Keritot 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ḥanina taught before Rava:

The guilt-offering brought for

the uncertainty concerning the eating of

the unslaughtered animal,

even though eating it involves not karet but merely a prohibition punishable by lashes.

He said to him,

Rava:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

“And the Sages say: He brings a provisional guilt-offering only for a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering!” And if

it is

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

even

as a voluntary offering he may bring it!

Rabbi Ḥanina said to him:

Rabbi Ḥanina:

Why did you not study

Mishnayot and beraitot? Then you would know as I do. For I

many times

have

taught it

this beraita, which states that a provisional guilt-offering is brought for eating an animal that might be unslaughtered,

before my master—and who is he? “My master”

—

Rabba.

And he said to me: This

beraita

is whose opinion? It is Rabbi Eliezer, to whom

the Sages said that at least some doubt concerning a prohibition is required in order for him to be able to bring a provisional guilt-offering for it.

As we learned: Rather, they say to him—

wait

before bringing it

until you enter the realm of uncertainty.

Rava said: What is the reason that they said

this?

The verse says: [Leviticus 4']

«

“Which one may not be performed”

“unwittingly, and he incurs guilt.” 34 .

Rava said: What is the reason of the Rabbis, who say: One brings a provisional guilt-offering only for a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering?

Because

they derive

by means of a gzera shava, “mitzvot, mitzvot,”

“mitzvot”

from the sin-offering for forbidden fat.

Just as there

the matter is one

whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering, so too here,

with regard to a provisional guilt-offering, one may bring it only for uncertainty concerning

a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering.

The Sages taught: The five definitive guilt-offerings

atone

with complete atonement,

but

a provisional guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement.

And we considered the matter:

What is he saying?

Rav Yosef said: This is what he is saying: The five guilt-offerings effect complete atonement, but a provisional guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement,

since when he subsequently learns that he sinned, he still needs to achieve atonement through a sin-offering.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says: A provisional guilt-offering is brought for

the eating of an animal whose status is doubtful as

an unslaughtered animal,

and there its atonement is complete, since even when he learns with certainty that he ate an unslaughtered animal, he does not bring another offering for his atonement.

Ravina said: This is how it is taught: With regard to the five guilt-offerings, nothing

else

effects their atonement; when he becomes aware of it, he brings

a guilt-offering in every case, even if Yom Kippur passed before he learned of his obligation. But with regard to

a provisional guilt-offering,

we find that something

else effects its atonement, as

even

when he becomes aware of it, he does not bring

an offering .

As we learned: Those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings, over whom Yom Kippur passed—

are obligated to bring

their offering also

after Yom Kippur,

because Yom Kippur does not effect atonement for those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings. But

those liable for provisional guilt-offerings

over whom Yom Kippur passed—

are exempt,

because the atonement of the day benefited them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings.”

It teaches: Those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings, over whom Yom Kippur passed—

are obligated to bring them after Yom Kippur.

Those liable for provisional guilt-offerings—

are exempt.

And we considered the matter:

From where are these matters

that Yom Kippur does not effect atonement for those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings, derived?

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: The verse says: [Leviticus 16]

“And he shall effect atonement for the Sanctuary, from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their transgressions, for all their sins.”

It is written

“sins” in a manner analogous to “transgressions,”

to teach us:

Just as transgressions —rebellion—

—

are not subject to an offering,

Yom Kippur effects atonement for them,

so too sins

such as when, ultimately, he did not learn that he had sinned,

which are not subject to an offering, are atoned for.

But sins

that are

subject to an offering are not atoned for.

Abaye said to him: But when this verse was written,

from which you derived that Yom Kippur does not effect atonement for sins that are subject to an offering, it

was written with regard to the goat whose service is performed inside; it does not effect atonement

the inner goat

for transgressions involving a known mitzva,

that is, when he already knew that he had become impure and that he had sinned by entering the Temple in a state of impurity, but only for those whose impurity was unknown to them when they entered the Temple and who still did not remember their sin.

But with regard to the scapegoat,

whose atonement is more powerful,

as it effects atonement

even

for transgressions involving a known mitzva, say to me: It effects atonement even for sins that are subject to an offering

as well—

does it not?

Rather, Abaye said: From here

as it is written with regard to the scapegoat: [Leviticus 16]

“And he shall confess over it

[the]

entirety of the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions, for all their sins”—

“sins” in a manner analogous to “transgressions.”

Just as transgressions, which are not subject to an offering, are atoned for, so too sins that are not subject to an offering are atoned for; but sins that are subject to an offering are not atoned for, and the verse excluded them with regard to the scapegoat.

This is to say

from here

, that for sins that are subject to an offering, atonement is not effected

by the scapegoat.

Rav Dimi said to him: From where do you know that these

“transgressions”

are not subject to an offering? Perhaps these are ones that are subject to an offering,

as we learned: Four people bring offerings for an intentional act as they would for an unwitting act.

It was also stated

in accordance with Abaye:

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yosei said that Reish Lakish

: “And he shall confess over it the entirety of the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions, for all their sins”—

“sins” in a manner analogous to “transgressions”: Just as transgressions that are not subject to an offering are atoned for, so too sins that are not subject to an offering are atoned for; but sins that are subject to an offering are not atoned for.

Abaye said: I too stated this interpretation from this verse, but Rav Dimi challenged me: From where do you know that these transgressions are not subject to an offering? Perhaps they are ones that are subject to an offering, as we learned: Four people bring offerings for an intentional act as they would for an unwitting act!

Ravin said to him: Most transgressions

are not subject to an offering.

He said to him: Is

“most”

written with regard to their transgressions?

Rather, Abaye said: From the beginning of the verse:

“And he shall confess over it the entirety of the iniquities of the children of Israel.”

And it was taught: “Iniquities”—

these are intentional sins, and so it says: [Numbers 15]

“Its iniquity is upon it.”

And if so,

“and all their transgressions, for all their sins”—

why do I need this?

To juxtapose transgressions: Just as transgressions are not subject to an offering,

and the verse is speaking of intentional acts,

so too sins that are not subject to an offering are atoned for; but sins that are subject to an offering are not atoned for.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Those liable for provisional guilt-offerings”

over whom Yom Kippur passed are exempt from bringing them.

From where are these matters derived?

Rabbi Elazar said: The verse says: [Leviticus 16]

“From all your sins before the Lord,”

and so on: A sin known only to the Omnipresent,

which the sinner did not know with certainty that he had committed

—Yom Kippur effects atonement!