Shevuot 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

The “oath of utterance” is the oath stated in the Torah in the passage of Leviticus: “If a person takes an oath, expressing it with his lips—to do harm or to do good.”"

One who knowingly swears falsely with an oath of utterance is liable to lashes. If he swears falsely unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering [called an “ascending and descending offering,” because a wealthy person brings a female sheep or female goat, a poor person brings a bird, and the destitute 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 something.

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

The two forms of an oath of utterance concerning the future are stated explicitly in the Torah [“to do harm”—that I will not do something; “or to do good”—that I will do something], whereas the two forms concerning the past are derived from an expansion 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 when combined with the two oaths concerning the past, which are derived from the expansion of the verse but are not stated explicitly.

The first Mishna begins by explaining an oath of utterance in its four forms, and subsequently the tanna presents several additional matters that likewise have four forms—two stated in the Torah and two derived through an expansion.

Mishna:

a.

Oaths

of utterance are

two

that are stated explicitly in the Torah, in the passage of Leviticus—that is, the two oaths concerning the future, that I will do something or that I will not do something—

which are four,

when combined with the two oaths concerning the past, that I did something or that I did not do something, which are derived from an expansion of the verse but are not stated explicitly in the Torah.

b. A person who sins unwittingly through the transgression of impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings—that is, he was impure and ate sacrificial meat, or entered the Temple while impure—is obligated to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression. However, there is a novel feature in the unwitting commission of this transgression that does not apply to other transgressions: he is not liable to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression unless he previously had knowledge that would have prevented him from sinning. For example, if at first he knew that he was impure, and afterward this knowledge disappeared from him, and as a result of forgetting the impurity of which he had initially been aware he sinned through impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings. But if he had no knowledge at all of his impurity, and therefore unwittingly violated the prohibition of impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, he is exempt from an offering.

Knowledge of impurity,

the forgetting of which, after it had initially been known, renders an impure person who ate sacred meat or entered the Temple while impure liable to a single-person sin-offering, are

two

that are stated in the Torah: “If a person touches anything impure ... and it was hidden from him, and he knew, and he incurred guilt.” The verse teaches about a person who became impure and knew of his impurity, and afterward his knowledge of his impurity was forgotten and disappeared from him; he then sinned in one of two ways: he ate sacred meat or entered the Temple while impure; and afterward he again remembered that he was impure [and learned that he had sinned by eating sacred meat or by entering the Temple while impure]. He is liable to a single-person sin-offering [an ascending and descending offering].

Which are four,

when combined with the two forms of forgetting knowledge of impurity that are not written explicitly in the Torah—for example, he did not forget his impurity at all, but erred in that he forgot that the meat he was eating was sacred meat, or erred and forgot that the place into which he was entering was the Temple.

c.

The acts of carrying on Shabbat [

the prohibited labors of transferring from one domain to another on Shabbat] are

two

that are stated 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. Both are derived from the verse in the passage of Vayakhel: “Moses commanded, and they circulated a proclamation throughout the camp: Let no man or woman do any more work for the contribution of the Sanctuary, and the people stopped bringing. ” The Sages said [in tractate Shabbat 96b] that the proclamation announced: Do not carry out from a private domain into a public domain!

Which are four,

for the Sages learned from this that one who carries in from a public domain into a private domain has the same status as 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 a person with leprosy impure and obligate him to bring an offering when he becomes pure

are two

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

which are four

when combined with their two derivative forms—the derivative of baheret and the derivative of se'et—which are not stated explicitly in the Torah but are derived from the word “sapahat.”

From this point onward, the tanna explains the law of “knowledge of impurity”:

The offerings brought to atone for the sin of impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings [that is, entering the Temple while impure or eating sacrificial meat while impure] 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. forgetting at the time of the sin; c. knowledge after the sin.

However, if one of these three conditions is lacking, the individual cannot achieve atonement through an individual offering; rather, he achieves atonement through the communal offerings brought to atone for those who sin through impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings.

The communal offerings are the sin-offering goats brought on Rosh Chodesh, on the three pilgrimage Festivals, on Rosh HaShana, and on Yom Kippur.

At first the Mishna explains the manner in which an individual achieves atonement through an individual offering, and afterward the Mishna presents a dispute among tannaim concerning how the communal offerings achieve atonement. If it contains all three conditions: a.

knowledge at the beginning,

before he sinned, that he was impure; b.

and knowledge at the end,

that after he sinned by eating sacred meat or entering the Temple while impure, he remembered; c.

and forgetting in the interim,

that between the initial knowledge and the final recollection there was a period during which he forgot his impurity, and because of that forgotten knowledge he sinned through impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings,

this person

is liable and achieves atonement through a single-person sin-offering,

an ascending and descending offering.

However, if one of the three conditions is lacking, he achieves atonement through the communal offerings brought to atone for one who had no knowledge at the beginning, for one who had no knowledge at the end [who does not bring an individual offering because he does not now remember the sin], and for one who had no knowledge at all, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

Likewise, the communal sin-offering goats atone for a pure person who ate impure sacred meat [because he forgot the impurity of the meat], who is not liable to an individual offering but requires the atonement provided by the communal offerings.

However, the tannaim disagree as to which form of deficient knowledge each of the goats atones for.

The Mishna first explains the view of Rabbi Yehuda:

a. If

there is

with regard to the impurity

knowledge at the beginning,

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

but there is no knowledge at the end,

so that he did not remember his impurity and therefore did not learn that he had sinned, and he requires atonement to protect him from punishment—the blood of the

goat

of Yom Kippur

that is performed inside [

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

and

together with the atonement effected by the very essence of

Yom Kippur, suspends

the punishment for him, protecting him from suffering,

until it becomes known to him

that he sinned,

and he brings

a single-person sin-offering

an ascending and descending offering.

b. But if

there is no

with regard to the impurity

knowledge at the beginning,

so that he had no knowledge at all that he had become impure before the sin, in which case he is neither liable nor atoned for through an individual offering [since one of the three conditions for liability to an individual offering is lacking—knowledge at the beginning]!

But there is knowledge at the end,

so 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 [

which is the goat brought as the additional offering of Yom Kippur], whose blood is placed on the outer altar,

and

together with the atonement effected by the very essence of

Yom Kippur, atones

for him completely, since for a sin committed in this manner he can never achieve atonement through an individual offering.

And from where do we know that the external goat comes to atone for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, when this atonement was stated only with regard to the internal goat? Because

it is stated

with regard to the external goat [Numbers 29]: “And one goat as a sin-offering,

in addition to the sin-offering of Yom Kippur.”

The verse juxtaposed the external goat with the internal goat, teaching you

that for whatever this one atones, that one atones!

And from this juxtaposition it is also possible to learn:

Just as

the internal

goat atones only for a matter concerning which there is

at least

knowledge

[at the beginning],

so

the external

goat atones only for a matter concerning which there is

at least

knowledge

of one kind [except that this knowledge must be

at the end]!

c. But

for

impurity

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

so 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 atone for an impure person who ate sacred meat or entered the Temple.

But not the goats of the New Moons,

which are not brought for this atonement.

And for what do the goats of the New Moons atone