Shevuot 2a — the Talmud in English

The 'oath of utterance' is the oath stated in the Torah in the portion of Leviticus: 'When a person takes an oath, expressing with his lips—to do harm or to do good.'"

One who swears falsely with an oath of utterance intentionally is flogged. And unintentionally, he is liable to a sin-offering [called a variable offering, and because the wealthy person brings a female sheep or female goat, the poor person brings a bird, and the extremely poor person fulfills his obligation with a meal-offering alone].

An oath of utterance is divided into four forms: two forms in which a person swears concerning the future, and two forms in which a person swears concerning the past.

The two oaths concerning the future are: an oath that I will do something, or an oath that I will not do.

Whereas the two oaths concerning the past are: an oath that I did something, or an oath that I did not do.

The two forms of an oath of utterance concerning the future are explicit in the Torah ["to do harm"—that I will not do; "and to do good"—that I will do], whereas the two forms concerning the past are derived from an amplification of the verse. Therefore, the four forms of an oath of utterance are defined as "two that are four," namely, the two oaths concerning the future that are explicit in Scripture, which are four, together with the two oaths concerning the past that are derived from an amplification of the verse but were not stated explicitly.

The first Mishna begins with an explanation of the oath of utterance in its four forms, and afterward the tanna brings several additional matters that also have four forms, two explained in the Torah and two derived through amplification.

Mishna:

a.

Oaths

of utterance, they are

two

that are explicit in the Torah, in the portion of Leviticus, which are the two oaths concerning the future, that I will do or that I will not do,

which are four,

together with two oaths concerning the past, that I did or that I did not do, which are derived from an amplification of the verse but are not explicit in the Torah.

b. A person who sins unintentionally through the transgression of impurity of the Temple and its sacred things—that is, he was impure and ate sacrificial meat, or entered the Temple while he was impure—is liable to bring an offering for his inadvertent act. However, there is a novel feature in the inadvertent act of this sin that is not present in the other sins: he is liable for an offering for his inadvertent act only if knowledge preceded it that would have prevented him from sinning. For example, if at first he knew of his impurity, and afterward this knowledge escaped him, and by reason of the disappearance of the knowledge of the impurity that he had initially possessed, he sinned through the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things. But if he did not know at all of his impurity, and therefore inadvertently transgressed through the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, he is exempt from an offering.

The acts of knowledge of impurity,

whose initial knowledge having escaped him makes an impure person who ate sacred meat, or entered the Temple while he was impure, liable for an individual sin-offering, are

two

that are explained in the Torah: "A person who touches any impure thing... and it was hidden from him, and he knew, and he became guilty." The verse teaches concerning a person who became impure and knew of his impurity, and afterward his knowledge concerning his impurity was forgotten and escaped him, and then he sinned in one of two ways: he ate sacred meat, or he entered the Temple while he was impure; and afterward he again remembered that he was impure [and it became known to him that he had sinned by eating sacred meat or by entering the Temple in impurity]—he is liable for an individual sin-offering [a variable offering].

which are four,

together with two forms of the disappearance of knowledge of impurity that are not written explicitly in the Torah, for example, that his impurity was not forgotten from him at all, but rather he erred in that he forgot that the meat he was eating was sacred meat, or he erred and forgot that the place into which he was entering was the place of the Temple.

c.

The [acts of] carrying on Shabbat [

the labors of carrying from one domain to another on Shabbat], they are

two

that are explained in the Torah: carrying out from a private domain into a public domain when the person carrying out is standing in the private domain, or when he is standing in the public domain. And both are derived from the verse in the portion of Vayakhel: "Moses commanded, and they proclaimed in the camp: Let neither man nor woman do any more work for the contribution of the holy thing, and the people ceased from bringing," and the Sages said [in tractate Shabbat 96b] that the herald was proclaiming: Do not carry out from a private domain into a public domain!

which are four,

for the Sages learned from here concerning one who carries in from a public domain into a private domain, that his law is like that of one who carries out. Carrying in also has two forms: when the person carrying in is standing in the public domain, and when the person carrying in is standing in the private domain.

d.

The appearances of lesions

that render the leper impure and make him liable for an offering when he becomes pure,

are two

that are stated in the Torah: baheret and se'et,

which are four

together with their two derivatives, the derivative of baheret and the derivative of se'et, which are not explicit in the Torah but are derived from the word "sapahat."

From here onward, the tanna explains the law of "acts of knowledge of impurity":

The offerings that come to atone for the sin of impurity of the Temple and its sacred things [that is: entering the Temple in impurity, or eating sacrificial meat in impurity] are divided into an individual offering and communal offerings.

An individual is liable to bring an offering only if all three conditions have been fulfilled: a. knowledge before the sin. b. disappearance at the time of the sin. c. knowledge after the sin.

But if one of these three conditions is lacking, the individual cannot obtain atonement through an individual offering; rather, he obtains atonement through the communal offerings that come to atone for those who sin through the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

The communal offerings are the sin-offering goats brought on Rosh Hodesh, on the three Pilgrimage Festivals, on Rosh Hashanah, and on Yom Kippur.

At first the Mishna explains the manner in which the individual obtains atonement through an individual offering, and afterward the Mishna brings a dispute among the tannaim as to how the communal offerings atone. If it has, the three conditions: a.

knowledge at the beginning,

before he sinned, that he was impure. b.

and knowledge at the end,

that after he sinned he remembered that he had eaten sacred meat or entered the Temple in impurity. c.

and disappearance in between,

that between the initial knowledge and the final remembering, there was a period during which his impurity escaped him, and because of that disappearance of knowledge he sinned through the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

then he

is liable and obtains atonement through an individual sin-offering,

a variable offering.

But if one of the three conditions is lacking, then he obtains atonement through the communal offerings that come to atone for one who did not have knowledge at the beginning, and for one who did not have knowledge at the end [who does not bring an individual offering because he does not now remember the sin], and for one who did not have knowledge at all, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

Likewise, the communal sin-offering goats atone also for a pure person who ate impure sacred meat [because the impurity of the meat escaped him], who is not liable for an individual offering, but requires atonement through the communal offerings.

However, the tannaim disputed for which form of deficient knowledge each of the goats atones.

At first the Mishna explains the view of Rabbi Yehuda:

a. If

there is in it

in the impurity

knowledge at the beginning,

that before he sinned he knew that he was impure, and afterward the knowledge of the impurity was forgotten and escaped him, and he ate sacred meat or entered the Temple,

and there is no knowledge at the end,

that he did not remember his impurity, and therefore it did not become known to him that he had sinned, and he requires atonement that will protect him from punishment—the blood of the

goat

of Yom Kippur

that is performed inside [

for the High Priest sprinkles it in the innermost place, in the Holy of Holies, and in the Sanctuary opposite the curtain],

and

together with the atonement of the very essence of

Yom Kippur, it suspends

for him, to protect him from suffering,

until it becomes known to him

of his sin,

and he brings

an individual sin-offering

with the variable offering.

b. But if

there is not in it,

in the impurity,

knowledge at the beginning,

that he did not know at all that he had become impure before the sin, in which case he is neither liable nor atoned for through an individual offering [for one of the three conditions for liability for an individual offering is lacking—knowledge at the beginning]!

But there is in it knowledge at the end,

that after he ate the sacred meat or entered the Temple, it became known to him that he had been impure at that time—the blood of the

goat

of Yom Kippur

that is performed outside [

and this is the goat brought as the additional offering of Yom Kippur], whose blood is applied upon the outer altar,

and

together with the atonement of the very essence of

Yom Kippur, atones

for him completely, for a sin in this manner will never have atonement through an individual offering.

And from where do we know that the outer goat comes to atone for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, seeing that this atonement was stated only concerning the inner goat?—Because

it is stated

concerning the outer goat [Numbers 29]: "And one goat as a sin-offering,

besides the sin-offering of Yom Kippur."

The verse compared the outer goat to the inner one, to teach you:

For what this one atones, that one atones!

And from this comparison one can also learn:

Just as

the inner goat

atones only for a matter in which there is,

at least,

knowledge

one [at the beginning].

So too

the outer goat

atones only for a matter in which there is,

at least,

knowledge

one, [but this knowledge must be

at the end]!

c. But

for

impurity

in which there is no knowledge, neither at the beginning nor at the end,

that he was never informed of his impurity, neither before the sin nor afterward, he is not atoned for by the goats of Yom Kippur; rather,

the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone

for him—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone,

only they alone atone for an impure person who ate sacred meat or entered the Temple.

But not the goats of the New Moons

which do not come for this atonement.

And for what do the goats of the New Moons atone