Shevuot 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, say:

this: If you do not say that Rabbi concedes that there is karet for the day itself,

Rabbi holds that there is no karet for the daytime.

But this is impossible, for the Torah explicitly states concerning performing labor or eating: “On that very day—and the soul shall be cut off”! And we reject this:

Why not

can you find a case in which one is liable for the karet of the day itself? For

you can find a case in which he ate

on Yom Kippur

a piece of meat, and it choked him, and he died,

and there was not enough time between his eating and his death for Yom Kippur to atone for him.

Alternatively,

for example,

he ate shortly before sunset, so that there was no time for it to atone for him.

But if he ate and some time subsequently passed, Yom Kippur would atone for him even without repentance!

We learned in the Mishna: The scapegoat sent away atones—

for both Israelites and priests and an anointed priest!

And we raised a difficulty:

This itself is difficult. It first teaches

that

both Israelites and priests and an anointed priest. And then it teaches—

What is the difference between Israelites, priests, and an anointed priest?

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it is saying:

Both Israelites and priests and an anointed priest are atoned for by the scapegoat sent away with regard to other transgressions, and there is no difference between them

in this respect.

What, then, is the difference between Israelites, priests, and an anointed priest?—

It is only that the bull

that the High Priest brings

atones for the priests for impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites.

The Israelites, by contrast, are atoned for with regard to impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites by the inner and outer goats.

And whose opinion is

the Mishna?—

It is that of Rabbi Yehuda!

As it was taught:

At the end of the passage concerning the Yom Kippur service it is stated: “And he shall effect atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and for the Tent of Meeting, and for the altar he shall effect atonement. And for the priests and for all the people of the congregation he shall effect atonement.” And we interpret this verse as follows:

“And he shall effect atonement for the Holy Sanctuary”—

this is the innermost place!

It atones for one who became impure in the innermost place and remained in his impurity for the time required for prostration.

“And for the Tent of Meeting”—

this is the Sanctuary!

It atones for one who became impure while in the Sanctuary and remained there in his impurity.

“The altar”—

according to its plain meaning!

It atones for one who burned an offering upon it in a state of impurity and remained in that state while performing the burning.

“He shall effect atonement”—

these are the courtyards!

It atones for one who entered them in a state of impurity.

“The priests”—

according to its plain meaning!

It atones for priests who became impure and entered the Temple.

“The people of the congregation”—

these are the Israelites!

“He shall effect atonement”—

these are the Levites!

And through this latter “he shall effect atonement,”

they are all equated,

the Israelites, the priests, and the Levites,

for a single atonement—

they are atoned for

all

by the scapegoat sent away with regard to other transgressions; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the blood of the goat whose service is performed inside atones

alone, without confession,

for the Israelites with regard to impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites,

so the blood of the bull atones by itself

without confession

for the priests with regard to impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites.

In this Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with Rabbi Yehuda; rather, he disagrees with him in the following matter]:

And just as the confession accompanying the goat sent away to Azazel atones for the Israelites for other transgressions—

And Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in this respect; rather, he disagrees with him in the following:

And just as the confession accompanying the scapegoat sent away atones for the Israelites with regard to other transgressions, so the confession accompanying the bull atones for the priests with regard to other transgressions!

The confession of the High Priest over the bull is thereby available for atoning for the priests’ other transgressions.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rabbi Shimon,

who completely distinguished between the atonement of the Israelites and that of the priests, this is difficult:

surely they are equated

for a single atonement, as we derive from the final “he shall effect atonement”?

And we answer:

What does “they are equated” mean?—

They are subject to atonement

through the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur;

however, each one is atoned for through its own means:

The Israelites are atoned for with regard to other transgressions by the scapegoat sent away, and with regard to impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites by the inner and outer goats. The priests, by contrast, are atoned for through the High Priest’s bull with regard to impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites even without confession, and with regard to other transgressions through confession!

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s

opinion? Where were the priests excluded from the atonement of the scapegoat sent away, so that it was necessary to derive their atonement from the surplus wording concerning the High Priest’s confession?

As it is written: “And he shall take the two goats”—

the scapegoat sent away is juxtaposed to the goat whose service is performed inside: Just as the goat whose service is performed inside does not atone for the priests with regard to impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites,

because

it is written concerning it,

in the passage about the inner goat: “And he shall slaughter the sin-offering goat

that is for the people,” so too the scapegoat sent away does not atone for the priests with regard to other transgressions.

Therefore, we derive from the surplus wording concerning the High Priest’s confession that they are atoned for through the High Priest’s bull together with the confession.

And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: This is why the two goats were juxtaposed,

to teach you

that they should be

the inner goat and the scapegoat sent away

equal in appearance, in height, and in price,

the price at which they were purchased;

that is what it came to teach!

And we raise a difficulty:

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught: “And he shall slaughter the sin-offering goat that is for the people,”

“that is for the people”—and not for the priests,

as the priests are not atoned for through it! And through what are they atoned for?—

Through the bull of

Aaron!

One might have thought that they are not atoned for through Aaron’s bull, for it has already been stated: “And Aaron shall bring forward the sin-offering bull

that is his.” From now on, are they left without atonement!?

“which is his.” From now on, would they have no atonement!?

When it says

at the end of the passage,

“And for the priests

and for all the people of the congregation

he shall effect atonement,”

it follows that

we find that they have atonement.

And if so,

through what are they atoned for? It is preferable that they be atoned for through Aaron’s bull, for

the exclusion expressed by “that is his,” which implies that only he is atoned for and not others,

is relaxed in its general application with regard to his household,

as it is stated in another verse: “And he shall effect atonement for himself and for his household.” Since the exclusion “that is his” is not absolute, the bull’s atonement can also apply to the priests, whereas the exclusion “that is his” refers only to Israelites, who are not atoned for through it.

And let them not be atoned for

the priests

through the goat whose service is performed inside,

concerning which the exclusion “that is for the people” is stated, and it is an exclusion

that is not relaxed in its general application with regard to his household!

And if you wish to say

an objection to this derivation—for the verse says “his household,” meaning his family, and not the entire priestly tribe, as the Gemara will explain below—the Gemara answers:

“The house of Aaron, bless the Lord; the house of Levi, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.”

This proves that all priests are called “the house of Aaron,” and therefore they are included in the atonement of the household of Aaron the priest!

Who is the tanna

of this beraita?

Rabbi Yirmeya said—

it is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. For if it were Rabbi Yehuda, he says that the priests have atonement through the scapegoat sent away.

But the tanna of the beraita makes their atonement dependent solely on the High Priest’s bull, for at the beginning of his statement he said: “From now on, once they have been excluded from the atonement of the High Priest’s bull by the phrase ‘that is his,’ are they left without atonement”!

And whose opinion is

this tanna of the beraita?

Rava said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests have no atonement

at all

through the scapegoat sent away!

Abיי said: You may even say that it is Rabbi Yehuda.

It is

saying as follows:

From now on, they have no atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred rites,

since the High Priest’s bull atones for it, and they have been excluded by the phrase “that is his.”

When it says, “He shall effect atonement for the priests,

and for all the people of the congregation he shall effect atonement,”

we find that they have

the priests

atonement for other transgressions.

For the verse teaches that they are all equated with regard to the atonement of the scapegoat sent away, as they are atoned for with regard to other transgressions.

And just as we find that they have atonement with regard to other transgressions,