir who holds that ALL THE GOATS GIVE EQUAL ATONEMENT FOR THE UNCLEANNESS CONNECTED WITH THE TEMPLE AND HOLY FOOD. In that case, for what purpose was the outer goat equated with the inner? — [To teach us that] just as the inner does not atone for other sins, so the outer does not atone for other sins. WHERE THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR AT THE END THE FESTIVAL AND NEW MOON GOATS BRING ATONEMENT: THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. JUDAH [B. ILA'I]. Said Rab Judah that Samuel said: What is R. Judah's reason? — Because the text says: And one goat for a sin offering unto the Lord: for a sin which is known only to the Lord shall this goat atone. — But this [superfluous word] we require for the deduction of R. Simeon b. Lakish, for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: ‘Why is the New Moon goat different in that [the phrase] onto the Lord is used in connection with it? — [Because] the Holy One, blessed be He, said: This goat shall be an atonement [for Me, as it were,] for my diminishing the size of the Moon!’ — If so [for R. Simeon b. Lakish's deduction], the text could have said: ‘[a sin offering] for the Lord’; why ‘to the Lord’? For our deduction. Then say that it is solely for this deduction [and eliminate R. Simeon b. Lakish's deduction]. If so, the text could have said: ‘a sin offering of the Lord;’ why ‘to the Lord’? Hence we deduce both. Let it [the New Moon goat] atone also for other sins [which are known only to the Lord, i.e., are unknown to the transgressor]! — In the school of R. Ishmael it was stated that since this [outer goat of the Day of Atonement] comes at a fixed season, and this [New Moon goat] comes at a fixed season; then, just as this [outer goat] atones only for the uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food, so this [New Moon goat] atones only for the uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food. Thus we find [that] the New Moon goats [atone for this class of sin]; whence do we know [that] the festival goats [atone for it]? And if you will say that this also follows from the deduction of the school of R. Ishmael, it is possible to refute [this reasoning]: if [the deduction is made] from the New Moon [goat, it may be argued] that it is more frequent [than the festival goat, therefore it atones for this sin, but the festival goat may not atone for it]; and if [the deduction is made] from the Day of Atonement [goat, it may be argued] that the atonement of the Day is more inclusive, [therefore the outer goat of the Day atones for this sin, but the festival goat may not atone for it]. And if you will say,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ

^ᵃnote:No other sacrifice can make this atonement.
^ᵇnote:Infra 19b.
^ᶜnote:Supra p. 2.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. p. 2.
^ᵉnote:Num. XXVIII, 15: referring to the New Moon goat.
^ᶠnote:But unknown to others, i.e., where there is no knowledge at all either at the beginning or at the end. This deduction is made because the text could have said: one goat for a sin offering; the words unto the Lord are superfluous.
^ᵍnote:V. Hul. 60b: It is written: ‘And God made the two great lights’ (sun and moon — apparently equal); and it is written: ‘the greater light’ and ‘the lesser light’ (obviously unequal)! The moon said to the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘How can two kings use one crown?’ He replied: ‘Go and diminish thyself’.
^ʰnote:For it has been equated with the inner goat: supra p. 2.
^ⁱnote:The festival goat comes at a fixed season, and the New Moon goat comes at a fixed season, and the Day of Atonement goat comes at a fixed season: the first may be deduced from either of the other two.
^ʲnote:Atoning for all sins, whereas the festival does not atone; and though Holy Writ states clearly that the festival goat atones, it may be that it has not the power to atone for a sin (such as entering the Temple or eating holy food while unclean), the witting transgression of which is punishable by Kareth.

²but we deduced the New Moon [goat] from the Day Of Atonement [goat], and did not refute the argument, [therefore let us deduce the festival goat from the Day of Atonement goat; it may be said in reply that with reference to the New Moon goat] atonement is distinctly mentioned in the text [for a sin which is unknown to the transgressor]; and what we desired is merely an intimation [that only the unknown sins connected with Temple and holy food are intended]; but here it may be said that the whole law we cannot deduce. Well then, just as R. Hama b. Hanina said [elsewhere: the text could have said] ‘one goat’, [but it says] ‘and one goat’; so here [the text could have said] ‘one goat’, [but it says] ‘and one goat’; so that the festival goats are equated with the New Moon goats; just as the New Moon goats atone only for sins where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, so the festival goats atone only for sins where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end. The question was propounded: when R. Judah said [that the New Moon and festival goats atone] for sins where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, does this statement apply only to a sin which will ultimately remain unknown [to the transgressor], but a sin which will ultimately become known is counted as if there were knowledge at the end, and consequently is atoned for by the outer goat [of the Day of Atonement] together with the Day of Atonement; or [does his statement include] even a sin which will ultimately become known, since actually at this moment it [is unknown and] may be termed a ‘sin which is known only to the Lord’? — Come and hear: It has been taught: For sins where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end, and for a sin which will ultimately become known, the festival and New Moon goats atone: this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. SIMEON SAYS THE FESTIVAL GOATS ATONE [FOR THIS CLASS OF SIN], BUT NOT THE NEW MOON GOATS. [AND FOR WHAT DO THE NEW MOON GOATS ATONE? FOR A RITUALLY CLEAN MAN WHO ATE HOLY FOOD THAT HAD BECOME UNCLEAN.] R. Eleazar said that R. Oshaia said: What is R. Simeon's reason? — The verse says: And it hath He given you to bear the iniquity of the congregation. This verse refers to the New Moon goat; and we deduce [by analogy, because of the use of the identical word] iniquity, from the ziz: here it is said iniquity, and there it is said iniquity; just as there it refers to the uncleanness of the flesh, so here it refers to the uncleanness of the flesh. [But, since we deduce one from the other, let us say,] just as there it refers to offerings, so here it refers [only] to offerings, [and let it not atone for a clean man who ate unclean holy food. No!] It is written: ‘the iniquity of the congregation’. Well now, we deduce one from the other; then let the New Moon goat atone for its own, and also do the work of the ziz, and the outcome would be [that there would be acceptance of the offering though unclean,] even when the ziz is broken? — [No!] the verse says: the iniquity — one iniquity it bears, but it does not bear two iniquities. Well then, let the ziz atone for its own and for that for which the New Moon goat atones, and the outcome would be [that there would be atonement] for uncleanness which occurred between this [New Moon] and the next? [No!] the verse says: it hath He given you to bear the iniquity of the congregation — it bears the iniquity, but no other bears the iniquity. R. Ashi said: Here it is written the iniquity of the congregation — congregation and not holy things; and there it is written the iniquity of the holy things — holy things and not congregation. Hence we find that the New Moon goats atone for a clean man who ate unclean holy food. How do we know that the festival goats atone for [sins of uncleanness] where there is no knowledge either at the beginning or at the end? — As R. Hama b. Hanina said [elsewhere, the text could have said:] ‘one goat’, [but it says:] ‘and one goat’; so here [the text could have said:] ‘one goat’, [but it says:] ‘and one goat’.26^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

^ᵏnote:Just as this comes at a fixed season etc., supra p. 33.
^ˡnote:Num. XXVIII, 15: a sin offering to the Lord, as explained above.
^ᵐnote:For, since it is necessary to deduce the whole law that the festival goats atone for these sins of uncleanness, the argument may be refuted: the Day of Atonement goat atones for these sins of uncleanness because its atonement is more inclusive, but the festival goats may not have the power to atone for sins which are punishable by Kareth for witting transgression.
^ⁿnote:Infra 10a.
^ᵒnote:Num. XXVIII, 22: the Passover goat; XXIX, 5: the New Year goat; XXIX, 16: the Tabernacles goat. In these verses the text has ‘and one goat for a sin offering’; the superfluous, vav (u) and, which is a conjunction, implies that the law with reference to these goats is connected with and is the same as that of the first mentioned goat, i.e., of the New Moon (XXVIII, 15). In connection with the Pentecost goat (XXVIII, 30) the text has ‘one goat’ (not and), but as long as and occurs in even one of the festivals, the other festivals may be likened to it: v. Tosaf.
^ᵖnote:This was deduced (supra 9a) from the phrase ‘sin offering to the Lord’, and by analogy from the Day of Atonement goat: just as this comes at a fixed season, etc.
^ᵠnote:E.g., if he was seen to become unclean and to enter the Temple, he will be told later.
^ʳnote:For saying that the New Moon goat atones for a clean man who are unclean holy food.
^ˢnote:Lev. X, 17.
^ᵗnote:V. Zeb. 101b.
^ᵘnote:High Priest's plate of pure gold worn on the forehead: Ex. XXVIII, 36.
^ᵛnote:And it (the ziz) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things; Ex. XXVIII, 38.
^ʷnote:The ziz makes the sacrifice acceptable if the flesh or blood or fat had become unclean, and another need not be offered; but it does not atone for the uncleanness of the person offering the sacrifice: v. Men. 25b.
^ˣnote:Hence, the New Moon goat atones for a clean man who ate unclean holy food.
^ʸnote:The ziz does not atone for any sin, but makes the offering acceptable if it had become unclean. Let the atonement of the New Moon goat be limited likewise; it will be useful in the event of the ziz becoming broken.
^ᶻnote:Implying that it atones for sins committed by men.
^ᵃᵃnote:For a clean man who ate unclean holy food.
^ᵃᵇnote:‘It (the New Moon goat) hath He given you to bear the iniquity’ (Lev. X, 17).
^ᵃᶜnote:To make acceptable an offering the flesh of which had become unclean.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., the guilt incurred by a clean man caring unclean holy food.
^ᵃᵉnote:If the New Moon goat alone atones for this kind of sin, a clean man eating unclean holy food immediately after the New Moon would not have atonement until the next New Moon; but if the ziz atones, he will have immediate atonement, for the ziz is worn continually by the High Priest.
^ᵃᶠnote:v,ut, the New Moon goat.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. X, 17: referring to the New Moon goat; therefore it atones for a clean man who ate unclean holy food.
^ᵃʰnote:Ex. XXVIII, 38: referring to the ziz; therefore it makes acceptable an offering the flesh of which had become unclean.
^ᵃⁱnote:Infra 10a.
^ᵃʲnote:Num. XXVIII, 22; XXIX, 5, 16: referring to the festival goats: and one goat for a sin offering. The ‘and’ connects and equates the festival goats with the New Moon goat mentioned in the text immediately before them.