Shevuot 10b — the Talmud in English

:

The verse says: “Apart from ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

the sin-offering of the Atonements,” and the external [goat] is likened to the internal [goat]!

:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in his name,

of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: The goats of the New Moons atone only for a pure person who ate impure [sacred food]. But those of the Festivals atone both for a pure person who ate impure sacred food and for an impure person who entered the Temple or ate sacred flesh, for whom there was no awareness neither at the beginning nor at the end; and the external goat of the Day of Atonement adds to them, in that it atones for their atonement, and in addition atones for one who had no awareness at the beginning but had awareness at the end.

:

What is different about the goats of the New Moons, that they do not atone for [the sins atoned for by] the goats of the Festivals? For the verse says “iniquity”—

it bears one iniquity and does not bear two iniquities! The goats of the Festivals, too, should not atone for [the sins atoned for by] the goats of the New Moons, for the verse says

in connection with the atonement of the goat of the New Moon

“it”: -

It bears the iniquity, and no

sacrifice

bears the iniquity

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

“it”

to exclude the atonement of the New Moon by another goat

is not understood by him!

And furthermore we asked:

What is different about the goats of the Festivals, that they do not atone for [the sins atoned for by] the Day of Atonement? For the verse says:

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

“From the blood of the sin-offering of the Atonements”—

once in the year

he shall atone for it.”

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

that this atonement shall be only once in the year!

If so, the Day of Atonement, too, should not atone for [the sins atoned for by] the Festivals,

for

“one” is written

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

It atones for one atonement, and does not atone for two atonements!?

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

one

in the year”—teaches that the internal goat atones for one atonement and does not atone for two atonements,

is not understood by him!

And the Gemara explains:

Why

is he not satisfied with this derivation?—

For when

this

“one”

is written concerning the goat performed inside,

and not concerning the external one. And he does not hold of the juxtaposition of the external to the internal!

And we challenge this:

If so,

that Rabbi Shimon does not hold of the juxtaposition of the internal to the external,

the goats of the Festivals, too, should atone for [the sins atoned for by] the Day of Atonement! For when

the exclusion of

“one”

at the beginning of the verse, from which we exclude that this atonement of the Day of Atonement shall be only once in the year, this exclusion is only

written concerning the goat performed inside,

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

And we answer: Rather,

actually

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

“one

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

is understood by him

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

And as for what Rabbi Shimon said, that the external goat atones for the atonement of the Festivals, even though there is also the exclusion of “one” stated at the beginning of the verse, from which we learned that it atones for one atonement and does not atone for two atonements—the exclusion does not appear to Rabbi Shimon to be subject to derivation, because

here it is different,

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

for the verse says

concerning the incense altar:

“And Aaron shall atone upon its horns once in the year

from the blood of the sin-offering of the Atonements—once in the year he shall atone for it,” and we derive the exclusion of “one” stated at the beginning of the verse, which teaches us that it atones for one atonement and not two atonements, as follows:

Its horns, of the internal altar, are what atone for one atonement and do not atone for two atonements. But

the atonement

of the external one,

that is, the external goat performed upon the external altar,

even two atonements

atone!

And the goats of the Festivals were excluded from atoning for the atonement of the external one through the derivation from the end of the verse, for it is written, “Once in the year he shall atone for it.” And since “one” is juxtaposed to “he shall atone,” we derive: That atonement shall be only once in the year, through the external goat, and not through the goats of the Festivals.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The daily-offerings that were not needed by the community,

which remained from the previous year, since on the first of Nisan they begin to bring daily-offerings purchased with the funds of the half-shekel of the new year, whereas those purchased with the communal funds of the previous year and remaining, they

are redeemed

despite their being sacrifices

unblemished,

as will be explained below, that “the heart of the court stipulates concerning them” that if they remain over, they will possess only sanctity of value, which can be redeemed. And after they are redeemed and become unconsecrated, they again purchase them with the communal funds of the new year and offer them as new daily-offerings.

Rabba sat and was saying this statement

of Rabbi Yohanan.

Rav Hisda said to him: Who will listen to you and to your master Rabbi Yohanan? And where does the sanctity in them go?

For sacrifices sanctified with sanctity of the body are not desacralized when they are unblemished!

Rabba said to him:

And do

you not hold that we do not say

with regard to communal sacrifices

“where did the sanctity in them go”

when the community desacralizes them for the sake of a remedy?!

And we learned in the Mishna: The remainder of the incense,

which remained every year, and every year it had to be brought from the new communal funds; and if so,

what would they do with it

with the incense that remained?—

They would set aside

from the chamber contribution

the wages of the craftsmen

who made the incense, and confer the money upon the craftsmen through one of the treasurers, and thereby that money becomes unconsecrated, because payment for the work desacralizes the money. But they had not yet given the money into the craftsmen’s hands. And since unconsecrated money [belonging to the craftsmen] was in the hands of the treasurers, they

would desacralize it

the incense that remained

upon the craftsmen’s money

[with their consent], and the incense became unconsecrated and the money became consecrated,

and they would give it

the incense that had been desacralized upon the money and was now unconsecrated

to the craftsmen as their wages

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

And the treasurers would then take it back

from the craftsmen by paying them for it

from

from the funds of

the new contribution,

and through this purchase the money of the new contribution became unconsecrated, whereas the incense became consecrated with the sanctity of the money of the new contribution, and from then on was fit to be burned in the new year!

And why

not

should we say, “Where did the sanctity in it go”!?

For the incense possesses sanctity of the body, having become consecrated while in the mortar, since we might have thought that the mortar is a sacred vessel.

Rather, it is proven from here that only something consecrated by an individual with sanctity of the body cannot be redeemed, but not something sanctified with communal sanctity, such as incense; and the same law applies to the daily-offerings.