Shevuot 12b — the Talmud in English

The figs are like the figs of the sycamore for the altar.

like a person who brings various sweets for the conclusion of a meal.

Missing text (Chavruta). And we wonder: Is it possible to bring fruits upon the altar?

But it is written: “For every leaven and every honey

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

And we answer:

Rav Hanina taught:

this is what he says: This kayitz, with which they provide for the altar, is

like the figs of the sycamore, not blood!

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

for the altar

with a bird burnt-offering,

for with the money of the freewill offering they bring a bird burnt-offering only as an animal.

Rava said: This is nonsense!

This matter is fabricated from your heart; for this—from where do you have it?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said to Rava: What is this nonsense?

Why did you call it a fabricated matter, when

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 from Nehardea.

For Rav Shimi from Nehardea said: The surplus

of an guilt-offering, whose owner died or achieved atonement through another one,

goes to the communal freewill offering.

And there is no communal bird burnt-offering.

Therefore they do not provide for the altar with birds!

And Shmuel too holds like this ruling of Rabbi Yohanan:

for according to Rabbi Shimon, with regard to daily offerings that were not needed, they provide with them for the altar (Rashi)

for Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Communal offerings—

the knife—

that is, when one slaughters them without specification with a knife, the knife

draws them toward what they are

designated for. And even when at first the designation of daily burnt-offering applied to them, when they remain for the following year they are designated for the provision for the altar, and their slaughter draws them to become provision for the altar, without anything further having to be done to the offering in order to apply to it the designation of provision for the altar.

It was taught likewise,

that if there is in an offering some element of its matter, it is possible to offer it as another offering.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says that the goats of the New Moons atone for one who was pure and ate impurity, and those of the Festivals atone for a case about which there was no knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end!

And it was taught concerning it in a beraita:

And Rabbi Shimon agrees with regard to a goat

that is a communal sin-offering,

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

And this is so despite the fact that their atonement is divided, since

from the outset it came only to atone for the outer altar.

That is, since there is some matter shared by all the goats, namely, their offering upon the outer altar, so that at least the outer altar should achieve atonement, it is possible to bring the goat of one of these in place of another.

And if so, the same is true of the daily offering, which is a burnt-offering: it is possible to bring it as a freewill burnt-offering for the provision for the altar, since they have some matter in common, for both of them are burnt-offerings.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for the intentional transgression of impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, the goat performed inside and Yom Kippur atone!

From where are these words?

For the Sages taught: “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel

and from their rebellions, for all their sins.”

“Rebellions”—

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

And there 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.”

And this is the rebellion with which Edom rebelled against Israelite rule.

“Sins”—

these are inadvertent acts, and so it says: “If a person sins inadvertently”!

We learned in the Mishna:

For the other transgressions in the Torah, the minor and the severe, the intentional and the inadvertent,

known and not known, positive and negative commandments, excisions and deaths imposed by the court—the sent-away goat atones.

And we inquire concerning it: Why did the tanna repeat and teach the same matters twice, in two formulations, for—

This is identical to

the transgressions

“minor”: this is identical to positive and negative commandments,

and why did the tanna repeat and teach them twice?

And likewise it is difficult: This is identical to

“severe”: this is identical to

excision and deaths imposed by the court.

And likewise it is difficult:

“Known” is identical to intentional, and “not known” is identical to inadvertent.

Rav Yehuda said: This is what he says: For the other transgressions in the Torah, whether minor or severe, whether he committed them inadvertently or intentionally—

those that he committed inadvertently

and became liable for a provisional guilt-offering because of them [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], then

whether his doubt became known to him,

that it became known to him before Yom Kippur that he had eaten doubtful forbidden fat and he became liable for a provisional guilt-offering,

whether his doubt did not become known to him

before Yom Kippur and he had not yet become liable for a provisional guilt-offering, he need not bring a provisional guilt-offering after Yom Kippur, because he achieved atonement through the sent-away goat.

And now the Gemara explains the latter clause:

And these are

the transgressions

“minor”—

positive and negative commandments. And these are “severe”—

excision and deaths imposed by the court!

And we inquire concerning it:

This positive commandment

for which the sent-away goat atones,

what are the circumstances?

If he did not repent,

how can the offering of Yom Kippur benefit him? For

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination,”

and since he himself cannot bring an offering and achieve atonement, how will the communal offering on Yom Kippur atone for him?

And if he repented

before Yom Kippur, then

every day as well

he achieves atonement, without the need for the atonement of Yom Kippur and the sent-away goat.