Shevuot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

And it is written there in the passage concerning the red heifer, regarding one impure through contact with the dead who has not been sprinkled with the water of the ashes of the red heifer: “He has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord;

he shall remain impure, his impurity is still upon him.”

Just as there, concerning the red heifer, the verse is speaking explicitly of

impurity of the Temple, so here,

concerning impurity of the Temple, in the context of the ascending-and-descending offering, the verse is also speaking of

impurity of the Temple.

And its sacred offerings.

And we challenge this:

But then,

now, after we have learned by means of a gzera shava that the impurity mentioned in the passage of the ascending-and-descending offering is impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, the exclusionary expression

“with it,”

from which we derive the exclusion of teruma from the ascending-and-descending offering,

why do I need it? [And surely it is impossible to derive the eating of impure teruma by means of a ma zeh from impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, since it does not entail liability to karet.]

And we answer: We need the expression “with it”

to include

the carcass of a kosher bird,

which renders the person who eats it impure while it is in his throat. If he ate it and entered the Temple, he is liable [and since its impurity is transmitted through eating, and specifically while it is in the throat, it is a novel case and requires an inclusion].

And we object:

You said that “with it” is an exclusion,

not an inclusion. How, then, do we derive from it the inclusion of the impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird?

And we explain:

Because it is an exclusion,

it is superfluous!

This exclusion is superfluous, and therefore it serves to include, in accordance with the principle that every exclusion following an exclusion serves to include. For

it is written

in the passage:

“Or if he touches

any human impurity,” and we must exclude from here and say: Impurity transmitted by

an object—

contact, yes;

impurity

that is not transmitted through contact, no!

That is, one brings an ascending-and-descending offering only when one became impure through an entity that transmits impurity by means of contact, but not when one became impure through the carcass of a kosher bird, which does not transmit impurity through mere contact, but only through eating, specifically while it is in the throat. And since we have this exclusion,

and an exclusion is written with regard to it,

[text missing (Chavruta)]

it constitutes an exclusion following an exclusion, and an exclusion following an exclusion serves only to include!

We learned in the Mishna:

If one was aware initially but not aware ultimately, the goat that is performed inside

and so on.

The Sages taught:

With regard to the inner goat of Yom Kippur, it is stated:

“And he shall make atonement for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel,”

and so on. Apparently,

I might derive in this matter

of “the impurities of the Children of Israel”

that it includes three impurities: the impurity of idolatry, the impurity of forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of bloodshed.

With regard to idolatry it says: “In order to defile My Sanctuary.”

With regard to forbidden sexual relations it says: “You shall observe My charge, so as not to perform any of the abhorrent practices... and you shall not defile yourselves through them.”

With regard to bloodshed it says: “You shall not defile the Land.”

I might think that for all three of these impurities this goat

the inner goat

atones. The verse therefore states: “And he shall make atonement for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel,” and the wording of the verse indicates:

“from the impurities”—

but not all impurities!

For which impurity does the inner goat atone? Derive it through a binyan av:

What [with regard to which impurity]

do we find that the verse distinguished

it

from all other impurities? This means—

the impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings,

for only in its case 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, since we derive from the exclusion in the verse that it does not atone for all impurities, but only for an impurity distinguished from the other impurities, it comes to atone only

for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

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

from its own context

itself

it is established

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

it says

explicitly:

“And he shall make atonement for the Sanctuary from the impurities,”

whose meaning is atonement

from impurities of sacred things!

I might think that this goat atones for every impurity involving sacred things,

even for impurity of which one was aware both initially and ultimately?

The verse therefore states: “And from their rebellious sins

for all their sins”—

sins analogous to rebellious sins: just as rebellious sins

committed intentionally

do not entail liability for an offering, so too, sins that do not entail liability for an offering.

These are sins of which one has no awareness ultimately, and the sinner cannot bring an individual offering because he lacks awareness of his sin. Therefore, the inner goat suspends punishment for him until he becomes aware of his sin, at which point he achieves atonement through the individual offering. This excludes a sinner who is aware of his sin, who is liable to bring an individual offering, and for whom the goat does not suspend punishment.

And from where is it derived that when one was aware initially but not aware ultimately, 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 was aware ultimately but not initially, even though he too cannot achieve atonement through an individual offering because he lacked awareness initially?

The verse states: “For all their sins”—

those liable for sin offerings are included!

The meaning of the verse is that only those who are fit to achieve atonement through an individual sin offering [once they become aware of their sin] are those who achieve atonement in the interim through the inner goat, but not those who can never achieve atonement through an individual offering. Therefore, those who were aware ultimately but not initially, who will never come to bring an individual offering, do not achieve atonement through the inner goat, but through the outer goat.

The master said: “I might derive in this matter that it includes three impurities: the impurity of idolatry, the impurity of forbidden sexual relations, and the impurity of bloodshed!”

And we inquire about this:

What are the circumstances of this idolatry?

What presumption could we have had that the inner goat would atone for it, such that we needed to exclude it from the verse? For

if

one transgressed

intentionally,

he is liable to execution. If unintentionally,

he is liable to an individual offering!

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

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

one who acted intentionally but was not forewarned,

who is not liable to execution. The second,

one who acted unintentionally but was not made aware

of his sin, who does not achieve atonement because he is unaware of his sin; one might have thought that the inner goat suspends punishment for him until he becomes aware of his sin.

so he is not liable to execution. The second is

unintentional transgression when he did not become aware

that he had sinned. He does not attain atonement because he is unaware of his sin, and one might have thought that the inner goat temporarily protects him until he becomes aware of his sin.