Shevuot 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

Thus they attain atonement

for ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.

For what do they attain atonement

through it?

It is preferable that they attain atonement through Aaron’s bull, since an exception was made for his household, and they should not attain atonement through the goat performed inside, since no exception was made for it.

And now the Gemara explains what the tanna said in the beraita,

“And if you wish to say otherwise, it says: ‘O house of Aaron, bless the Lord,’ and so on:

What is meant by “If you wish to say otherwise”?

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

This is the difficulty:

And lest you say, “His household” is written

and this thereby excludes the other kohanim. Therefore, the additional verse comes and teaches that

they are all called his household, as it is stated: “O house of Aaron, bless the Lord; you who fear the Lord, bless the Lord!”

And we raise an objection:

And this phrase, “which is for the people,” does it come for this purpose—

to exclude the goat performed inside, so that the kohanim should not attain atonement through it?

It is needed for what the Merciful One says: It must be from the people

[from the community]

it shall be!

This is lest one say that the High Priest brings the goat performed inside from his own property, just as the High Priest’s bull comes from his own property; it therefore teaches us that the goat must be brought from the community’s funds!?

And we answer:

That

which is needed to teach that it must be brought from the community’s funds,

“And from the assembly of the Children of Israel

he shall take two goats”

is derived!

And we further raise an objection:

And this phrase, “which is his,” does it come for this purpose!?

For we said that we should have excluded the kohanim from attaining atonement through the High Priest’s bull by means of the exclusionary phrase “which is his,” had we not found another verse, “the house of Aaron” [or because an exception was made for “which is his” in the case of his household].

But

this phrase is needed for that which was taught:

The phrase “which is his” appears three times concerning the High Priest’s bull. From the first occurrence we derive that the High Priest’s bull—

he brings it from his own property, and he does not bring it from the community’s property. One might have thought that he may not bring it from the community’s property

because

the community does not attain atonement through it, but he may bring it from the property of his fellow kohanim, since his fellow kohanim attain atonement through it. Therefore, the verse states

a second time,

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

from the community’s property or from the property of his fellow kohanim as an initial preference,

but if he brought it

from their property,

it is valid? The verse therefore states again,

the third time,

“which is his”—

the verse repeated it to render the requirement indispensable!

If so, it is difficult: How could we have entertained the possibility of deriving from “which is his” that the kohanim do not attain atonement through the High Priest’s bull? And we answer:

The tanna found this difficult: What is the difference between the

goat performed inside,

which is from the people, that it does not atone

for the kohanim

because they do not contribute

money toward it,

financially,

since the goat performed inside was not purchased with the kohanim’s money [see Tosafot]!

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

If so,

with

Aaron’s

bull as well, they do not contribute money toward it,

since we learned from the exclusionary phrase “which is his” that he is required to bring it solely from his own property. Therefore, we might have thought that the kohanim do not attain atonement through it, just as they do not attain atonement through the goat performed inside, which was not brought from their money.

And he says

the tanna,

“They are all called his household.”

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

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon,

who says that the kohanim do not attain atonement through the goat sent away, but through the High Priest’s bull, it is understandable that we require three acts of atonement to be performed through this bull, corresponding to the three acts of atonement stated with regard to the Israelites: 1. Ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings in a case where there was no awareness at the end; the goat performed inside suspends judgment for him until he becomes aware of it and brings an individual offering. 2. Ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings in a case where there was no awareness at the beginning; he can never attain atonement for it through an individual offering, and the goat performed outside atones for him. 3. Other transgressions, for which atonement is attained through the goat sent away.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, it is understandable that

it is written

concerning the High Priest’s bull

two confessions,

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

the blood

of the bull,

which is also considered an act of atonement; together they constitute three acts of atonement for the kohanim, corresponding to the three acts of atonement for the Israelites:

One

act of atonement

corresponding to the goat performed inside,

which suspends judgment for the kohanim concerning ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings in a case where they had awareness at the beginning but not at the end, until they become aware of it and bring an individual offering.

And one

act of atonement

corresponding to the goat performed outside,

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

And one

act of atonement

corresponding to

atonement for other transgressions

through the goat sent away.

But according to Rabbi Judah,

it is difficult:

Why are two confessions

and the presentation of

the blood of the bull needed?

After all,

with one confession and its blood

of the bull

it would suffice!

For according to Rabbi Judah, the kohanim attain atonement for other transgressions through the goat sent away, just as the Israelites do!?

And we answer: These two confessions are both necessary:

one for him,

for the atonement of the High Priest alone,

and one for his household.

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: This is how the attribute of justice operates—

it is preferable that an innocent person come and atone for a guilty person, rather than that a guilty person come and atone for the guilty person!

Therefore, first the High Priest attains atonement through his first confession, and afterward he confesses for himself and for his fellow kohanim.

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

A. One who inadvertently eats sacrificial food while impure, and likewise one who inadvertently enters the Temple while impure, is obligated to bring an oleh ve-yored sin-offering, “ascending and descending” [“an oleh ve-yored offering” is a sin-offering in which a wealthy person brings an animal, a poor person brings turtledoves or doves, and the very poorest, “the poorest of the poor,” brings a meal-offering]. Our Mishna explains with regard to which lack of awareness a person is obligated to bring an oleh ve-yored offering if he ate sacrificial food while impure or entered the Temple while impure.

B. A person is not liable for the lapses of awareness that will be explained below in our Mishna unless he had awareness of the matter initially, before the transgression, and awareness at the end, after the transgression. Since this is the law, when the Mishna comes to teach us which “lapses of awareness” entail liability, it refers in its wording to the awareness required for the lapse, and says: “awarenesses of ritual impurity.” The Gemara will explain whether the Mishna’s reference is to the awareness preceding the lapse or to the awareness that follows it.

C. The wording of the verse [Leviticus 5:2] concerning the obligation to bring an oleh ve-yored offering in these cases is: “Or when a person touches any impure thing, whether the carcass of an impure beast, 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 his iniquity. Or when he touches human impurity, with any of his impurities by which he becomes impure, and it was hidden from him, and he knew and bears his iniquity... And it shall be, when he bears his iniquity for one of these things.” We learn from the verse’s statement “and it was hidden” that there must have been initial awareness, as this implies: “This indicates that he knew”; and from the verse’s statement “and he knew,” we learn about awareness 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 lack of awareness of impurity, while the other lapses of awareness are learned from the repetition in the verse, “and it was hidden... and it was hidden.”

Awarenesses of ritual impurity –

if this awareness was hidden from him at the time he transgressed and ate sacrificial food while impure, or entered the Temple while impure, he is obligated to bring an oleh ve-yored offering – these are:

Mishna:

Two

that are explicitly stated 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 derived from the amplifications of the verses. How so?

He became impure, and knew

that he had become impure –

and

again

the impurity was hidden from him, and

but

he remembered

that he

the sacrificial food [he knows that what is before him is sacrificial food] –

or

the sacrificial food was hidden from him,

as he thought it was non-sacred food,

and

but

he remembered

that 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; rather, he remained in one of the aforementioned states of lack of awareness,

and

but

after he ate

after he had eaten

he knew

that he had been impure at the time of eating and that the flesh he had eaten was sacrificial food –

in all these cases,

he is

liable

to a

sin-

offering of ascending and descending.

Thus we have “one that is two” with regard to eating sacrificial food while impure, because lack of awareness of impurity is explicit in the Torah, as it is written: “and it was hidden from him, and he is impure,” which indicates that the impurity was hidden from him; whereas lack of awareness of sacrificial food is not explicit in the Torah but is learned through exegesis, because it says “and it was hidden” twice.

The same applies with regard to 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

that he

the Temple,

meaning: he knows that this is the Temple –

or

the Temple was hidden from him, and

but

he remembered

that he

the impurity –

or

both this and that were hidden from him [the impurity and the Temple] –

and

if

he entered the Temple and

still

did not know,

but remained in one of the aforementioned states of lack of awareness,

and

but

when he emerged

from the Temple

he knew

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

he is

liable

to a

sin-

offering of ascending and descending.

Thus we have one that is two with regard to entering the Temple, because lack of awareness of impurity is explicit in the Torah, whereas lack of awareness of the Temple is learned through the exegesis of “and it was hidden... and it was hidden.”

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

One who enters

while impure

the Temple courtyard

which was sanctified initially,

and one who enters the addition to the Temple courtyard

which was added to it afterward, is liable to bring an oleh ve-yored offering –

and therefore he is liable even for the addition, because it possesses the same sanctity as the courtyard that was sanctified initially –

for

indeed

one may not add to the city

of Jerusalem with regard to eating lesser sanctified offerings and second tithe,

or to the 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]

which they carried around the addition they came to add,

and with song,

and the court

walked

around the addition they came to add,

and the two

thanksgiving offerings

walked

behind them,

and all Israel

walked

behind them –