Shevuot

but we deduced the New Moon [goat] from the Day Of Atonement [goat],1 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];2 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.3 Well then, just as R. Hama b. Hanina said [elsewhere: the text could have said] ‘one goat’, [but it says] ‘and one goat’;4 so here [the text could have said] ‘one goat’, [but it says] ‘and one goat’;5 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,6 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 known7 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?8 — The verse says: And it hath He given you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.9 This verse refers to the New Moon goat;10 and we deduce [by analogy, because of the use of the identical word] iniquity, from the ziz:11 here it is said iniquity, and there it is said iniquity;12 just as there it refers to the uncleanness of the flesh,13 so here it refers to the uncleanness of the flesh.14 [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,15 [and let it not atone for a clean man who ate unclean holy food. No!] It is written: ‘the iniquity of the congregation’.16 Well now, we deduce one from the other; then let the New Moon goat atone for its own,17 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 iniquity18 — one iniquity it bears, but it does not bear two iniquities. Well then, let the ziz atone for its own19 and for that for which the New Moon goat atones, and the outcome would be [that there would be atonement] for uncleanness20 which occurred between this [New Moon] and the next?21 [No!] the verse says: it22 hath He given you to bear the iniquity of the congregation — it bears the iniquity, but no other bears the iniquity. R. Ashi said: Here23 it is written the iniquity of the congregation — congregation and not holy things; and there24 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,25 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 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. 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. goat: just as this comes at a fixed season, etc. XXVIII, 38. offered; but it does not atone for the uncleanness of the person offering the sacrifice: v. Men. 25b. the New Moon goat be limited likewise; it will be useful in the event of the ziz becoming broken. 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. unclean. and equates the festival goats with the New Moon goat mentioned in the text immediately before them.