Shevuot 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

The verse states: “Aside from

the sin-offering of atonement,” and the external goat is thereby juxtaposed to the internal goat!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The goats of the New Moons atone only for one who was pure and ate impure sacrificial meat. But the goats of the Festivals atone also for one who was pure and ate impure sacrificial meat, and for one who was impure who entered the Temple or ate sacred meat, in cases where there was no awareness for them either initially or ultimately. And the external goat of Yom Kippur adds to these: It atones for the atonement provided by the goats of the Festivals, and in addition it atones for one who had no awareness initially but did have awareness ultimately.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

What is different about the goats of the New Moons, that they do not atone for the matters of the Festivals? As the verse states: “Iniquity”—

it bears one iniquity, but it does not bear two iniquities! The goats of the Festivals, too, should not atone for the matters of the New Moons, as the verse states

with regard to the atonement of the goat of the New Moon:

“It” -

It bears the iniquity, and no

sacrifice

else bears the iniquity

of the New Moon!? And we explain: The derivation from

“it”

to exclude the atonement of the New Moon by another goat

is not accepted by him!

And furthermore, we raised a difficulty concerning this:

What is different about the goats of the Festivals, that they do not atone for the matters of Yom Kippur? As the verse states:

“And Aaron shall atone upon its horns—once a year.

From the blood of the sin-offering of atonement—

once a year

he shall atone upon it.”

And we derive from the end of the verse, in which “once a year” is juxtaposed to “he shall atone,”

that this atonement shall be only once a year!

If so, the goat of Yom Kippur, too, should not atone for the matters of the Festivals,

since

“once” is written

at the beginning of the verse [“And Aaron shall atone upon its horns—once a year”], and we should derive:

It provides one atonement, but it does not provide two atonements!?

And we explain: The derivation from the beginning of the verse, “And Aaron shall atone upon its horns—

once

a year,” teaches that the internal goat provides one atonement, but it does not provide two atonements,

is not accepted by him!

And the Gemara explains:

Why

does he not accept this derivation?

For when

this

“once”

is written, it is written with regard to the goat performed inside,

and not with regard to the external goat. And he does not accept the juxtaposition of the external goat to the internal goat!

And we challenge this:

If so,

if Rabbi Shimon does not accept the juxtaposition of the internal goat to the external goat, the goats

of the Festivals, too, should atone for the matters of Yom Kippur! For when

the exclusion of

“once”

is written at the beginning of the verse, from which we exclude that this atonement of Yom Kippur shall be only once a year, this exclusion is written only

with regard to the goat performed inside,

and not with regard to the external goat. If so, why should the goats of the Festivals not atone for the atonement of the external goat, since there is no exclusion of “once” with regard to it!?

And we explain: Rather,

indeed

Rabbi Shimon does accept the juxtaposition of the internal goat to the external goat. Therefore, the exclusion of

“once

a year,” stated at the end of the verse, which speaks of the blood of the sin-offering of atonement of the internal goat,

is understood by him

as juxtaposing the external goat to it. Therefore, the goats of the Festivals do not atone for the atonement of the external goat.

And as for Rabbi Shimon’s statement that the external goat atones for the atonement of the Festivals, despite the fact that there is also the exclusion of “once” stated at the beginning of the verse, from which we learned that it provides one atonement but does not provide two atonements—this exclusion does not appear to Rabbi Shimon to be suitable for exposition, because

here it is different:

this exclusion was stated with regard to the atonement of the altar [“And Aaron shall atone upon its horns—once a year”]. And the external goat was not juxtaposed to this atonement,

as the verse states

with regard to the incense altar:

“And Aaron shall atone upon its horns once a year

from the blood of the sin-offering of atonement—once a year he shall atone upon it,” and we expound the exclusion of “once” stated at the beginning of the verse, teaching us that it provides one atonement and not two atonements, as follows:

It is the horns of the internal altar that provide one atonement and do not provide two atonements. But

the

atonement of the external

altar, namely, the external goat performed upon the external altar,

may provide even two atonements

.

And the goats of the Festivals were excluded from providing the atonement of the external goat by the derivation from the end of the verse, which states, “Once a year he shall atone upon it.” Since “once” is juxtaposed to “he shall atone,” we derive that this atonement shall take place only once a year through the external goat, and not through the goats of the Festivals.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The goats that were not needed by the community,

which remained from the previous year, because on the first of Nisan they begin bringing the daily offerings purchased with the half-shekel funds of the new year, while these, which were purchased with the communal funds of the previous year and remained,

are redeemed

despite their being offerings that are

unblemished,

as will be explained below: The court stipulates concerning them that if they remain, they will possess only monetary sanctity, which permits redemption. Once they have been redeemed and become unconsecrated, they are purchased again with the communal funds of the new year and offered as new daily offerings.

Rabba was sitting and reciting this halakhic teaching

of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who will heed you and your master Rabbi Yoḥanan? And where will the sanctity that they possess go?

For offerings possessing bodily sanctity cannot be desacralized while they are unblemished!

He said to him,

Rabba: Is it not so that

you should understand that we do not say

with regard to communal offerings,

“Where has the sanctity that they possess gone?”

when the community desacralizes them for the sake of a necessary ordinance?!22

And we learned: The surplus of the incense,

which remained each year, and each year had to be brought from the new communal funds—if so,

what would they do with it,

with the incense that remained?

They would set aside

from the chamber’s contribution

the wages of the artisans

who prepared the incense, and one of the treasurers would confer ownership of the money upon the artisans, thereby making that money unconsecrated, since payment for the work desacralizes the money. However, they had not yet given the money into the hands of the artisans. And since the treasurers possessed unconsecrated money [belonging to the artisans], they

would desacralize

the remaining incense

in exchange for the artisans’ money [

with their consent], and the incense would become unconsecrated while the money would become consecrated,

and they would give it,

the incense that had been desacralized in exchange for the money and was now unconsecrated,

to the artisans as their wages [

in place of the money that they were supposed to receive, which was now consecrated].

And the treasurers would then take it back

from the artisans by paying them for it

from

the funds of

the new contribution,

and through this purchase the money from the new contribution would become unconsecrated, while the incense would become consecrated with the sanctity of the money from the new contribution and would henceforth be fit to be burned in the new year!

And why

should we

not say, “Where has the sanctity that it possessed gone?”

For the incense possesses bodily sanctity, having become consecrated while in the mortar, as it might have entered our minds that the mortar is a sacred vessel.

Rather, it is proven from here that only something consecrated by an individual with bodily sanctity cannot be redeemed; but something possessing the sanctity of the community, such as incense, can be redeemed—and the same applies to the daily offerings.