Commentary page

Shevuot 13a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shevuot 13a

Shevuot 13a. The full printed text of this folio side — 16 numbered segments, about 388 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

בְּעוֹמֵד בְּמִרְדּוֹ, וְרַבִּי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, עַל כׇּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה בֵּין לֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה – יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר; חוּץ מִפּוֹרֵק עוֹל וּמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה וּמֵפֵר בְּרִית בְּבָשָׂר – שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר; וְאִם לָאו, אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר.

The mishna is referring to a case where the person did not repent and persists in his rebellion, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that even for such a case Yom Kippur and the scapegoat will atone. As it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented, or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, except for one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven, by denying God’s existence, and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. For these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone.

Segment 2

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״ – זֶה הַפּוֹרֵק עוֹל וּמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה. ״וְאֶת מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפֵר״ – זֶה הַמֵּפֵר בְּרִית בַּבָּשָׂר. ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – הִכָּרֵת לִפְנֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, תִּכָּרֵת לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is taught in a baraita in interpretation of the verse: “For he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [ hikkaret tikkaret ], his sin is upon him” (Numbers 15:31): “For he scorned the word of the Lord”; this is referring to one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning. “And nullified His commandment”; this is referring to one who nullified the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. The use of the double verb form hikkaret tikkaret teaches that he will be cut off, i.e., he is liable to receive karet , before Yom Kippur, and he will still be cut off after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur does not atone for him.

Segment 3

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁעֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ.

One might have thought that this applies even if he repented. To counter this, the verse states: “His sin is upon him,” by which God indicates: I said that Yom Kippur does not atone for these sins only when his sin is still upon him, as he did not repent. It is apparent from this baraita that it is only for the three sins mentioned that Yom Kippur does not atone without repentance, but Yom Kippur atones for other sins even if one did not repent.

Segment 4

וְרַבָּנַן – ״הִכָּרֵת״ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, ״עֲוֹנָהּ בָּהּ״ – שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וָמֵת, מִיתָה מְמָרֶקֶת.

And with regard to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how do they interpret the verse? If someone commits one of the three sins mentioned, then he is cut off [ hikkaret ] from life in this world, and he will be cut off [ tikkaret ] in the World-to-Come. The phrase “His sin is upon him” teaches that if he repented and died, his death cleanses him of his sin.

Segment 5

וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי?! וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא! דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ; וּמַאן אִית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara asks: And can you interpret the mishna to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? But from the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, by inference, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Israelites and priests and the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, all equally achieve atonement from the scapegoat. And who accepts this reasoning? Rabbi Yehuda, as the Gemara will demonstrate. By inference, the first clause is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, not of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Segment 6

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Rav Yosef said: It is possible that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause does not pose a difficulty, because with regard to whether priests achieve atonement through the scapegoat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Segment 7

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דַּוְקָא קָאָמַר מָר – רַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲבָל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי? אוֹ דִלְמָא, מִדְּרַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַף רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לַהּ נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי; מִיהוּ אוֹרְחָא דְמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי – לְמֵימַר דְּתַלְמִיד סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבֵּיהּ?

Abaye said to him: Does the Master mean specifically what he is saying, i.e., that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to whether the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priest, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to atonement for one who did not repent? Or perhaps from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it follows that Rabbi Yehuda also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but the reason that Rav Yosef did not make this clear is that he teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, which is to say that a disciple, in this case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda.

Segment 8

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דַּוְקָא קָאָמֵינָא – רַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲבָל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי.

Rav Yosef said to him: Yes, I mean specifically what I was saying: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Segment 9

דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַל שָׁבִים וְעַל שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁבִים? וְדִין הוּא – הוֹאִיל וְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מְכַפְּרִין, וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר; מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – אֵין מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל הַשָּׁבִים, אַף יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל הַשָּׁבִים! מָה לְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג; תֹּאמַר לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – שֶׁמְּכַפֵּר עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג?!

As it is taught in a baraita recorded in the Sifra : One might have thought that Yom Kippur would atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent, and this assertion is supported by the following logical inference: Although it would appear that since a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone and Yom Kippur atones, it should follow that just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, this comparison is flawed. One can claim: What is notable about a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? They are notable in that they do not atone for intentional sins like they do for unwitting sins. Can you say the same about Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins?

Segment 10

הוֹאִיל וּמְכַפֵּר עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג, יְכַפֵּר עַל שָׁבִים וְעַל שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁבִים! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״ – חָלַק.

The baraita continues: Since it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is more far-reaching in that it atones for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins, it follows that it should atone both for those who repent and for those who do not repent. To counter this, the verse states: “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The word “yet” serves to divide and limit the atonement of Yom Kippur in that it atones only for those who repent.

Segment 11

סְתָם סִיפְרָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; וְקָאָמַר: שָׁבִים אִין, לֹא שָׁבִים לָא.

Rav Yosef attributes the baraita to Rabbi Yehuda: Whose opinion is expressed by the unattributed baraitot in the Sifra ? Rabbi Yehuda. And he says: For those who repent, yes, Yom Kippur atones, but for those who do not repent, Yom Kippur does not atone.

Segment 12

וְרָמֵי סְתָם סִיפְרָא אַסְּתַם סִיפְרָא – דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְעַנָּה בּוֹ, וּקְרָאוֹ מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ, וְלֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה; לֹא הִתְעַנָּה בּוֹ, וְלֹא קְרָאוֹ מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ, וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יוֹם כִּפֻּרִים הוּא״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם!

The Gemara asks: But raise a contradiction, setting one unattributed baraita in the Sifra , i.e., the one just cited, against another unattributed baraita in the Sifra , as in another baraita there it is taught: One might have thought that Yom Kippur would atone only if one fasted on it and declared it a holy convocation and did not perform labor on it. From where is it derived that even if one did not fast on it and did not declare it a holy convocation and performed labor on it, that it still atones? The verse states: “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The additional emphasis on “it is” serves to teach that the day atones in any case. This baraita contradicts the one cited above that states clearly that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.

Segment 13

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי, וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Abaye said: This is not difficult: This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Segment 14

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי, וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי בְּכָרֵת דְּיוֹמָא. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, כָּרֵת דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְרַבִּי לֵית לֵיהּ.

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that Yom Kippur atones for those who do not repent, but even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that with regard to avoiding the punishment of karet incurred for violating the day of Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur atones and one is not liable to be punished with karet only if one repented for the sin of violating the day of Yom Kippur. Perforce he must concede this point, as if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there would be no instance in which one would be liable to be punished with karet for violating Yom Kippur.

Segment 15

אַלְּמָה לָא? מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד בְּלֵילְיָא וּמִית, דְּלָא אֲתָא יְמָמָא לְכַפּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara questions this proof: Why not? You could find it in a case where he performed labor on the night of Yom Kippur and died that night, as in such a case, the daytime of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, never came to atone for him.

Segment 16

אֶלָּא אֵימָא:

Rather, say that Rava’s proof is as follows:

Shevuot 13a

Shevuot 13a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Encyclopedia entries citing this page

Original text