Shevuot 13b — the Talmud in English

Rather, say:

thus: if you do not say that Rabbi concedes with regard to the excision of the day,

Rabbi does not hold of excision for the daytime.

And this is not possible, for the Torah explicitly said concerning performing labor or eating, “On the very day of this day—and it shall be cut off”! And we reject this:

Why can you not say

that he is liable for the excision of the day? For

you find it in a case where 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 close to sunset, so that there was not enough time for it to atone for him.

But if he ate and remained alive afterward, Yom Kippur atones for him even without repentance!

We learned in the Mishna: The scapegoat atones—

both for Israelites, both for priests, and for an anointed priest!

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

This itself is difficult. It teaches

at first:

both for Israelites, both for priests, and for an anointed priest. And afterward it teaches:

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

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it says:

both Israelites, both priests, and an anointed priest receive atonement through the scapegoat for other transgressions, and there is no distinction between them

in this regard.

And what is the difference between Israelites and priests and an anointed priest? —

It is only that the bull

which the High Priest brings

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

Whereas the Israelites receive atonement for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things through the inner and the outer goat.

And whose

Mishna

is it? It is Rabbi Yehuda’s!

For it was taught:

At the end of the section concerning the service of Yom Kippur it is said: “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary of the Holy; and for the Tent of Meeting; and for the altar he shall atone. And for the priests, and for all the people of the assembly, he shall atone.” And we interpret this verse as follows:

“And he shall atone for the Sanctuary of the Holy” —

this is the innermost place!

For one who became impure in the innermost place and remained in his impurity for the time needed for prostration.

“And for the Tent of Meeting” —

this is the Sanctuary!

For one who became impure while he was in the Sanctuary and remained there in his impurity.

“Altar” —

according to its plain meaning!

For one who burned an offering upon it in impurity and remained in his impurity during his burning.

“He shall atone” —

these are the courtyards!

For one who entered them in impurity.

“The priests” —

according to its plain meaning!

For priests who became impure and entered the Temple.

“The people of the assembly” —

these are the Israelites!

“He shall atone” —

these are the Levites!

And through this final “he shall atone,”

they were all equated,

the Israelites, the priests, and the Levites

for one atonement —

that they receive atonement

all

through the scapegoat, for other transgressions; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

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

by itself, without confession,

for the Israelites for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things —

so the blood of the bull atones by itself

without confession

for the priests for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

And in this Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with Rabbi Yehuda; rather, it is in this that he disagrees with him:

And just as the confession of the scapegoat 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:

so the confession of the bull atones for the priests for other transgressions!

For the confession of the High Priest over the bull is available for the atonement of the priests’ other transgressions.

And we challenge this:

But according to Rabbi Shimon,

who entirely divided the atonement of the Israelites and the priests, this is difficult:

surely they were equated

all for one atonement, as we derive from the final “he shall atone”?

And we answer:

In what respect were they equated? —

That they are subject to atonement

through the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur,

but each one receives atonement through its own means:

the Israelites receive atonement for other transgressions through the scapegoat, and for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things through the inner goat and the outer goat, whereas the priests receive atonement through the bull of the High Priest for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things even without the confession, and for other transgressions through the confession!

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

Where were the priests excluded from the atonement of the scapegoat, so that it was necessary to derive their atonement from the superfluity of the High Priest’s confession?

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

the scapegoat was likened to the goat that is performed inside: just as the goat that is performed inside does not atone for the priests for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

because

it is written concerning it

in the inner goat, “And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering

that is for the people”; so too, the scapegoat does not atone for the priests for other transgressions.

Therefore we derive from the superfluity of the High Priest’s confession that they receive atonement through the bull of the High Priest together with the confession.

And Rabbi Yehuda could say to you: It is for this that

the two goats were likened, to teach you

that

the two goats, the inner and the scapegoat,

should be equal in appearance, in height, and in price,

in the price of their purchase,

that is what it comes to teach!

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

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

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

for the priests do not receive atonement through it! And through what do they receive atonement —

through the bull of

Aaron!

One might have thought that they do not receive atonement through the bull of Aaron, for it has already been said

“And Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin offering

that is his.” From now on, do they have no atonement!?

When it says

at the end of the section,

“And for the priests

and for all the people of the assembly he shall atone,”

“he shall atone,”

therefore

we find atonement for them.

And if so,

through what do they receive atonement? It is preferable that they receive atonement through the bull of Aaron, for

the exclusion stated in it, “that is his,” which implies that only he receives atonement and not others,

was permitted from its general limitation with regard to his household,

as it is stated in another verse, “And he shall atone for himself and for his household.” And since the exclusion “that is his” is not absolute, the bull’s atonement can also be for the priests, whereas the exclusion “that is his” refers only to the Israelites, who do not receive atonement through it.

And let them not receive atonement

the priests

through the goat that is performed inside,

in which the exclusion “that is for the people” is stated, and this is an exclusion

that was not permitted from its general limitation with regard to his household!

And if you wish to say

an objection to this derivation—for it is written in the verse “his household,” meaning his family and not the entire priestly tribe, as the Gemara explains below—the Gemara answers:

It says: “The house of Aaron, bless the Lord; the house of Levi, bless the Lord; those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.”

And it is demonstrated from here that all the 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 author

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.

Whereas the author of the beraita makes their atonement dependent solely upon the bull of the High Priest, for he said at the beginning of his words: From now on, since they were excluded from the atonement of the bull of the High Priest by “that is his,” they have no atonement!

And whose

is this author of the beraita?

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

at all

through the scapegoat!

Abaye said: You may even say that it is Rabbi Yehuda

who is its author.

This is what it says —

from now on they have no atonement for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

for the bull of the High Priest atones for it, and they were excluded by “that is his.”

When it says, “He shall atone for the priests,

and for all the people of the assembly he shall atone,”

we find that they have

the priests

atonement for other transgressions.

For Scripture taught that they were all equated with regard to the atonement of the scapegoat, for they receive atonement for other transgressions.

And just as we find that they have atonement for other transgressions,