Shevuot 14a — the Talmud in English

Thus they have atonement ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

By what do they attain atonement

for it?

It is preferable that they attain atonement through Aaron’s bull, since it was permitted in its general rule with regard to his household, and that they not attain atonement through the goat made inside, since it was not permitted in its general rule.

And now the Gemara explains what the tanna said in the

beraita: “And if you wish to say, behold, it says: ‘The house of Aaron, bless the Lord,’ and so forth:

What is “if you wish to say”?

What objection is there that required the tanna to bring an additional derivation?

This is the objection:

And should you say, “his household” is written

and by this it excludes the other priests. Therefore, the additional verse came and taught that

all of them are called his household, as it is stated: “The house of Aaron, bless the Lord; those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord”!

And we raise an objection:

And this “which is for the people”—is that what it comes for,

to exclude the inner goat, so that the priests should not attain atonement through it?

This is needed for what the Merciful One says: it shall be from the people

[from the property of the people]

it shall be!

So that it should not be said that the High Priest brings the inner goat from his own property, just as the bull of the High Priest comes from his own property; it teaches us that the goat must be brought from the property of the public?

And we answer:

That

which is needed to teach that it is to be brought from the property of the public,

“And from the assembly of the children of Israel

he shall take two goats”

is derived!

And furthermore we raise an objection:

And this “which is his”—is that what it comes for!?

For we say: we should have excluded the priests from the atonement of the bull of the High Priest by means of the exclusion “which is his,” had we not found another verse, “the house of Aaron,” [or because “which is his” was permitted in its general rule with regard to his household].

But

this is needed for that which was taught:

It is stated three times with regard to the bull of the High Priest the exclusion “which is his.” From the first exclusion we learn that the bull of the High Priest

he brings from his own property, and he does not bring it from the property of the public. One might have thought that he should not bring it from the property of the public

because

the public does not attain atonement through it, but he may bring it from the property of his fellow priests, since his fellow priests attain atonement through it; the verse therefore says

a second time,

“which is his.” One might have thought that he should not bring it

from the property of the public or from the property of his fellow priests ab initio.

But if he brought it

from theirs,

is it valid? The verse therefore says again,

the third time,

“which is his”—

the verse repeated it concerning him to make it indispensable!

And if so, it is difficult: how could we have entertained the possibility of deriving from “which is his” that the priests do not attain atonement through the bull of the High Priest? And we answer:

The tanna found this difficult in the following manner: What is different about the

inner goat

of the people, that it does not attain atonement

for the priests

because they do not lack in it

the priests

money,

since the inner goat was not purchased with the money of the priests [see Tosafot!],

as it is written: “which is for the people.”

If so,

with

Aaron’s bull

as well they do not lack money in it,

since we learned from the exclusion “which is his” that he is obligated to bring it only from his own property. Therefore, we would have thought that the priests do not attain atonement through it, just as they do not attain atonement through the inner goat, which did not come from their money.

And he says

the tanna:

all of them are called his household.

And they were included in the atonement of Aaron’s household.

And we object:

Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon,

who says that the priests do not attain atonement through the sent-away goat, but rather through the bull of the High Priest, this is why we require three atonements to be performed through this bull, corresponding to the three atonements stated with regard to Israel, and they are: (a) the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things concerning which there was no knowledge at the end, for which the inner goat suspends judgment for him until it becomes known to him and he brings an individual offering; (b) the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things concerning which there was no knowledge at the beginning, for which he will never attain atonement through an individual offering, and the outer goat atones for him; (c) other transgressions, for which the sent-away goat provides atonement.

And therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, it is understood:

this is what is written

with regard to the bull of the High Priest:

two confessions,

which the High Priest confesses before the slaughter, and in addition, the presentation of the

blood

of the bull,

which too is considered an act of atonement; and together they are the three atonements of the priests corresponding to the three atonements of the Israelites:

One

atonement

corresponding to the goat made inside,

and it suspends judgment for the priests concerning the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things about which they had knowledge at the beginning but not at the end, until it becomes known to them and they bring an individual offering.

And one

atonement

corresponding to the goat made outside,

which atones for those who had knowledge at the end but not at the beginning.

And one

atonement

corresponding to

the atonement for other transgressions

through the sent-away goat.

But according to Rabbi Judah,

it is difficult:

the two confessions

and the presentation of the

blood of the bull—for what do I need them?

But

with one confession and its blood

of the bull

it suffices!

For according to Rabbi Judah, the priests attain atonement for other transgressions through the sent-away goat, like Israel!?

And we answer: these two confessions are necessary:

one for him,

for the atonement of the High Priest alone,

and one for his household.

As the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: this is how the attribute of justice operates—

it is preferable that one who is innocent should come and atone for one who is liable, and that one who is liable should not come and atone for one who is liable!

And therefore, first the High Priest attains atonement through his first confession, and afterward he confesses for himself and for his brothers.

We have completed for you the chapter “Two Oaths.”

A. One who unknowingly eats sacrificial food while impure, and likewise one who unknowingly enters the Temple while impure, is obligated to bring an asham talui offering, “ascending and descending” [“ascending and descending offering”: it is a sin offering in which the wealthy brings an animal, the poor brings turtledoves or young pigeons, and the very poorest, “the poorest of the poor,” brings a meal-offering]. And our Mishna explains in what kind of unawareness a person is obligated to bring an ascending-and-descending offering if he ate sacrificial food while impure, or entered the Temple while impure.

B. A person is not liable for the unawarenesses that will be explained below in our Mishna, unless he had knowledge of them initially, before the transgression, and knowledge at the end, after the transgression. And because the law is so, when the Mishna comes to teach us what the “unawarenesses” for which one is liable are, the Mishna refers in its wording to the knowledge required for the unawareness, and says: “knowledge of impurity.” And in the Gemara it will be explained whether the Mishna’s reference is to the knowledge preceding the unawareness, or to that which follows it.

C. The wording of the verse [Leviticus 5:2] concerning the obligation to bring an ascending-and-descending offering in these situations is: “Or a person who touches anything impure, or the carcass of an impure wild animal, or the carcass of an impure animal, or the carcass of an impure creeping creature, and it was hidden from him, and he is impure and bears guilt. Or when he touches human impurity, according to all its impurity through which he becomes impure, and it was hidden from him, and he knew and bears guilt... And it shall be, when he bears guilt for one of these”; and we must learn from what the verse says, “and it was hidden,” that there must have been knowledge initially, for it implies, “this indicates that he knew”; and from what the verse says, “and he knew,” we learn of knowledge at the end; and from the meaning of the verse, “and it was hidden from him, and he is impure,” we learn that one is liable for unawareness of impurity, while the other unawarenesses are learned from the repetition of the verse’s wording, “and it was hidden and it was hidden.”

Knowledge of impurity —

that if this knowledge was hidden from him at the time when he transgressed and ate sacrificial food while impure, or entered the Temple while impure, he is obligated to bring an ascending-and-descending offering — this is:

Mishna:

Two

that are explicit in the Torah, one concerning eating sacrificial food, and one concerning entering the Temple —

which are four,

through the addition of two more — one concerning sacrificial food and one concerning the Temple — which are learned from the Torah’s amplifications. How?

He became impure, and knew

that he had become impure —

and

again

the impurity was hidden from him, and

but

he remembered

he

the sacrificial food [

he knows that what is before him is sacrificial food ] —

or

the sacrificial food was hidden from him,

for he thought it was ordinary food,

and

but

he remembered

he

the impurity [

he knows that he is impure ] —

or

both this and that were hidden from him [

impurity and sacrificial food ] —

and he ate the sacrificial food, and

still

did not know

that he was eating sacrificial food while impure, but he remained in one of the aforementioned unawarenesses,

and

but

after he ate [

after he had eaten ]

he knew

that he had been impure at the time of eating, and that the meat he ate was sacrificial food —

in all these cases,

he is

liable

for

an offering

ascending and descending.

Thus we have “one that is two” concerning eating sacrificial food while impure, for unawareness of impurity is explicit in the Torah, as it is written, “and it was hidden from him, and he is impure,” which implies that the impurity was hidden from him; whereas unawareness of sacrificial food is not explicit in the Torah, but is learned by exposition, because it is stated, “and it was hidden and it was hidden,” twice.

And the same is also true concerning entering the Temple while impure:

One who

became impure and knew

that he had become impure —

and

again

it was hidden from him

the

impurity, and

but

he remembered

he

the Temple,

that is, he knows that this is the Temple —

or

the Temple was hidden from him, and

but

he remembered

he

the impurity —

or

both this and that were hidden from him [

impurity and the Temple ] —

and

if

he entered the Temple and

still

did not know,

but he remained in one of the aforementioned unawarenesses,

and

but

when he left

the Temple

he knew

what had been hidden from him at the time of the transgression —

he is

liable

for

an offering

ascending and descending.

Thus we have one that is two concerning entering the Temple, for unawareness of impurity is explicit in the Torah, whereas unawareness of the Temple is learned by the exposition of “and it was hidden and it was hidden.”

And the Mishna explains what entering the Temple is for which one is liable if he entered there while impure:

One who enters

while impure

the Temple courtyard

that was sanctified initially,

and one who enters the addition to the Temple courtyard

that they added to it afterward, he is liable to bring an ascending-and-descending offering —

and therefore he is liable even for the addition, because it has sanctity like the sanctity of the Temple courtyard that was sanctified initially —

for

behold,

one does not add to the city

Jerusalem with regard to eating lesser sacrificial offerings and second tithe,

and to the Temple courtyards, except by a king.

That is, by authority of a king,

and

by authority of a

prophet, and

by authority of

the Urim and Thummim,

and by authority of

a Sanhedrin of seventy-one; and with two thanksgiving offerings [

two loaves of a thanksgiving offering ] that they would carry around the addition that they came to add,

and with song,

and the court

walk

around the addition that they came to add,

and the two

the

thanksgiving offerings

walk

after them,

and all Israel

walk

after them —