Shevuot 8b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

It is necessary [to say this], that he became aware

that he had sinned

close to sunset

before Yom Kippur, and he had no possibility of offering his individual offering before the entry of Yom Kippur. Therefore,

it might enter your mind: while he brings it,

until he brings the individual offering after Yom Kippur

let us suspend for him

the inner goat, so that it should protect him meanwhile from the sufferings. Therefore,

it teaches us

that the inner goat does not come on behalf of one who is liable for an individual offering, and therefore it cannot protect him.

The Master said: From where [do we know] concerning one in whom there is awareness at the beginning but there is no awareness at the end, that this goat suspends [his punishment]?

And we inquire about it:

“From where”!? —

What difficulty is troubling him,

The tanna, a sage of the Mishnaic period, had already prefaced his statement by saying that this goat comes for impurity for which one does not bring an individual offering, in order to suspend the judgment and protect the person from suffering. He learned this from the verse “for all their sins,” meaning sins similar to rebellious acts.

And we explain:

This is his difficulty: Now that you have said, “sins analogous to rebellions,” just as rebellions are not subject to an offering, so too sins are not subject to an offering; say

also, according to this derivation:

just as rebellions are never subject to an offering, so too sins that are never subject to an offering—and what are they?

There is no awareness at the beginning and there is awareness at the end,

for since he lacks the initial awareness, he will never become liable for an offering.

But

if

there is awareness at the beginning and there is no awareness at the end, since when he becomes aware of it he is subject to an offering, say that the inner goat should not suspend

[the punishment] for him?

And if you would say

that it is impossible to raise this objection, because for impurity

in which there is no awareness at the beginning and there is awareness at the end, the external goat and Yom Kippur atone,

and consequently it is not possible to object that the inner goat should atone for him, nevertheless it is possible to raise the objection, for

it might enter your mind to reverse it entirely,

and say that the inner goat is the one that atones for one in whom there is no awareness at the beginning and there is awareness at the end, because he will never come to an offering, whereas the external goat is the one that suspends and protects from the sufferings one who has awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end, who is destined to attain atonement through an individual offering when he becomes aware that he sinned! Therefore we inquire: From where [do we know] that the inner goat is the one that suspends for one in whom there is no awareness at the end?!

The Master said [A0036][in answer to the question of from where we know that the inner goat is the one that suspends and protects one who has awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end]:

in answer to the question of where it is derived that the inner goat is the one that suspends the judgment and protects one who had awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end]:

The verse says

concerning the inner goat:

“for all their sins,”

and since it did not write, “from their rebellions and their sins,”

by implication, they are subject to sin-offerings.

And we inquire about it: Why do we say that the inner goat merely suspends and protects from the sufferings until he becomes aware of his sin and brings an individual offering? Why should we not say—

and he will attain complete atonement!?

And we explain:

If it had been written

“And he shall atone for the Sanctuary

from their sin,”

the law would have been

as you said,

that it atones with complete atonement.

But now, since it is written, “for all their sins,”

its meaning is that they are still within the category of sinners, and the verse comes to say that

for those who come within the category of a sin-offering,

when they become aware of it, the goat suspends, but not that they should attain atonement through the goat and be exempt from bringing their individual offering.

And we still inquire about it:

And since it does not atone

the inner goat, because the sinner is still called one subject to a sin-offering,

why

for what purpose

does it suspend?

Rabbi Zeira said: To say that if he dies

before becoming aware of it—

he dies without sin!

Rava said to him

to Rabbi Zeira:

If he dies,

it was not the inner goat that atoned for him, but

death purifies

all his sins!

Rather, Rava said:

the inner goat suspends—

to protect him from the sufferings!

We learned in the Mishna:

There is no awareness at the beginning and there is awareness at the end—

the external goat and Yom Kippur atone.

And we inquire about it:

Now,

for

indeed, it was juxtaposed

the inner goat and the external goat

to one another [A0083][as it is stated: “And one goat as a sin-offering—in addition to the sin-offering of Yom Kippur”], and if so,

as it is stated: “And one goat as a sin-offering, in addition to the sin-offering of Yom Kippur”], if so,

let the inner goat atone

also

for its own case,

to suspend for one in whom there is awareness at the beginning and no awareness at the end,

and

also

for the external one,

to atone for one in whom there is no awareness at the beginning and there is awareness at the end.

And there is a practical difference

in this atonement, even though in any event he attains atonement through the external goat,

in a case where the external goat was not performed

[for example, when they did not have enough goats]?

And we explain:

The verse says

in the section of Tetzaveh, in the mitzva of making the golden altar: “And Aaron shall atone on its horns

once

a year. From the blood of the sin-offering of atonements, once a year, he shall atone for it.” And we expound the juxtaposition of “once” to “he shall atone” to learn:

one atonement

only

does

the blood of the bull and the inner goat

atone, and it does not atone two atonements!

Therefore, even though the inner goat was juxtaposed to the external one, it does not atone with the atonement of the external one!

And we inquire further about it:

And let

the goat

the external one,

which was juxtaposed to the inner goat also

for its own case, and

also

why the inner one was performed?

And there is

a practical difference

for the external goat’s atonement for everything, even though the inner goat has already been offered and atoned for its atonement,

for impurity that occurred between this one and that one,

for if he became impure after the inner goat was offered and entered the Sanctuary, the external goat should atone for him also with the atonement of the inner goat.

And we answer:

The verse says

at the end:

“Once a year

—he shall atone.” The verse juxtaposed the atonement of the inner goat to “once a year,” to tell you that

this atonement

which the inner goat atones,