Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot Chapter 1

שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָּעָה: שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כול׳. שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לְחִייוּב וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר או̇ אַרְבַּע לְחִייוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. לֹא לְחִייוּב. וְדִכְוָותָהּ יְצִיאוֹת שַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לְחִייוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תַמָּן כּוּלְּהוֹן לְחִיּוּב. הָכָא חִיּוּב וּפְטוֹר אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אַרְבַּע לְחִיּוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר. וְהָתַנֵּי. דַּלְתוֹת הֵיכַל שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אִית מֵימַר. לְחִיּוּב וְלֹא לִפְטוֹר. נִיתְנֵי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פְּטוֹר. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא פְטוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְנֶגֶד חִייוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בָּר אָדָא. מָהוּ אָהֵין פְּטוֹר דְּתַנִּינָן הָכָא. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר אֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמָנוּם חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם. הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה שְׁנַיִם הֵן וּמָנוּם חֲכָמִים אֶחָד. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵין הַכְנָסָה בִכְלָל. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת אֵין הַמַּכְנִיס בִכְלָל. וְעוֹד מֵהָדָא דָּמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת חַיָיב. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהוֹצָאָה קְרוּיָה מְלָאכָה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה וַיַּעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בַּמַּחֲנֶה וגו׳. נִמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן לָתֵת לַגִּיזְבָּרִין וּמִלְּהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן לְהַכְנִיס לַלִּישְׁכָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְלֹא תוֹצִיאוּ מַשָּׂא מִבָּתֵּיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְכָל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי אַבִּין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּין כְּלָלִין וְלָא דָמְיָין דֵּין לְדֵין. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע קָרְבָּנוֹת. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי קָרְבָּנוֹת. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבִּין פָּתַר לָהּ פֶּתֶר חוֹרָן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבַּע רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לִי כְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַאֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אַתְיָא. הִיא יְדִיעָה וְהֶעֱלֵם עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ יְדִיעָה וְהֶעֱלֵם עַל טוּמְאַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָאן אִית לֵיהּ הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ לָאו רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַנָּן בְּעֵיי כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. פְּעָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְיָדַע. נֶעֱלַם הִימֶּינּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְיָדַע. הֲרֵי כָאן הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וּפְעָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן כַּמָּה יְדִיעוֹת וְכַמָּה הֶעֱלֵימוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הֵיךְ. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע נֶעֶלְמָה הִימֶּינּוּ טוּמְאָה. עַד שֶׁהוּא בְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה נֶעֶלְמָה הִימֶּינּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְיָדַע וְאָמַר. טוּמְאָה זוֹ אֵין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע נֶעֶלְמָה הִימֶינּוּ טוּמְאָה. עַד שֶׁהוּא בְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה נֶעֱלַם הִימֶּינּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא אֲפִילוּ כַמָּה פְעָמִים וּבַסּוֹף יָדַע. הֲרֵי כָאן כַּמָּה יְדִיעוֹת וְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. פִּיסְקָא. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסֵי. שָׁאַל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לוֹ. וְאִם לָאו מַה יֹאמְרוּ. אָמַר לוֹ. יֹאמְרוּ. מִקְּרוּם בֵּיצָה וּלְמַעֲלָה טָמֵא. אָמַר לוֹ. לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אֵין בָּקִי בָהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתָן אֵין רוֹאֶה הַנְּגָעִים. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מָנוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם וּמָנוּ אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעָה. מַה שְׁנַיִם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה אַף אַרְבָּעָה מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבִּין. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן מִין בְּמִינוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְהָיוּ אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא וְהָיָה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. לְנִיגְעֵי צָרַעַת אֵין כָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אָמַר לוֹ. וְיֹאמְרוּ. מִקְּרוּם בֵּיצָה וּלְמַעֲלָה טָמֵא וּמִצְטָרְפִין. וְאַל יֹאמְרוּ. מַרְאו̇ת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לוֹ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָן זֶה לְמַעֲלָה מִזֶּה. וִיהֵא זֶה לְמַעֲלָה מִזֶּה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר. הַכָּהֵא טָמֵא. וְהַכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא טָמֵא. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה וְהִנֵּה כֵּהָה הַנֶּגַע. הַכָּהֶה טָמֵא אֲבָל הַכָּהֶה מִן הַכָּהֵא טָהוֹר. וַתְיָיא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים וּשְׁנֵי אִיפַּרְכִין. מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְאִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה מֵאִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. וְאֵין אִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים וּשְׁנֵי שַׁגְרִירֵיהֶן. מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְשַׁגְרִירוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה מִשֶּׁלָּזֶה. וְאֵין שַׁגְרִירוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רַב אָחָא בַּר אַחֲוָוא. מֶלֶךְ וְרַב חֵילֵיהּ וְאַרְקַבֶּטָא וְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוּסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵינָן זֶה לְמַעֲלָה מִזֶּה. אִם הַשְּׂאֵת שֶׁכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא שֶׁלָּהּ טָהוֹר יֵשׁ לָהּ מַרְאֶה שֵׁינִי. בַּהֶרֶת שֶׁכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא שֶׁלָּהּ טָמֵא לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ מַרְאֵה שֵׁינִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמִי מָה מַר. שֵׁינִי יֵשׁ לָהּ. שְׁלִישִׁי לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. וּמַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. בַּהֶרֶת שֶׁכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא שֶׁלָּהּ טָמֵא זוֹ שְׂאֵת. מִינָהּ שֶׁלַּשְּׂאֵת כִּקְרוּם בֵּיצָה. שְׂאֵת זוֹ שְׂאֵת. בַהֶרֶת זוֹ בַהֶרֶת. סַפַּחַת שֵׁינִי לַבַּהֶרֶת. וּמַרְאֵה עָמוֹק שֵׁינִי לַשְּׂאֵת. מַה לְשׁוֹן שְׂאֵת. מוּגְבָּהַת. כְּמַרְאֶה הַצֵּל גָּבוֹהַּ מִמַּרְאֶה חַמָּה. מַה לְשׁוֹן עָמוֹק. עֲמוּקָה. מִמַּרְאֶה חַמָּה שֶׁהִיא עֲמוּקָה מִמַּרְאֶה הַצֵּל. מַה לְשׁוֹן סַפַּחַת. טְפֵילָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סְפָחֵינִי נָא אֶל אַחַת הַכְּהוּנּוֹת וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. זו̇ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. שְׁאֵת וּבַהֶרֶת אַחַת. סַפַּחַת שְׁנִיָיה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. נַעֲשֵׂית מִסְפַּחַת שְׂאֵת אין מִסְפַּחַת עַזָּה.

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds. 5:4 requires a reparation sacrifice for inadvertent breach of a commitment made by oath, “what was pronounced, negatively or positively.” The standard example of a positive oath is somebody swearing that he will eat certain foods. The corresponding negative is an oath that he will refrain from eating certain foods. The exact expression used, לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב, by its hiph`il form points to the future. A natural complement are backward looking oaths, if a person swears that he ate or did not eat certain foods in the past (Mishnah 3:1). These four cases are equal in sanctions for willful or inadvertent breach. . There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds. 5:2–3 requires a reparation sacrifice for a person who became impure, forgot it, and then either ate sancta in his impurity or entered the Sanctuary. The two added cases are that he knew about being impure but forgot that the food was holy or that the place was a Sanctuary. . There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds 1:1). “Transport” includes lifting up, moving, and setting down. The two cases where one is liable (for a sacrifice if the sin was unintentional, punishment if the transgression was intentional, and is prosecutable, or extirpation by Divine decree if the crime was intentional but is not prosecutable) are “export” by a person standing inside the private domain, lifting something up inside the domain and putting it down on the outside (e. g., through a window) even without moving his feet, or “import”, somebody lifting an object from the outside to the inside and depositing it there. The two cases where one is not liable refer to a person inside who lifts an object, hands it to a person outside (so that the object never is at rest) and the second person puts it down. Since no one person completed a criminal act, no one can be held liable even though the combined action clearly is forbidden. . There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds. 13:2 defines impure skin disease as שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת “as elevated spot, or sapaḥat , or a white spot.” This is read as “an elevated spot (which makes the surrounding skin look elevated over the whitish spot) and a really white spot and their appendages”, deriving sapaḥat from the root ספח, “to append, adjoin.” This extends the definition of impure skin disease from two relatively well defined cases to two additional weaker symptoms. . HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. 1:1, of which there exists a Genizah parallel (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah , New York 1909, p. 62). The text in Šabbat is original since in both versions, “here” refers to Šabbat while “there” refers to Ševuot , and in addition, the statement of R. Ba logically has to precede that of R. Yose as in the Šabbat text. Probably the scribe of the Ševuot text available to the Leiden ms.’s scribe had omitted the statement of R. Ba and added it in the text when he noticed the omission. S. Liebermann, in his Commentary to the Yerushalmi Šabbat ( Hayerushalmi Kipshuto , New York 1995, Jerusalem 1935) holds that the source is Ševuot . This is difficult to accept; the text is from Šabbat but the problem is the discrepancy in meaning of the same expression “two which are four” used in very different meanings in our Mishnah. The problem starts with the rather complicated language of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1: “There are two cases which are four for exporting and two cases which are four for importing.” The Mishnah then goes on to explain that if a rich person, the owner, stands at the window of a house (which is a private domain) and a poor person stands in the street (the public domain), if then the rich person delivers an object to the poor outside, or the poor reaches inside and takes the object, the person acting is liable to prosecution but the other is not liable. (In fact, the passive participant never did do anything; the expression “not liable to prosecution” is inappropriate.) But if the rich person lifted the object, kept it moving all the time, and handed it to the poor who put it down, nobody is liable since nobody completed a forbidden act. The same naturally applies if the poor takes up a package and keeps it moving until the the owner of the house takes it and puts it down. In this case, the qualification as “not liable” is appropriate since both participants violated a Sabbath prohibition. The question now arises whether the formulation “two which are four” always implies that the status of the two additional cases is different from the two original ones since in our Mishnah the same expression is used for oaths and Sabbath violations. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability 1:1 there are four cases of liability, rich or poor taking out or rich or poor bringing in. There are also four cases where there is no liability, depending on who takes up the object first and who takes over, and what the direction of the move is. The question now is raised whether a similar case can be made for the first clause in Mishnah Ševuot 1:1. ? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations. ? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations. . the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four refers to Mishnah Middot 4:1 which explains that the entrance gate to the Temple hall was built in the manner of a city gate, a thick wall closed by an outer double door opening to the outside and an inner two-winged door opening to the inside. The expression “two doors which are four” is simply the description of the structure of the building. ? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability 1:1 counts four actions for which one is liable (complete actions, export and import for the rich person, export and import for the poor.) Then it counts four cases for which one is not liable, but since for any incomplete action one is not liable one could consider the possibility that the poor man reaches into the house, lifts the object which the rich then takes up and deposits on the outside. A similar convoluted action is possible for import; two actions for two actors each result in four non-liabilities. ? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada: bar Abba. In the Babli, Šabbat 2b/3a , the argument is by Babylonian Amoraim. said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted 1:1 in two completely different senses. As noted earlier ( Note 5 ) if the complete action is performed by one person, the other one is passive and does not infringe on any law; at all times everything he does is permitted. But if the action is completed by two persons, both sinned. While they are not liable for a sacrifice or punishment, they require repentance and Heaven’s forgiveness. ! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one, the Genizah text and the first hand of the Leiden ms. read “Exporting or importing are one but the Sages counted them as two” but as S. Liebermann (Note 5) has noted, the reading here is supported by early Medieval quotes. . Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable Chapters 7–8). For solid food, the minimum is fixed at the volume of a dried fig. The two actions mentioned will combine if there was continuous awareness of the Sabbath prohibitions. . And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,. 36:6 . The verse speaks of donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Babli ( Šabbat 96b ) finds a tenuous connection with the Sabbath by a gezerah šawah , concurrent use of words. ” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.. 17:22 . While prophetic books are not sources of law, they are authentic evidence for the understanding of the Torah by the teachers of past generations. It is proved that in the understanding of Jeremiah (whose student Barukh ben Neriah is credited with bringing the study of Torah to Babylonia) moving objects from a private to the public domain is a violation of biblical law. This supports the interpretation of Ex . 36:6 . ” Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices ( Wayyiqra 2) Parašah 9(8). For the four cases enumerated in Note 1 , R. Aqiba requires four separate sacrifices. R. Ismael infers from the forward-looking formulation of the verse that only future-directed oaths can trigger liability for a sacrifice. According to him, for separate oaths in the same period of oblivion at most two sacrifices may be due. . “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices, New York 1909, p. 264 ff.) but it cannot be correct. The purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease is independent of the particular diagnosis by which he had been declared impure and the number of sacrifices due solely depends on his financial ability. The sequel shows that one has to read “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds,” the second clause in the Mishnah. The difference between RR. Aqiba and Ismael is explained in Sifra Ḥovah ( Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7), Babli 14b . Both verses Lev . 5:2 ,3 describe situations in which a person might become impure; they both end with the remark “it was hidden from him but then he knew and was found guilty,” i. e., he forgot about the impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and then became aware of his transgression. R. Aqiba holds that since impurity is mentioned twice but the Sanctuary only by inference, no sacrifice is due for causing impurity of the Sanctuary, only for entering it in impurity. R. Ismael holds that the repetition of the clause implies the obligation of a sacrifice both for impurity of the person and of the Sanctuary. R. Aqiba will hold that separate sacrifices might be due for impurity originating outside the person ( v. 2 ) and that created in humans ( v. 3 ). R. Ismael will hold that separate sacrifices are due for a human entering the Sanctuary in impurity and for the impurity thereby caused to the Sanctuary. The problem is that the Mishnah is anonymous, representing R. Meїr’s Mishnah, which is R. Aqiba’s tradition. . Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora. explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta . He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba and forgetting the Sanctuary (Mishnah 2:6). R. Ḥaggai’s inference is incorrect; R. Aqiba will not require a sacrifice in his case. ? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. In the case in question there was only one forgetting; there is only one sacrifice required. The sentence is missing in G. . Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. New paragraph. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.” 6a . “Rebbi Yose said, Joshua the son of Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Aqiba. He said to him, why did they say, ‘There are two kinds of looks of skin disease which are four kinds’? He answered him, if not so, what should they have said? He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure.. 13:38–39 ), if they contain discolored hair they potentially are sources of impurity. This is characterized in Lev . 13:2 as “ s´et , adjoint, or shiny spot” which is read as “ s´et , shiny spot, or one of their adjoints”. It is indicated that the Cohen has to determine the nature of the impurity but no details are given, possibly to reserve diagnosis to priests. The details therefore are left to tradition. In Mishnah Nega`im 1:1, “shiny spot” is defined by R. Meїr as color of fresh snow, s´et as color of eggshell (or the color of the membrane enclosing a hard boiled egg.) These colors are characterized as appearing as depressions on normal skin ( Lev . 13:3 ). There are secondary forms for which the spots do not appear as if depressed ( Lev . 13:4 ), these are described as the color of whitewash used in the Temple and that of white wool. The Sages disagreeing with R. Meїr declare eggshell as a secondary color. Since in the Tosephta eggshell is treated as secondary color, R. Meїr cannot represent the teachings of R. Aqiba in this case. In G there is an added sentence which cannot be reconstructed. ’ He said to him, to tell you that anybody not expert for them and their names may not see skin lesions.” From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora. : If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind and “shiny spot” are to be combined then certainly a shiny spot and one of lesser intensity are one and the same. . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other, Parašat Nega`im , Pereq 1(4) which reads מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה “this teaches that they can be joined one to the other.” Already D. Fraenckel in the 18th Century recognized that under the influence of Greek the h sound was lost and there was no difference in sound between שֶׁהֵן and שֶׁאֵין. . Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold , the diseased spot darkened . 13:6 . Since even for a darkened spot there are conditions which have to be satisfied before the sufferer from skin disease is declared pure, it follows that the change of color alone is not sufficient. . The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants, legatus , the second in command. The decreasing order of brightness is snow, eggshell, whitewash, white wool. . One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa , pp. 27b–28b. and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third and s´et combine. If one would establish a hierarchy of brightness as the parables indicate and s´et was less than baheret , a combination of baheret with its secondary color would be a combination of degrees 1 and 3, which we had excluded by a previous argument. Therefore s´et and baheret must be coordinate, not subordinate. ? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et ? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. , Parašat Nega`im , Pereq 1(4). A parallel text from another source is in the Babli, 6b . “שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et . בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [ The diseased spot’s ] look is deepened . 13:3 . , secondary to s´et . What is the etymology of s´et ? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened ? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods . 2:36 . , etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “ Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat . 7:2. מִסְפַּחַת is biblical equivalent of סַפַּחַת ( Lev . 13:6 , 7 ) used both for impure and pure spots, thereby validating the distinction between deeper and much deeper colors. ”

כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה וִידִיעָה כַסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בִּנְתַּיִים הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה וְאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלֶה עַד שֶׁיִּוָודַע לוֹ וְיָבִיא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה כול׳. וּמְנַיִין לִידִיעָה בַּתְּחִילָּה וּבַסּוֹף וְהֶעֱלֵם בִּנְתַיִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנֶעְלַם וְנֶעְלַם שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים. מִכְּלָל שֶׁבָּאת לוֹ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה וּבַסּוֹף וְהֶעֱלֵם בֵּינְתַיִים. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִכְּלָל שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ. וְהוּא יָדַע הֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי יְדִיעוֹת. הָא רִבִּי יְשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרִבִּי. וְרִבִּי כְּרִבִּי יְשְׁמָעֵאל. וַאֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אַתְיָא. הִיא יְדִיעָה וְהֶעֱלֵם בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. יְדִיעָה וְהֶעֱלֵם בְּטוּמְאַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָכָא. וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם. וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר וְהוּא טָמֵא וְאָשֵׁם. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לִידִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף. רִבִּי בּוֹן בָּעֵי. אִם לֹא נוֹדַע לוֹ בַסּוֹף הֵיךְ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף תְּנֵיהוּ לִידִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה. הָתֵיבוֹן. הֲרֵי כְתִיב אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. מֵעַתָּה אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לִידִיעוֹת תְּחִילָּה תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לִידִיעַת סוֹף. פָּתַר לָהּ בִּמְחוּיָיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וָאֲשָׁמוֹת וַודָּאִין שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁמֵּבִיאִין אַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וְחַיָיבֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת תְּלוּיִין פְּטוּרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. אַף לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וּמָנַיִין שֶׁאֵין מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. הִזְהִיר וְעָנַשׁ עַל יְדֵי טוּמְאָה וְחִיֵיב קָרְבָּן עַל יְדֵי טוּמְאָה. מָה עוֹנֶשׁ וְאַזְהָרָה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. אַף כְּשֶׁחִיֵיב קָרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. רִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁאָמַר לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאוֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ. יָכוֹל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר אוֹנֵן אוֹ טָמֵא יָבִיא קָרְבָּן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאֵלֶּה. יֵשׁ מֵאֵלֶּה חַיָיב וְיֵשׁ מֵאֵלֶּה פָטוּר. אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָעֲוֹן מִיתָה וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא עֲוֹן מִיתָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלוּהוּ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאֵלֶּה. יֵשׁ מֵאֵלֶּה חַיָיב וְיֵשׁ מֵאֵלֶּה פָטוּר. אוֹ מַה לְהַלָּן בִּתְרוּמָה אַף כָּאן בִּתְרוּמָה. וְלֹא מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָמַדָתָּהּ. וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לִמְּדָה עַל כָּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. לוֹמַר. מָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת. יָצָאת תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא עֲוֹן מִיתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וּמֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָמַדָתָּהּ. וִילַמֵּד מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְכָל דָּבָר בִּידִיעָה אַחַת. אָמַר לוֹ. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּקָבוּעַ וְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וְאֵין לְמֵידִין קָבוּעַ מֵעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד וְלֹא עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד מִקָּבוּעַ. וּמַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. בְּטוּמְאַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. מַה בְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן בְּטוּמְאַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אַף בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן בְּטוּמְאַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ. טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו. מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. בְּטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל טָהוֹר אוֹ בְטָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו. בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף וְלֹא בְטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. וְאָכַל וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו. בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף וְלֹא בְטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר. רִבִּי חִיָיה אוֹמֵר. נֶאֶמְרוּ קֳדָשִׁים לְשֵׁם רַבִּים וְנֶאֶמְרָה טוּמְאָה לְשֵׁם יָחִיד. הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵים וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו. בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף. לֹא בְטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לֹא דִיבֵּר אֶלָּא בְמִי שֶׁטּוּמָאָה פוֹרֶשֶׁת מִמֶּנּוּ. יָצָא בָשָׂר שֶׁאֵין טוּמְאָה פוֹרֶשֶׁת מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם כֵּן מַה הוֹעִיל לוֹ יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. נַעֲשִׂית לוֹ יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מֵת לִפְנֵי יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים עֲוֹנָה בָהּ. אַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כְּבָר כִּיפֵּר. וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מִטּוּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וגו׳. יֵשׁ לִי בְעִנְיָין זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ טֻמְאוֹת. טוּמְאַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמַעַן טַמֵּא אֶת מִקְדָּשִׁי. גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחוּקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת. שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ. יָכוֹל עַל כָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת הַלָּלוּ שָׁעִיר זֶה מְכַפֵּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִטּוּמְאוֹת וְלֹא כָל טוּמְאוֹת. מַה מָצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. אַף כָּאן לֹא נַחֲלוֹק אֶלָּא בְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא מוּכְרַע. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מִטּוּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. כָּל טוּמְאָה שֶׁבַּקּוֹדֶשׁ. יָכוֹל עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו שָׁעִיר זֶה יְכַפֵּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם. אֵילּוּ הַמָּרְדִין. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב פָּשַׁע בִּי.

MISHNAH: In any case in such a state, is possible only if the violation occurred while the perpetrator was oblivious of his state ( Lev . 5:2–3 ). This implies that at some earlier time he was aware of his state. If he never remembers, clearly he has no occasion to bring a sacrifice. where there is knowledge at the start and knowledge at the end but forgetting in between there is an increasing or decreasing [sacrifice]. 5:1–13 . . If there was knowledge at the start but no knowledge at the end, the he-goat whose blood in brought inside. 16:15–16 . and the Day of Atonement suspend until it becomes a certainty for him and he brings an increasing or decreasing one. HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten , it was forgotten . 5:2 , 3 . two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him , this implies that he knows. “ But he knew ,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta ( Wayyiqra 2 ) Pereq 12(7)] this is consistently attributed to R. Ismael. The difference between the two is that R. Aqiba considers every stylistic variation a change in meaning whereas R. Ismael holds that “the Torah is written in the manner of common speech.” . But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty . Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty . 5:2 , 3 . ? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end. Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge , he has to bring . 4:23 , about the purification offering of the prince. Purification offerings are for inadvertent sins; nowhere is prior knowledge and intermediate forgetting indicated. R. Bun’s argument would force the transfer of the rules for variable sacrifices to purification ones against all tradition. ? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end. 5:17–18 ). If he then gains certainty that he has committed an inadvertent sin, a purification sacrifice is due if and only if he gains this knowledge before the next Day of Atonement. R. Bun’s argument is justified. ! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge , he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement 8:6 (45b l. 47), Babli Keritut 25b . . Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(9). And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta ? He warned and punished about impurity. 22:15–16 , both warning and punishment are written for priests who would violate the purity of the Sanctuary and its sancta . For the laity the corresponding verses are Lev . 7:19–20 . The sacrifice for violations in purity is mentioned in Lev . 5:2–3 ; one has to establish that no sacrifice is possible for violations of sancta which do not belong to the Sanctuary such as heave. and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta . 26:14 . The person who comes to eat his Second Tithe at the place of the Sanctuary has to make a declaration that he followed all the rules; in particular that he did not eat of it while in “deep mourning”, occupied in burying a close relative. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity but no sanction for violation of its purity is spelled out anywhere in the Pentateuch. , also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta . Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning .14. , I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e. 5:4 . Prefix מ always is read as partitive, “some but not all.” Since it is not spelled out which infractions of the laws of impurity (or of testimony, or oaths) are included, and which are excluded, the detailed rules are left to rabbinic interpretation. Babli 33b . . For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it . 22:9 . First Tithe (of which heave of the tithe was separated) is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity at the place of the Sanctuary but there is no penalty for violation of its purity. But heave has to be eaten by the Cohen in purity and violation of its purity is a deadly sin. . The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship. 15:22 . ? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally. 15:22–29 ; extirpation in vv. 30–31 . Babli Šabbat 69a . . This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one. How did you understand to say that the verse. 5:2–3 . Babli 7a . speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta ? It is said here an impure animal . 5:2 . and it is said further on an impure animal . 7:21 . . Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta , so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta . Not only Sanctuary sancta ; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary 43b . The question is whether a violation of the purity of the Sanctuary can be expiated by a sacrifice or whether any such violation requires the full ceremony of Lev . 16 describing the Day of Atonement. ? 14(3–6 ), partially quoted in Zevaḥim 43b . “The verse says: his impurity is on him . 7:20 . . How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]. 7:19 . ? The verse says: his impurity is on him . Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate . 7:21 . , his impurity is on him . Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him ? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates, for severe impurities by one of the prescribed rituals. Impure sacral meat must be burned ( Lev . 7:19 ; it also loses its impurity by rotting but as long as it is meat it remains impure. . This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.” If it is so, what does the Day of Atonement help him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the Day of Atonement acts for him as a suspended reparation sacrifice. In he died before the day of Atonement, the sin is in her . 15:31 . The feminine pronoun refers to נֶפֶשׁ “the breathing person”. . After the day of Atonement it already was atoned for. 4(1–3). “ He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel . 16:16 . , etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary . 20:3 . . Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations . 18.30 . . Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land . 35:34 , a misquote from memory. . I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities , not all impurities. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel , any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes . 16:16 . . These are the rebellions, for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me . 3:7 . .

אֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַחוּץ וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִלְּבַד חַטַּאת הַכִּיפּוּרִים עַל מַה שֶּׁזֶּה מְכַפֵּר זֶה מְכַפֵּר. מָה הַפְּנִימִי אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה אַף חִיצוֹן לֹא יְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה: אֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה כול׳. מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. הַפְּנִימִי תוֹלֶה וְהַחִיצוֹן מְכַפֵּר אוֹ הַחִיצוֹן תוֹלֶה וְהַפְּנִימִי מְכַפֵּר אוֹ זֶה וָזֶה יִתְלוּ אוֹ זֶה וָזֶה יְכַפְּרוּ. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מִילָּה חֲמִית. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹתִיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וָאֲתִיב לֵיהּ. מֵחִלּוּקֵי כַפָּרוֹת הִיא מִילְּתָא. וְלֵינָה יְדַע מָה מַר לֵיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זֵירָא. דִּילָמָא דָא הִיא. מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. בְּטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל טָהוֹר אֹו נֵימַר בְטָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְטוּמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו. בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף. לֹא בְטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר. אוֹ זֶה וָזֶה יְכַפְּרוּ. מַאי כְדוֹן. וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו עֲווֹנוֹת אֵילּוּ הַזְּדוֹנוֹת. פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם אֵילּוּ הַמְּרָדִים. חַטֹּאתָם אֵילּוּ הַשְּׂגָגוֹת. כְּשֶׁאָמַר יְכַפֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. וְנָשָׂא הַשָּׂעִיר עָלָיו אֶת כָּל עֲווֹנוֹתָם. תָּפַשׂ הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהִנִּיחַ הַשְּׁגָגוֹת. לוֹמַר. מַה זְדוֹנוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן. אַף הַשְּׁגָגוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן. וְלָמָּה בָאוּ לְכָאן. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. לִתְלִיָיה. וְיִתְלֶה עַל אוֹכְלֵי שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים בְּמַשְׁמַע. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זֵירָא. חַטֹּאתָם חַטֹּאתָם. מַה חַטֹּאתָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן. אַף חַטֹּאתָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חִיּוּב חַטַּאת. יָצְאוּ זְדוֹנוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן. שִׁיּוּר שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׁה בִפְנִים יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים תּוֹלֶה. מַה שִׁיַירְתָּה. אֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִילָּה אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף.

MISHNAH: If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end was impaired, a sacrifice is needed which, however, cannot be that of a particular person. It must be the people’s sacrifice. , the he-goat brought outside. 29:11 ) which is treated following the rules of all holidays and is not mentioned in Lev . 16 . or the Day of Atonement atone as it is said, in addition to the atoning purification offering . 29:11 . The atoning purification offering is the one mentioned in Lev . 16:15 . ; what the one atones for the other atones for. Since the one inside atones only on matters which were known, also the outside one should atone only on matters which were known. HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone. 16:15 ff.) whose blood is sprinkled on the gobelin separating the Temple Hall from the Holiest of Holies and the incense altar ( Ex . 30:10 ), and one ( Num . 29:11 ) whose blood is sprinkled on the large altar in the Temple courtyard. The question is whether each of these has a separate function or whether the day requires a double sacrifice for all its functions. ? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, maybe it is the following: How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: his impurity is on him . Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? v. 16:21. Babli Yoma 36b , Ševuot 12b , Keritu t 25b. He should over it confess sins , these are intentional sins, their crimes , these are rebellions, their mistakes , these are unintentional sins. Then He said, he will atone . Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the he-goat will carry all their sins . 16:22 . , he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. 15:30–31 .) Unintentional sins only require a sacrifice if the corresponding intentional sin is punishable by extirpation ( Mishnah Keritut 1:2 ), others require repentance and atonement by the Day of Atonement. Babli Keritut 25b . . And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension) or the statement refers to the Mishnah that the Day of Atonement eliminates the obligation of a suspended sacrifice ( Pene Mosheh ). The sequel shows that neither of these alternatives applies but that the first alternative considered in the introductory paragraph applies; one purification sacrifice suspends punishment for certain categories of sins and the second atones. . Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things. 11, Deut 14) but not one leading to extirpation. Therefore it is not subject to atonement by sacrifice. ? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Their mistakes , their mistakes . 16:21 and refers to the scapegoat and its limited power of atonement, the second one to the final statement Lev . 16:34 which declares that all mistakes are atoned for on that day. . Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside. 16:15 ff.) whose blood is sprinkled on the gobelin separating the Temple Hall from the Holiest of Holies and the incense altar ( Ex . 30:10 ), and one ( Num . 29:11 ) whose blood is sprinkled on the large altar in the Temple courtyard. The question is whether each of these has a separate function or whether the day requires a double sacrifice for all its functions. the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.

וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִילָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין אֲבָל לֹא שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. וְעַל מַה שְּעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כָּל הַשְּעִירִים כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא וְשֶׁל רְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִילָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף וְשֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. אָמְרוּ לֹו מַה הֵן שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם יִקְרְבוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה הֵיאַךְ קְרֵיבִים זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶן כּוּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו: וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה כול׳. הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כול׳. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה וּשְׂעִיר עִזִּים חַטָּאת לַיי. חֵט שֶׁאֵין יוֹדֵעַ בוֹ אֶלָּא יי שָׂעִיר זֶה מְכַפֵּר. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שָׂעִיר שֶׁלְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. שְׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. וּשְׂעִיר. וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָין רִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בִּשְׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן. עַל שִׁבְטוֹ מְכַפֵּר. אִם בְּשָׁעִיר שֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אֵין כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לַדּוֹרוֹת. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּשָׂעִיר שֶׁלְּרֹאש חוֹדֶשׁ. מַאי כְּדוֹן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נְשִׂיאוּת עָוֹן וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן נְשִׂיאוּת עָוֹן. וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים. מַה לְהַלָּן עָווֹן הַקְּרֵיבִין וְלֹא עָוֹן הַמַּקְרִיבִין אַף כָּאן עָוֹן הַקְּרֵיבִין וְלֹא עָוֹן הַמַּקְרִיבִין. מַה חֲמִית מֵימַר בָּטָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא אוֹ נֵימָר בְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל טָהוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. רִבִּי יוּדָה חִלֵּק שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חִלֵּק שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוּדָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשָׁעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים שֶׁאֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא תוֹלֶה. וַתְיָיא כְרִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת. קְבָעוֹ לִתְלִיָיה שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּנֶּה. שָׁעִיר שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב בָּרֶגֶל יִיקָרֵב בְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. לֹא קָרַב בְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ יִקָּרֵב לְהַבָּא. שֶׁמִּתְּחִילָּה לֹא הוּקְדְּשׁוּ קָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר אֶלָּא לִיקָּרֵב עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. וְלֹא כְבָר כִּיפֵּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב חַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת וּבְחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלָּן מְכַפְּרִין כַּפָּרָה אַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁכּוּלָּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלָּן מְכַפְּרִין כַּפָּרָה אַחַת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה בְיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁלְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר שֶׁלְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בַּר פָּפָּא. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה בְיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁלְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה בְּשַׁחֲרִית. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. מִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. שֶׁבַע. בְּמוּסַף. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. עֶשֶׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. תֵּשַׁע. וְיֹאמַר אַחַת עֶשְׂרֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּדָבָר שֶׁטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ בְחוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כוֹלְלָן. וְיַזְכִּיר בָּעֲבוֹדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה מַחְמַת רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ בָּאִין. וְתֵימַר אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר שֶׁלְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְלֹא יְאוּת רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל מַקְשֵׁי. דְּתַנֵּי. שְׁנֵי כִבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת וּשְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אִם כִּיפֵּר הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל מַה שֵׁינִי מְכַפֵּר. עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁאִירְעָה בֵין זֶה לָזֶה. וְלֹא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חוֹלֵק כַּפָּרוֹת. אֶלָּא זֶה וָזֶה מַחְמַת רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמָרִי. לֵית יְכִיל. דִּכְתִיב מִלְּבַד עוֹלַת הַחוֹדֶשׁ. וְעוֹד מֵהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי עָשָׂר חָדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה. חַד בַּר אַבַּיי עֲבַר קַמֵּי תֵיבוּתָא וְלָא אַדְכַּר דְּרֵישׁ יַרְחָא וְקַלְסוֹנֵיהּ. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. מַה אִית לָךְ טוּמְאָה שֶׁאִירְעָה בֵין זֶה לָזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. אֵילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֵׁירִין שֶׁמָּא אֵינָן מֵבִיאִין מַה שֶׁקָּבְעָה לָהֶן תּוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. מַה הֵן שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים מְשַׁנִּין וְדִבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין מְשַׁנִּין. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים מְשַׁנִּין. וְתֵימַר. מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. כְּשִׁיטָּתוֹ הֵשִׁיבוּהוּ. כְּשִׁיטָּתָךְ שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵין מְשַׁנִּין. מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שֶׁאֵין קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִיבּוּר נִקְבָּעִין אֶלָּא בִקְבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ הַזֶּבַח שֶׁהוּא קָרֵב לִשְׁמוֹ הוּא קָדַשׁ מִשָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

MISHNAH: But about where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end 5(2–50). , the he-goats of the holidays and the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon. 28:15 , 22 , 30 ; 29:4,16,19,22,25,28,31,34,38. These are public sacrifices; they atone for damage to public institutions. atone, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, the he-goats of the holidays atone but not the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon. What do the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon atone for? For the pure person who ate impure. Rebbi Meїr says, the atoning of all he-goats is the same, about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta . Rebbi Simeon used to say, the he-goats of the holidays atone for the pure person who ate impure; those of the holidays atone for where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end, and those of the Day of Atonement where there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end. They asked him. 28:22 , 30 ; 29:5,11), but no provision is made to ascertain whether atonement is actually needed. This implies that they must be brought even if not needed for atonement. The same applies to the other public offerings for which the purpose is not explicitly stated. , could they be brought one for the other? He told them, they may be brought. They asked him, since their atoning is not the same, how can they be brought one for the other? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta . HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal . 28:15 , the sacrifice of the Day of the New Moon. (The verse is quoted not quite correctly.) The root חטא in pā`al means “to sin” but in pi`ēl “to cleanse, to restitute, to purify.” The word חַטָּאת “purification” can also mean “sin” ( Ex . 34:9 ). Here it is interpreted in both senses. Babli 9a . . This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal. 145, the example given is that of a an unknown grave which makes everybody stepping over it impure; the impure person never could know of his impurity. . I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Ze`ira said, and a he-goat , the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation . 10:17 , referring to the inauguration of the Tabernacle which was on the first of Nisan. On that day, three purification sacrifices were offered. 1° A calf, special to this day. 2° A he-goat for the Day of the New Moon. 3° A he-goat by the chief of the tribe of Jehudah ( Num . 7:16 ). The verse does not spell out to which of the three it refers. In the Babli 9b , the entire argument is quoted as explanation of R. Simeon’s statement; also quoted Zevaḥim 101b . . Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement), there is nothing similar in later generations 2(2)]. It is characterized as “given to lift the sin of the congregation”; this is asserted only of the New Moon’s Day he-goat. It follows that the calf of the Inauguration was particular for the Sanctuary and the priests, Naḥshon’s for his tribe. . But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta ”. 28:38 . . Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers 25a , this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Ze`ira) with a completely different suggestion which is rejected. . What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering . 16:9 . One would have expected the sentence to read וְהִקְרִ֤יב אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־הַשָּׂעִ֔יר אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָלָ֥ה עָלָי֛ו הַגּוֹרָ֖ל לַֽיי לַחָטָּאת. Then חַטָּאת would have referred to the he-goat and meant “purification offering.” But the clause וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת “he turns it into חַטָּאת” defines the word as “unintentional sin.” The he-goat whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary turns intentional into unintentional sins. . He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed 2(5 ). . A he-goat which was not brought on the holiday should be brought on the Day of the New Moon. If it was not brought on the Day of the New Moon it should be brought in the future since from the start public sacrifices were dedicated only to be brought onto the outside altar. But did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Mana said, since it is written, the pilgrimage of Unleavened Bread , the pilgrimage of Weeks , and the pilgrimage of Tabernacles . 16:16 . Since the other two holidays are far removed from the Day of Atonement, the sacrifices are needed. , it is as if they all atoned one atonement. Rebbi Bun said, since they all atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta , it is as if they all atoned one atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon and the `Amidah by heart. In the main prayer, the ` Amidah , in all four times (evening, morning, musaf , afternoon) one does not mention that New Year’s Day also is New Moon Day. (In the Ashkenazic rite, in which the verses describing the sacrifices of the day are recited, the New Moon is mentioned in the quote of Num . 29:6 .) . Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: 3:12 . “The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions], but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf prayer contains three middle benedictions, one to praise God’s Kingdom, the second to His sitting in judgment over the world, the third remembering the shofar blowing at Mount Sinai and the expectation of the shofar blowing announcing the coming of the Messiah. In this version, everybody agrees that the holiday is mentioned in the declaration of God’s Kingdom; the only difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel is that the former require a separate benediction for the Sabbath whereas the latter hold that the Sabbath is mentioned together with the holiday in the fourth benediction. None of the parties mentions the New Moon. , the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it. So he should mention it in “Service” of New Year’s Day. . Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon. 29:6 ), the traditional interpretation includes also the day’s purification offering ( Num . 28:15 ). Then one should include a mention of the New Moon at least in “Service”. ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost. 28:30 for the holiday, the other in Lev . 23:19 to accompany the two leavened breads which introduce flour from the new harvest to the Sanctuary. This is a statement of R. Simeon in Tosephta 1:2 . and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them. 2:7, Note 166 . Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning is attributed to R. Simeon who in Mishnah 5 explained that different categories of purification sacrifices atone for different categories of impurity. His opinion about the he-goat accompanying the two leavened loaves has not been recorded. . But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month . 29:6 . Since the verse makes a clear distinction between the sacrifices for the Day of Remembrance (New Year) and the New Moon, certainly for R. Simeon they must have different purposes. . In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them. 28:22 , 30 ; 29:5,11), but no provision is made to ascertain whether atonement is actually needed. This implies that they must be brought even if not needed for atonement. The same applies to the other public offerings for which the purpose is not explicitly stated. ? “They asked him, could they be brought one for the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages [imply] that one may change; the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that one may not change. The words of the Sages [imply] that one may change, and you say “could they be brought one for the other”? They objected to him according to his argument. According to your argument, since you say that one may not change, could they be brought one for the other? Rebbi Yose said, since public sacrifices are designated only by use. Rebbi Yudan said, it was stated thus 4:6 : “Even if somebody did not intend [any of the specific uses] it is qualified; it is a stipulation by the court that the thought is determined by the officiating priest.” Since the officiating priest can disqualify a sacrifice by thought, e. g., the intention to eat the sacrificial meat outside the allotted time or place, he also qualifies the sacrifice by his thought if the animal had been dedicated as sacrifice. For a private sacrifice this implies that even if the owner had a disqualifying thought but the officiating priest served having the correct thought, the sacrifice is qualified. The Babli agrees as explained in Maimonides’s Mishnah Commentary ad loc . : “For the purpose of the sacrifice for which it is brought it was sanctified from the beginning.”

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַטָּמֵא מוֹסִף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁל רְגָלִים שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף. מוֹסִף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁהֵן מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אוֹמֵר הָיָה רִבִּי שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה אָמַר לָהֶם הֵין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אִם כֵּן יִהְיוּ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים קְרֵיבִין בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים אֲבָל הֵיאַךְ שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קְרֵבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכַפֵּר כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן כּוּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו: אָמְרוּ לוֹ אוֹמֵר הָיָה רִבִּי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּרוֹמִיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּנָה. הָכֵן צוֹרְכָה לְמִיתְנֵי. אִם כֵּן יְהוּ שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. שֶׁכֵּן מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. אֲבָל שֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין קְרֵיבִין בְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִידִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן פָּתַר לָהּ פֶּתֶר חוֹרוֹן. אִם כֵּן יְהוּ שֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים קְרֵיבִין בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין כַּפָּרָתָן וְכַפָּרַת רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. אֲבָל שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים אֵין קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא כַפָּרָתָן בִּלְּבַד. אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב חֲמִשָּׂה זֵתִים וְהִפְרִישׁ אַרְבָּעָה קָרְבָּנוֹת וְסָבוּר שֶׁהֵן חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּא כִיפֵּר. אוֹ אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב אַרְבָּעָה זֵתִים וְהִפְרִישׁ חֲמִשָּׂה קָרְבָּנוֹת וְסָבוּר אַרְבָּעָה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. וְכֵן הָיָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם שְׂעִירִים קְרֵיבִין עַל הַצִּיבּוּר בְּכָל שָׁנָה. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְנֶאֱכָלִין. וְאָחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֵינוּ נֶאֱכָל. וּשְׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חָדְשֵׁי שָׁנָה. שְׁמוֹנָה בֶחָג. שִׁבְעָה בַפֶּסַח. שְׁנַיִם בָּעֲצֶרֶת. אֶחָד בִּגְלָל הַיּוֹם וְאֶחָד בִּגְלָל הַלֶּחֶם. אֶחָד בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְאֶחָד בְּיוּם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֹשֶׁה כֵן אָמַר. מֵעַתָּה מִי שֶׁבָּאָת לְיָדוֹ סְפֵק עֲבֵירָה צָרִיךְ לָהָבִיא כָל קָרְבָּנוֹת הַלָּלוּ. רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו וגו׳ הִתְחִיל וְאָמַר מִזְמוֹר לְתוֹדָה עַל שֵׁם וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in his name, the rams of the New Moon Days atone for the pure person who ate of impure [sacrifice]. Those of the holidays add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end. Those of the Day of Atonement add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end and those for which there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was at the end. They said to him, did not the teacher use to say that they may be sacrificed one for the other? He said, yes. They said to him, if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon. But how could those of the Days of the New Moon be brought on the Day of Atonement to atone an atonement which is not theirs? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta . HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness 3:3, Note 57 ; Yoma 3:8 41a l. 10, Megillah 1:12 72a l. 47, Horaiot 3:3 Note 151 ; Babli Yoma 12b ). Since this principle cannot be overridden, it is an argument not for practice but against R. Simeon’s opinion that the sacrifices can be substituted one for the other and for R. Meїr’s that they cannot. The argument presupposes that the cumulation of cases for which the sacrifices atone indicates a higher state of holiness. . Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun explained it by another explanation: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon, but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone 3:3 ). If he offered only four, one sin by necessity remains without atonement. ? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more. 4:29 ), and probably would detect his error.) ? And so “Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten. 6:23 ). All other purification sacrifices must be eaten by the priests, ( Lev . 6:22 ). . And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” 100 . It is standard Galilean doctrine that the 11 Psalms 90–100 were composed by Moses (even Ps . 99 !), not only Ps . 90 as indicated by its header. In the Babylonian tradition (transmitted by prayer texts) Moses was the author of Pss . 90–91 and the Sabbath of Ps . 92 . When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess . 16:21 . This resolved Moses’s problem and informed him that his prior concern, that the slightest doubt might impose an unbearable financial burden on the sinner, was unfounded. on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession . 100:1 . Usually, one translates “a song of thanksgiving” since this is appropriate for the תוֹדָה sacrifice [ Lev . r . 9(3 )]. , inspired by he shall confess on it .

וְעַל זְדוֹן טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו שָׁעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׁה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. וְעַל שְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה הַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהַשְּׁגָגוֹת הוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כְּרִיתוֹת וּמִייתוֹת בֵּית דִּין שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר: וְעַל זְדוֹן טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ כול׳. הָדָא הִיא מְכַפֵּר עַל הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְתוֹלֶה עַל הַשְׁגָגוֹת. לֹא הֵן קַלּוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. לֹא הֵן חֲמוּרוֹת כְּרִיתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. הַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת. אוֹתָן הַקַּלּוֹת בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בִּשְׁגָגָה. אוֹתָן הַזְּדוֹנוֹת בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְוַודָּע לוֹ בָהֶן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִתְוַודָּע לוֹ בָהֶן. אֵילּוּ הֵן קַלּוֹת. עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. חֲמוּרוֹת כְּרִיתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְתוֹלֶה עַל הַשְׁגָגוֹת. אַף שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ כֵּן. נִיחָא לֹא הוֹדַע. הוֹדַע. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. מְנַיִין לִמְחוּיָיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וַודָּאִין שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁחַיָיבִין לְהָבִיא אַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וְחַיָיבֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת תְּלוּיִין פְּטוּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְוַדָּע לוֹ בָהֶן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִתְוַודָּע לוֹ בָהֶן. וְלֹא כְבָר כִּיפֵּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֵׁם לֵוִי שובדא. בְּמוֹרֵד בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים הִיא מַתְנִיתָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא מַר. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִתְוַודָּע בָּהֶן בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. מִילְּתֵיהּ אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ לֹא נִתְוַודָּע לוֹ בָּהֶן בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. עֲשֵׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זֵירָא. וְהוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה. הָאוֹמֵר. אֵין הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת אֵין הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת. מְכַפֶּרֶת הִיא עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר. אֵין יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר אֵין יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. מְכַפֵּר הוּא לוֹ עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר לִי. אֵין מְכַפֵּר לוֹ עַל כָּרְחוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֵּירִבִּי הִלֵּל. לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְאֶילָּא חִילוּפִין. לָא כוֹלָא מִן בַּר נַשָּׂא מֵימַר לְמַלְכָּא. דְּלֵית אַתְּ מְלִיךְ. הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל הִירְהוּר הַלֵּב. מַאי טַעֲמָא. וְהָעוֹלָה עַל רוּחֲכֶם הָיֹה לֹא תִהְיֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל רוּחֲכֶם. וְכֵן אִיּוֹב הוּא אוֹמֵר. אוּלַי חָטְאוּ בָנַיי וּבֵרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים בִּלְבָבָם. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל הִירְהוּר הַלֵּב. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. עַל כָּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר חוּץ מִפּוֹרֵק עוֹל וּמֵיפֵר בְּרִית וּמְגַלֶּה פָנִים בַּתּוֹרָה. שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. וְאִם לָאו אֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. רִבִּי זְבִידָא אָמַר. רִבִּי יָסָא מַקְשֶׁה. מִיסְבֹּר סְבַר רִבִּי שֶׁיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר בְּלֹא תְשׁוּבָה. אֲתַא רִבִּי אַשְׁיָין רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר בְּלֹא תְשׁוּבָה וּמִיתָה מְמָרֶקֶת בְּלֹא תְשׁוּבָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. יוֹם מִיתָה כִתְשׁוּבָה. מָאן תַּנִּיתָהּ. רִבִּי. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. מִיתָה וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין עִם הַתְּשׁוּבָה. דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי. שָׁאַל רִבִּי מַתְיָה בֶּן חָרָשׁ אֶת רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. שָׁמַעְתָּה אַרְבָּעָה חֲלוּקֵי כַפָּרָה שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דּוֹרֵשׁ. אָמַר לוֹ. שְׁלֹשָׁה הֵן חוּץ מִן הַתְּשׁוּבָה. כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים וגו׳. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם וגו׳. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר וּפָקַדְתִּי בְשֵׁבֶט פִּשְׁעָם וגו׳. וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר אִם יְכוּפַּר הֶעָוֹן הַזֶּה לָכֶם עַד תְּמוּתוּן. הָא כֵיצַד. עָבַר עַל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְעָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה. אֵינוֹ זָז מִשָּׂם עַד שֶׁיִימָחֵל לוֹ. עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים וגו׳. עָבַר עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְשָׁב מִיַּד. הַתְּשׁוּבָה תוֹלָה וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם. עָבַר עַל כְּרִיתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין בְּמֵזִיד. הַתְּשׁוּבָה וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין מֶחֱצָה וְהַיִּיסּוּרִין מְכַפְּרִין מֶחֱצָה. עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר וּפָקַדְתִּי בְשֵׁבֶט פִּשְׁעָם וּבִנְגָעִים עֲווֹנָם. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַלֵּל שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם עַל יָדוֹ אֵין כֹּחַ לֹא לִתְשׁוּבָה לִתְלוֹת וְלֹא לְיּוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים לְכַפֵּר וְלֹא לַיִּיסּוּרִין לְמָרֵק. אֶלָּא תְשׁוּבָה וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים תוֹלִין וּמִיתָה מְמָרֶקֶת עִם הַיִּיסוּרִין. עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר אִם יְכֻפַּר הֶעָוֹן הַזֶּה לָכֶם עַד תְּמוּתוּן. הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַמִּיתָה מְמָרֶקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר. וְאִם אֵין שָׂעִיר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. כֵּיצַד מְכַפֵּר. רִבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר. כָּל שֶׁהוּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר. בַּסּוֹף. מַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מֵת מִיָּד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זֵירָא כִּיפֵּר מִיָּד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָה לֹא כִּיפֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. וּמַתְנִיתָה מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי חֲנִינָה. חוֹמֶר בַּשָּׂעִיר מַה שֶׁאֵין בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וּבַיּוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מַה שֶׁאֵין בַּשָּׂעִיר. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר בְּלֹא שָׂעִיר וְשָׁעִיר אֵין מְכַפֵּר בְּלֹא יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְהַשָּׂעִיר מְכַפֵּר מִיָּד וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מִשֶׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. אִיתּוֹתָב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וָמַר. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה בְדַעְתָּן לְהָבִיא שָׂעִיר אַחֵר וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנּוֹלָד. וִיכַפֵּר מִיָּד. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בָּעֵי. צְדָקָה תִּצֹּר תָּם דָּרֶךְ. חַטָּאִים תְּרַדֵּף רָעָה. רַגְלֵי חֲסִידָיו יִשְׁמוֹר. אִם לַלֵּצִים הוּא יָלִיץ. סְיָיגִין סְיָיגָה וְתַרְעִין תְּרִעָה. וְכֵינִי. סְיָיגִין סְיָיגָה וְתַרְעִין תְּרִעָה. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. שִׁימֵּר אָדָם עַצְמוֹ מֵעֲבֵירָה פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁנִיָיה וּשְׁלִישִׁית הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְשַׁמְּרוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֶן כָּל אֵלֶּה יִפְעַל אֵל פַּעֲמַיִים שָׁלוֹשׁ עִם גָּבֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. וּבִלְחוּד דָּלָא יְתוּב לֵיהּ. וְהַחוּט הַמְשׁוּלָּשׁ לֹא יִנָּתֵק לְעוֹלָם אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא לֹא בִמְהֵרָה יִנָּתֵק. אִין אַטְרַחַת עֲלוֹי הוּא מִיפְסִיק. רִבִּי הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵין לְפָנָיו שִׁכְחָה. כְּבְיָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲשֶׂה שָׁכְחָן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן. נוֹשֵׁא כְתִיב. וְדָוִד אָמַר נָשָׂאתָ עֲוֹן עַמֶּךָ.

MISHNAH: Intentional impurity but was not duly warned beforehand. Then he cannot bring a sacrifice which is reserved for unintentional sins. He cannot be punished in court since he was not warned and therefore criminal intent cannot be established. The contamination of the Sanctuary and its sancta is removed by the Day of Atonement; whether the person’s guilt is removed without due repentance is a topic for the Halakhah. of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the he-goat whose blood is brought inside and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or serious ones, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones. HALAKHAH: “Intentional impurity of the Sanctuary.” etc. That means it atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional, must be atoned for by the public offering. . 8:6 ( י ). Are not minor sins [positive commandments and]. prohibitions; are not serious ones extirpations and capital crimes? Rav: “Rebbi Jehudah”. The reading here is supported by the Babli. Jehudah said, so is the Mishnah: “Minor or serious ones. Those minor ones, whether he committed them intentionally or committed them unintentionally 1:1 Note 18 ). . Those intentional ones, whether he obtained knowledge of them or did not obtain knowledge of them. The following are minor sins: positive commandments and prohibitions. Serious ones, extirpations and capital crimes. Just as the he-goat whose blood is brought inside atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional text adds: “for which no sacrifice is due.” This is understood, cf. Note 182 . , the same holds for the scapegoat. 16:22 ). This last statement is missing in the Babli Ševuot; , it is discussed in Keritut 25b . The scribe in Yoma originally wrote the same text as here, then crossed out כן “the same holds” and wrote “atones”. .” It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: 1:1, Note 20 . The parallel in Yoma seems to quote instead from parts of Mishnah Keritut 6:4 . Purification sacrifices must be brought even after the Day of Atonement but obligations of suspended reparation sacrifices are eliminated. “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone 1:1 . ? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia] and other places by R. Simeon (ben Laqish). The name given here does not appear anywhere else. In the Yoma text, the sentence appears after the next; this seems to be more appropriate. , the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement 7a (partially Ševuot 13a ), has another example: a person who violates the Sanctuary late on the Day of Atonement and then dies. This example shows even according to Rebbi (later in the Halakhah) who holds that the Day of Atonement atones even without repentance, that the answer to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya might be negative. . Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones 7a (partially Ševuot 13a ), has another example: a person who violates the Sanctuary late on the Day of Atonement and then dies. This example shows even according to Rebbi (later in the Halakhah) who holds that the Day of Atonement atones even without repentance, that the answer to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya might be negative. . is quite different ( Note 202 ). A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, only if he repented. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,. 1:4 indicates that it atones. The next paragraph will investigate for which sins it is atoning. ” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” does the Day of Atonement not atone? It atones even against his will. “I cannot accept that it atone for me,” it does not atone against his will. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, the opposite is reasonable text which therefore must be taken as original: הָאוֹמֵר. אֵין הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת. אֵין הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עָלי. מְכַפֶּרֶת הִיא. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּכַפֵּר לִי. אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת לוֹ עַל כָּרְחוֹ. אֵין יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר מְכַפֶּרֶת הִיא. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר לִי. מְכַפֵּר הוּא לוֹ עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל. לָא כוֹלָא מִן הָדֵין בַּר נַשָּׂא מֵימוֹר לְמַלְכָּא. לֵית אַתְּ מֶלֶךְ. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,” “the elevation offering does not atone for me,” it atones. “I cannot stand that it atone for me,” it does not atone against his will. “The day of Atonement does not atone,” it atones. “I cannot stand that it atone for me,” it atones for him against his will. Rebbi Hanania ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to that man to say to the King, you are no King. Here the introductory statement of R. Ḥanina (Ḥanania) ben R. Hillel is missing correctly. The two texts are separate formulations. In the Babli, Keritut 7a , there is a related discussion. . It is not up to a person to tell the King, “you do not reign.” . In Lev. rabba 7(3 ) the paragraph is reproduced and the doctrine is attributed to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai. The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be . 20:32 . . Rebbi Levi said, the elevation offering atones for your spirits. “your thoughts”, f.) is identified with the homonym הָעוֹלָה “the elevation offering”. . And so in Job he says, maybe my children sinned and cursed God in their hearts 85b , Keritut 7a . The parallel in Yoma (45b l. 63 ff.) at the end reports the opposite of the tradition here. . This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts. 85b , Keritut 7a . The parallel in Yoma (45b l. 63 ff.) at the end reports the opposite of the tradition here. Rebbi says, the Day of Atonement atones for all sins against the Torah except for him who tears away the yoke, or who breaks the Covenant, or who finds aspects in the Torah 1:1 Notes 199–213 ; cf. also Sanhedrin 10:1, Note 8 . One who tears away the yoke is he who recognizes the authority of the Torah but decides to break its laws; one who breaks the covenant is he who tries to reconstruct a prepuce and does not circumcise his sons; one who finds aspects in the Torah is he who denies the divine origin of the Torah. , where it atones if he repented but does not atone otherwise. Rebbi Zebida said: Rebbi Yasa asked: Does Rebbi think that the Day of Atonement atones without repentance? There came Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Day of Atonement atones without repentance, and death cleanses without repentance: Rebbi agrees that the Day of Atonement does not atone without repentance, but death atones without repentance. The Babli supports the statement here about the Day of Atonement; it has no statement of Rebbi about the power of Death. . We have stated thus: The day of death equals repentance. Who stated this? Rebbi! Then what we stated 8:7 . , “death and the Day of Atonement atone with repentance,” does not follow Rebbi. but also in Sanhedrin 10:1, Notes 23–37 , 14–22 (and in the Babli Yoma 86b ). For part of the text there exists a Geniza fragment (G) edited by L. Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments (1909) p. 267. The main difference between the Leiden ms. text here and in Yoma and the two other sources is that in the Leiden text the quotes of most verses are shortened so that the punch lines mostly are missing. Therefore the Sanhedrin and G texts should be considered original. Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return , naughty children . 3:22 . , etc. But another verse says, for on that day , He shall pardon you . 16:20 . , etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod . 89:33 . , etc . And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die . 22:14 . . How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return , naughty children , etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day , He shall pardon you . If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod , and their iniquities with plagues . But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings. 3:22 . . About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die . From this we learn that death scours. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Ze`ira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanania. said, at the end. What is between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Ze`ira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: There is strength in the he-goat which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the he-goat: The Day of Atonement pardons without a he-goat, but the he-goat does not atone without the Day of Atonement. The he-goat pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately. Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Justice protects the one on the straight path . 13:6 . . Evil deeds will pursue the sinner . 13:4 . . He will watch over the feet of His pious ones . 2:9 . . While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing . 3:34 . . Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him, as it is said, all this God will do twice, three times with a man 33:29 . . Rebbi Ze`ira said, but only if the person does not revert [to sin]. What is the reason? It does not say the triple thread “will never snap” but rather will not quickly snap . 4:12 . . If you work on it, it will split. Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? As it is said, Who is a Power like You , forgives sin 7:18 . . “He forgets” is written. And so David said, You forgot Your people’s sin . 85:3 . .

אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ. מַה בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לַכֹּהֲנִים לְכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּם הַשָּעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁוִּידּוּי שֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ וִידּוּייוֹ שֶׁל פָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים: אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים כול׳. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן מָשִׁיחַ. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן מָשִׁיחַ. אִין תֵּימַר. בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן אֲנָן קַיָימִין. יְאוּת לֹא תַנִּינָן מָשִׁיחַ. אִין תֵּימַר. בַּדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן. לָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן מָשִׁיחַ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. בְּכֹהֵן מָשִׁיח. הָדָא אָמְרָה בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימָא בַּדָּבָר שֶׁיֵשׁ בּוֹ חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן. נַעֲשֶׁה כְזָדוֹן. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר. בְּזָדוֹן צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה וְכַפָּרַת יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וָכָא צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה וְכַפָּרַת יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. יָעֳמַד חַי. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לָמוּת. עַד מָתַי הוּא חַי. עַד וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שְׁעַת וִוידּוּי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הַוִּידּוּי מְעַכֵּב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין וִוידּוּי מְעַכֵּב. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. שְׁחָטוּ בְּלֹא וִוידּוּי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא פָּר אַחֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא פָּר אַחֵר. אַף שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ כֵּן. שְׁלָחוֹ בְלֹא וִידּוּי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא שָׂעִיר אַחֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא שָׂעִיר אַחֵר. הִתְוַדֶּה וּשְׁחָטוֹ וְנִשְׁפָּךְ הַדָּם. אַתְּ אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא פָּר אַחֵר וְצָרִיךְ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת פַּעַם שְׁנִיָיה אוֹ יָצָא בְּוִידּוּי הָרִאשׁוֹן. אַף שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ כֵּן. שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהַגְרִיל פַּעַם שְׁנִיָיה אוֹ כְבָר יָצָא בְּוִידּוּיוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן.

MISHNAH: Together Israel, Cohanim, and the Anointed Priest. 6:15 ); as explained in Tractate Horaiot it excludes the High Priests of the Second Temple who were invested, not anointed. . What is the difference between Israel and a Cohen or the Anointed Priest, everybody has to bring a sacrifice depending on his wealth except the Anointed Priest who is exempt ( Mishnah Horaiot 2:7 ). ? Only that the blood of the bull atones for Cohanim in matters of the Sanctuary and its sancta . Rebbi Simeon says, just as the blood of the he-goat which is brought inside atones for Israel, so the blood of the bull atones for the Cohanim. 16:6 ), the common priests ( v. 13 ), and the people. But for the action of the scapegoat they are all equal. . Just as the confession of the scapegoat. 16:21 . atones for Israel, so the confession of the bull atones for Cohanim. HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.”. This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally. 15:30–31 .) Unintentional sins only require a sacrifice if the corresponding intentional sin is punishable by extirpation ( Mishnah Keritut 1:2 ), others require repentance and atonement by the Day of Atonement. Babli Keritut 25b . . As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement. 6:2 . However, there the sequence of topics is different. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(6–8). Shall be stationed alive ; this teaches that it the future it is going to die. 16:10 . Since the verse later only requires that the scapegoat be sent to a cliff ( v. 22 ) in the desert ( v. 21 ), but nothing is said what happens to the goat there, it is inferred that since it is emphasized that it must be alive as long as it is standing before the Eternal that later it will not continue to live, but will be pushed over the cliff to its death ( Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(7 ,8), Yoma 6:2 , Babli Yoma 40b , 65a , 71a . . How long must it live? Up to he will finish from atoning to Sanctuary . 16:20 . If the scapegoat dies before the blood of the other he-goat was sprinkled on the gobelin and the incense altar in the Sanctuary, the ceremony has to be repeated. Later, no new he-goat has to be provided. , the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable 40b seems to switch the positions of RR. Jehudah and Simeon in this matter, but since Sifra parallels the Yerushalmi this seems to be unlikely. Maimonides does not mention the matter in his Code. . What is the difference between them? . But in the Yoma text, which has to be considered as original, the scapegoat is treated first, i. e., that a scapegoat sent away without confession for R. Jehudah requires an entire new ceremony with formal confession, but not for R. Simeon. Then it is asserted that by analogy if the bull whose blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary was slaughtered without confession, for R. Jehudah the slaughter is invalid and the entire ceremony has to be repeated, but not for R. Simeon. If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. The same holds for the scapegoat. If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another goat. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession text one has to read: צָרִיךְ לְהַגְרִיל פַּעַם שְׁנִייָה אוֹ כְבָר יָצָא בְּהַגְרִילוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. “Must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first casting of lots ?” ( Babli Yoma 39b/40a .) ?