Shevuot 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

And the goats of the Festivals were juxtaposed with the goats of the New Moons

to teach:

Just as the goat of the New Moon atones for a matter of sanctity, so too the goats of the Festivals atone for a matter of sanctity.

And if you would say

, perhaps you might say: If we juxtapose the Festivals with the New Moon, let us say that

they should atone

only

for the New Moon

, that is, only for a ritually pure person who ate impure consecrated meat, but they should not atone for a ritually impure person who ate consecrated meat or entered the Temple?

That cannot be said! For

we say

that there is an exclusion stated with regard to the goat of the New Moon:

“It”

“He gave you to bear the iniquity of the assembly” —

it

, the sin-offering of the New Moon,

bears iniquity, and no

other offering

bears iniquity

for such eating of impure consecrated meat! Necessarily, then, the atonement for sanctity provided by the goats of the Festivals is for a ritually impure person who ate pure consecrated meat or who entered the Temple while ritually impure!

And if you would say, they should atone

for

Yom Kippur

, that is, for what the external goat atones: a case in which there was no awareness at the outset but there was awareness at the end?

That cannot be said! For

we say

that there is an exclusion stated with regard to the external goat: “And Aaron shall atone upon its horns

once a year” —

this atonement shall be only once a year!

Now that we know from where it is derived that the goats of the Festivals come to atone for ritual impurity involving the Temple and its sacred offerings, the Gemara explains for which pattern of awareness they come:

For what

do

the goats of the Festivals atone

?

If it is for a case in which there was awareness at the outset and awareness at the end

—

a sin for which an individual

is

liable to bring an offering, and he is not atoned for by a communal offering!

If it is for a case in which there was awareness at the outset but no awareness at the end

—

that is atoned for provisionally by the inner goat and Yom Kippur!

If it is for a case in which there was no awareness at the outset but there was awareness at the end

—

that is atoned for by the external goat and Yom Kippur!

You are therefore forced to say that it atones only for a case in which there was awareness neither at the outset nor at the end!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: The atonement of all the goats is equivalent!

Rav Hama bar Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion?

—

The verse states “a goat—and a goat”; all the goats were juxtaposed to one another

by means of

the vav, which adds to the preceding matter!

It might have entered your mind to say

—

each one derives its law from the one next to it! That is, the atonement of each of the goats teaches the law of the goat adjacent to it in the passage; after that goat has learned from its predecessor, it in turn teaches the goat adjacent to it.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Throughout the entire Torah, one may derive a matter that was itself derived from another source from a matter that was itself derived from another source

[from a matter that itself was derived from elsewhere],

except in the laws of offerings, where one may not derive a matter that was itself derived from another source from a matter that was itself derived from another source!?

And we answer:

That is not difficult. They all derive from the first one!

That is: Each goat does not teach the law of the goat adjacent to it in a manner that would require deriving a derived matter from another derived matter. Rather, all the goats are juxtaposed individually to every other goat individually, so that each can teach the particular atonement of the other.

The objection nevertheless remains:

This works for every

goat

with regard to which it is written “and a goat,”

with the additional vav. But with regard to the goats of Shavuot and Yom Kippur, for which

“and a goat” was not written, from where do we derive

that their atonement is juxtaposed to the atonement of the other goats?

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Yona said: The verse states, “These you shall offer to the Lord on your Festivals”

—

all the Festivals were juxtaposed to one another! From this juxtaposition you learn that the atonement of all the goats of the Festivals is equivalent.

And we challenge this:

But the New Moon is not a Festival!

How, then, is it included in this juxtaposition?

And we answer:

Indeed,

the

New Moon is also called a Festival, as Abaye said.

For Abaye said: In that year, Tammuz

— in the second year after the Children of Israel left Egypt, when the spies were sent on the twenty-ninth of Sivan to scout the Land, and returned after forty days, on the eighth of Av, and they cried on the night of the ninth of Av — that month of Tammuz

was made full

; they made it

a month of thirty days. That is, they established the first of Av on the thirty-first day of Tammuz [although according to the order of the months, Tammuz is always deficient, consisting of twenty-nine days, and the first day of Av should have fallen on the thirtieth day of Tammuz],

as it is written, “He proclaimed a Festival against me

to break my young men.”

The proclamation of the first of Av one day late was done so that the crying of the Children of Israel in the wilderness would occur on the night of the ninth of Av, which is a day destined for calamity; consequently, the young men of Israel fell in the destruction of the Temple on that day.

This proves that the day of the New Moon is called a Festival!

Rabbi Yohanan said: And Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to the inner goat

on Yom Kippur [whose atonement is for one who had awareness at the outset but not at the end; he will eventually bring an individual offering when he becomes aware of his transgression, while in the meantime the inner goat provides provisional protection for him from suffering],

that it does not atone with their atonement

of the other goats.

And they do not atone with its atonement.

The Gemara explains:

It does not atone with their atonement

, because we derive from the word “once” at the end of the verse, [“Once a year he shall atone for it”] —

it provides one

atonement

and it does not provide two atonements!

And likewise,

they

do not atone with its atonement,

because

the verse states

at the beginning of the verse, “And Aaron shall atone upon its horns,

once a year” —

this atonement

of the inner goat

shall be only once a year!

It was taught likewise in a baraita: For

ritual impurity involving the Temple and its sacred offerings

in a case in which there was awareness neither at the outset nor at the end; and for a case in which there was no awareness at the outset but there was awareness at the end; and for a ritually pure person who ate the impure

— the

goats of the Festivals, the goats of the New Moons, and the external goat atone, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir!

The Gemara infers:

But it omitted the inner goat!

Rabbi Meir omitted it from being listed in the baraita together with them, proving that he holds that the inner goat does not atone for those cases of ritual impurity for which the other goats atone. And likewise,

its atonement

, namely, atonement for one who had awareness at the outset but no awareness at the end,

it also omitted,

since Rabbi Meir omitted it from the baraita because the other goats do not provide this atonement of the inner goat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon would say: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who ate the impure, and so forth. [Each goat has a different atonement.]

And we inquire about it:

Granted, the goats of the New Moons do not atone for the cases of the Festivals, as the verse states

with regard to the goat of the New Moon:

“iniquity,”

and we exclude other cases:

It bears one iniquity, but it does not bear two iniquities! But

the goats

of the Festivals, let them atone

also

for the cases of the New Moons?

And we answer:

The verse states

with regard to the goat of the New Moon:

“It.”

The verse comes to exclude and to say:

It,

the sin-offering that the Torah designated for the goat of the New Moon,

bears iniquity. And no

other offering

bears the iniquity

of the New Moon.

We further inquire about it:

Granted, the goats of the Festivals do not atone for Yom Kippur, as the verse states

at the beginning of the verse, “And Aaron shall atone upon its horns

once

a year” —

this atonement shall be only once a year! But with regard to Yom Kippur, let it atone for the cases of the Festivals?

And we answer:

The verse states

at the end of the verse,

“Once

a year he shall atone for it” —

it provides one atonement, and it does not provide two atonements!

And we challenge this:

But when “once” is written

it is written with regard to the inner goat.

If so, why should the external goat not atone for the other atonements?