Shevuot 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

“Like Bannot Shuah figs for the altar.”

Like a person who brings various sweets for dessert.

Missing text (chavruta). And we ask: Is it possible to bring fruit for the altar?

But it is written: “For any leaven or any honey

you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord,” and all fruit is included in this prohibition!?

And we answer:

Rav Hanina taught:

This is what it is saying: This keitz, with which they provide for the altar, is

like Bannot Shuah figs, not blood!

Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda taught: They do not provide for the altar

the altar

with a bird burnt offering,

since with the money of the communal voluntary offerings they bring only an animal burnt offering, but not a bird burnt offering.

Rava said: This is nonsense!

This statement is fabricated from your own heart, for from where do you know this?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said to Rava: What do you mean by “nonsense”?

Why did you call it a fabricated statement? After all,

I said

this law—that they do not provide for the altar with a bird burnt offering—

to him

in the presence of Rav Nahman,

and I said it to him in the name of Rav Shimi of Nehardea.

For Rav Shimi of Nehardea said: Surpluses

of guilt offerings, whose owners died or attained atonement through another offering,

go to the communal voluntary offerings.

And there is no communal bird burnt offering.

Therefore, they do not provide for the altar with birds!

And Shmuel likewise held in accordance with this teaching of Rabbi Yohanan:

that according to Rabbi Shimon, unneeded daily offerings are used to provide for the altar (Rashi).

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Communal sacrifices

are determined by the knife,

meaning that when one slaughters them without specifying their designation, the knife

draws them toward what they are

designated for. Even when at first they had the designation of a daily burnt offering, once they remain until the following year they are designated for providing for the altar; their slaughter causes them to become offerings for providing for the altar without any additional act being performed with the offering to confer this designation upon it.

It was taught likewise in a beraita,

for if an offering contains some aspect of the matter for which another offering is designated, it may be sacrificed as that other offering.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that the goats of the New Moons atone for one who was pure but ate impure sacrificial meat, and those of the Festivals atone for one who had no awareness of the matter, neither initially nor ultimately!

And it was taught concerning it in a beraita:

And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to a goat

of the communal sin offering

that if it was not sacrificed on the Festival, it should be sacrificed on the New Moon; and if it was not sacrificed on the New Moon, it should be sacrificed on Yom Kippur; and if it was not sacrificed on Yom Kippur, it should be sacrificed on the Festival; and if it was not sacrificed on this Festival, it should be sacrificed on another Festival.

And this is so despite the fact that their atonements differ, since

from the outset it came only to effect atonement through the outer altar.

That is, since there is an aspect common to all the goats—namely, that they are sacrificed on the outer altar, so that at least the outer altar will attain atonement—it is possible to bring the goat of one occasion on behalf of another.

Accordingly, the same applies to a daily offering, which is a burnt offering: It is possible to bring it as a voluntary burnt offering for providing for the altar, since there is an aspect common to both of them, namely, that both are burnt offerings.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for willful defilement of the Temple and its sacred objects, the goat whose blood is brought inside and Yom Kippur effect atonement!

From where are these matters derived?

As the Sages taught: “And he shall effect atonement for the Sanctuary from the defilements of the Children of Israel

and from their rebellions for all their sins.”

“Rebellions”—

these are rebellious acts. And so it says: “The king of Moab rebelled against me.”

There, too, it is an expression of rebellion, for the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.

And it says: “Then Libnah rebelled at that time.”

This refers to Edom’s rebellion against Israelite rule.

“Sins”—

these are unwitting transgressions. And so it says: “When a person sins unwittingly”!

We learned in the Mishna:

For the other transgressions in the Torah, both minor and severe, both willful and unwitting,

whether known or unknown, whether positive or negative commandments, those punishable by karet and those punishable by death imposed by a court—the scapegoat effects atonement.

And we inquire about this: Why did the tanna repeat the same matters twice, using two different expressions? For—

“That is

transgressions

minor,” that is positive and negative commandments,

so why did the tanna repeat and teach them twice?

And likewise, one can raise a difficulty: “That is

severe,” that is

those punishable by karet and by death imposed by a court.

And likewise, one can raise a difficulty:

“Known” means willful, and “unknown” means unwitting.

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it is saying: For the other transgressions in the Torah, whether minor or severe, whether he committed them unwittingly or whether he committed them willfully—

those that he committed unwittingly

and for which he became liable to bring an uncertainty offering [for example, he ate one piece from among two pieces, one of which was forbidden fat and the other permitted fat, and he does not know which one he ate]—

whether he became aware of his uncertainty,

that he learned before Yom Kippur that he had eaten possibly forbidden fat and became liable to bring an uncertainty offering,

or whether he did not become aware of his uncertainty

before Yom Kippur, and therefore had not yet become liable to bring an uncertainty offering, he need not bring an uncertainty offering after Yom Kippur, because he attained atonement through the scapegoat.

The Gemara now explains the latter clause:

And these are

transgressions

minor—

positive and negative commandments. And these are severe—

those punishable by karet and by death imposed by a court!

And we inquire about this:

This positive commandment

for which the scapegoat effects atonement,

what are the circumstances?

If he did not repent,

how can the offering of Yom Kippur benefit him? But it says:

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination,”

and since he himself cannot bring an offering and attain atonement, how can the communal offering of Yom Kippur effect atonement for him?

And if he repented

before Yom Kippur, then

every day as well

he attains atonement, without requiring the atonement of Yom Kippur and the scapegoat.