Shevuot 7b — the Talmud in English

And it is written there

in the section of the red cow, concerning one impure through contact with a corpse who was not sprinkled with the water of the ashes of the red cow: “He has made the Tabernacle of the Lord impure,”

“he shall remain impure; his impurity is still upon him.” What is the case there,

in the red cow, the verse speaks explicitly of

impurity of the Temple; so too here,

with regard to the ascending and descending offering, the verse also speaks of

impurity of the Temple.

And we challenge this:

But then,

now, after we have learned through a gzera shava that the impurity mentioned in the section of the ascending and descending offering is impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, the exclusion of

“in it”

from which we learn to exclude teruma from the ascending and descending offering,

why do I need it? [For one could not learn concerning the eating of impure teruma by means of a mah matzinu from impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, since there is no liability of karet for it.]

And we answer: We need “in it”

to include the carcass of a kosher bird,

which renders the person who eats it impure while it is in the gullet. For if he ate it and entered the Temple, he is liable [and since its impurity is effected through eating, and specifically in the gullet, it is a novel matter, and it was necessary to include it].

And we refute this:

You said, “in it” is an exclusion

, and not an inclusion. And how do we learn from it to include the impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird?

And we explain:

Because it is an exclusion —

it is extra!

This exclusion is superfluous. Therefore it comes to include, in accordance with the principle that every exclusion following an exclusion comes to include. For

it is written

in the section

“or when he touches

“the impurity of a person,” and we have to exclude from here and say: impurity of a

thing —

touching, yes.

Impurity

that is not subject to touching, no!

That is, one brings an ascending and descending offering only when he became impure through a thing that renders impure by means of touching, but not when he became impure through the carcass of a kosher bird, which does not render impure through mere touching, but only through eating, while it is in the gullet, alone. And since we have this exclusion

,

and it is written in it an exclusion

text missing (Chavruta)

it is an exclusion following an exclusion, and there is no exclusion following an exclusion except to include!

We learned in the Mishna:

If there is awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end, the goat made inside

and so on.

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the inner goat of Yom Kippur

“And he shall atone for the sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel”

and so on. And apparently,

I have in this matter

of “the impurities of the Children of Israel”

to bring three impurities: impurity of idolatry, impurity of forbidden sexual relations, and impurity of bloodshed.

Concerning idolatry it says: “In order to defile My sanctuary.”

Concerning forbidden sexual relations it says: “And you shall keep My charge, so as not to perform any of the abominable customs... and you shall not defile yourselves through them.”

Concerning bloodshed it says: “And you shall not defile the land.”

One might have thought that for these three impurities this goat

the inner goat

would atone. The verse says “And he shall atone for the sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel,” and it is implied from the wording of the verse

“from the impurities”

—but not all impurities!

And for which impurity does the inner goat atone? Go and learn through a binyan av:

What [for which impurity]

do we find that the verse distinguished

it

from the category of all impurities? You must say —

impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

for only for it does one bring an ascending and descending offering, and not for other impurities.

So too here,

with regard to the atonement of the inner goat, from which we learn through the exclusion of the verse that it does not atone for all impurities, but for an impurity that is distinguished from the other impurities, it comes to atone only

for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

There is no need to learn through a binyan av. Rather,

from its own place

itself

it is determined

that the atonement of the inner goat is only for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things. For

it indeed says

explicitly

“And he shall atone for the sanctuary from the impurities,”

whose meaning is atonement

from impurities of sacred things!

One might have thought that this goat would atone for every impurity in sacred things

even for impurity in which there is awareness at the beginning and at the end?

The verse says, “and from their rebellious sins

for all their sins”

—

sins analogous to rebellious sins.

Just as rebellious sins

that are committed deliberately

are not subject to an offering, so too sins that are not subject to an offering.

For they have no awareness at the end, and the sinner cannot bring the individual offering because of his lack of awareness of his sin. Therefore the inner goat comes to suspend punishment for him until he becomes aware of his sin, and then he achieves atonement through the individual offering. Excluded is a sinner who has awareness of his sin, who is liable for an individual offering, and for whom the goat does not suspend punishment.

And from where is it established that when there is awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end, this goat suspends punishment

for him until he becomes aware of his sin and brings an individual offering? And that it does not suspend punishment for one who has awareness at the end but no awareness at the beginning, even though he too does not achieve atonement through an individual offering because he had no awareness at the beginning?

The verse says, “for all their sins”

— those liable for sin-offerings are implied!

For the meaning of the verse is to say that only those who are fit to achieve atonement through an individual sin-offering [when they become aware of their sin] are those who, in the meantime, achieve atonement through the inner goat, but not those who will never have atonement through an individual offering. Therefore, those who had awareness at the end but did not have awareness at the beginning, who will never come to an individual offering, do not achieve atonement through the inner goat, but through the outer goat.

The master said: I have in this matter to bring three impurities: impurity of idolatry, impurity of forbidden sexual relations, and impurity of bloodshed!

And we inquire about it:

This idolatry—what are the circumstances?

What could we have thought to say, that one would achieve atonement for it through the inner goat, so that we needed to exclude it from the verse? For,

if

he transgressed

deliberately —

he is subject to execution.

If inadvertently —

he is subject to an individual offering!

But the inner goat comes to atone only for one who has no other atonement!?

The Gemara answers that we find two cases: the first,

deliberately, but they did not warn him,

so that he is not subject to execution. And the second,

inadvertently, and it did not become known to him

that he had sinned. He does not achieve atonement because he is unaware of his sin, and one might have thought that the inner goat would suspend punishment for him until he becomes aware of his sin.