Shevuot 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to say that he became aware

that he had sinned

immediately before sunset

on the eve of Yom Kippur, and he had no opportunity to offer his individual offering before the onset of Yom Kippur. Therefore,

it might enter your mind to say: while he brings

until he brings his individual offering after Yom Kippur

we should suspend for him

the inner goat, so that it will protect him in the meantime from afflictions. Therefore,

it teaches us

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

The Master said: From where is it derived that, in a case where there was awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end, this goat suspends?

And we inquire:

“From where”!? —

What difficulty does this present to him,

for the tanna preceded this by saying that this goat comes for ritual impurity for which one does not bring an individual offering, in order to suspend judgment for him and protect him from afflictions, and he derived this from the verse “for all their sins of rebellion,” sins analogous to acts of rebellion?!

And we answer:

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

also, according to this derivation:

Just as acts of rebellion are never subject to an offering, so too, sins that are never subject to an offering—what are they? —

A case where there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end,

because since he lacked awareness at the beginning, he will never become liable to bring an offering.

But

if

there was awareness at the beginning but 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 judgment for him

?

And if you would say

that this cannot be challenged in this manner, because for ritual impurity

for which there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end, the external goat and Yom Kippur effect atonement,

and consequently it is not possible to ask that the inner goat should effect atonement for him, one can nevertheless challenge it, as

it might enter your mind to completely reverse the matter:

we could say that the inner goat is the one that effects atonement for a case where there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end, because he will never come to be liable to bring an offering, whereas the external goat is the one that suspends judgment and protects from afflictions one who had awareness at the beginning but no awareness at the end, who will eventually achieve atonement through an individual offering once he becomes aware that he sinned! Therefore, our difficulty is: From where do we know that the inner goat is the one that suspends judgment for a case where there was no awareness at the end?!

The Master said [

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

The verse says

with regard to the inner goat:

“for all their sins,”

and since it does not say, “for their acts of rebellion and their sins,”

by inference, they are subject to sin offerings.

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

And let him achieve complete atonement!?

And we answer:

If it were written

“And he shall effect atonement for the Sanctuary

from their sins,”

the law would be

as you said,

that it effects complete atonement.

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

the meaning is that they are still considered sinners, and the verse comes to say that

for those who will come to be subject to a sin offering

when they become aware of their sin, the goat suspends judgment; it does not effect atonement for them through the goat and exempt them from bringing their individual offering.

And we still inquire:

But since it does not effect atonement

for the inner goat, because the sinner is still considered liable to bring a sin offering,

why

for what purpose

does it suspend judgment?

Rabbi Zeira said: To teach that if he dies

before becoming aware of his sin,

he dies without iniquity!

Rava said to him

to Rabbi Zeira:

If he dies,

it is not that the inner goat effected atonement for him; rather,

death cleanses

all his iniquities!

Rather, Rava said:

the inner goat suspends judgment

to protect him from afflictions!

We learned in the Mishna:

There was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end —

the external goat and Yom Kippur effect atonement.

And we inquire:

Now,

for

the inner goat and the external goat were juxtaposed

to one another

with regard to each other [

as it is stated: “And one goat as a sin offering—in addition to the sin offering of the atonement”], and if so,

let the inner goat effect atonement

also

for itself,

to suspend judgment for a case where there was awareness at the beginning but none at the end,

and

also

for the external goat,

to effect atonement for a case where there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end.

And there is a practical difference

with regard to this atonement, despite the fact that in any event he achieves atonement through the external goat:

in a case where the external goat was not performed [

for example, when they did not have enough goats for all the required offerings]?

And we answer:

The verse says

in the passage of Tetzaveh, concerning the mitzva of making the golden altar: “And Aaron shall effect atonement on its horns

once

a year. With the blood of the sin offering of the atonement, once a year, he shall effect atonement for it.” And we expound the juxtaposition of “once” to “he shall effect atonement” to teach:

One atonement

alone

is effected

by the blood of the bull and the inner goat,

and it does not effect two atonements!

Therefore, despite the fact that the inner goat was juxtaposed to the external goat, it does not effect the atonement of the external goat!

And we further inquire:

Let

the

external goat,

which was juxtaposed to the inner goat, also

effect atonement for itself, and

also

why the inner goat was performed?

And there is

a practical difference

for the external goat’s atonement for everything, despite the fact that the inner goat has already been offered and effected its atonement:

for ritual impurity that occurred between the one and the other,

such that if he became impure after the inner goat was offered and entered the Temple, the external goat would effect atonement for him even for the atonement of the inner goat.

And we answer:

The verse says

at the end:

“Once a year

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

this atonement

which the inner goat effects,