Shevuot 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

There shall not be

but once a year.

There should not be any additional offering throughout the year that atones with such an atonement, not even the outer goat, despite the fact that it is juxtaposed with the inner one.

And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who says: If there was no awareness at the beginning but there was awareness at the end, he is liable to bring an offering,

and he cannot achieve atonement through the communal offering; if so,

why does the goat performed outside atone?

For a case in which there was neither awareness at the beginning nor awareness at the end,

as he is not liable to bring an individual offering, since he did not yet become aware of it at the end.

And we raise an objection:

This—

that is, a case in which he had no awareness either at the beginning or at the end—

is atoned for by the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons

as well!?

And we answer:

He,

Rabbi Yishmael,

holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says—

the atonement provided by all the goats is equivalent!

As they all come

for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings,

and atone equally for all forms of awareness. Nevertheless, this refers to impurity that occurred between one goat and the other (Rashi).

And again we discuss the matter: It is explicit in the Mishna that the two goats are juxtaposed with one another. According to our position, the juxtaposition teaches that just as the inner goat requires awareness [at the beginning], so too the outer goat requires awareness [at the end]. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the outer offering atones for a case in which there was no awareness at all, neither at the beginning nor at the end—

for what halakhic purpose was the outer goat juxtaposed with the inner one?

And we answer: According to Rabbi Yishmael, the juxtaposition comes to teach us:

Just as the inner goat

does not atone except for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings,

and does not atone for other transgressions, so too the outer goat does not atone for other transgressions!

We learned in the Mishna:

For a case in which there was no awareness at the beginning and none at the end—

the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: What is the rationale of Rabbi Yehuda? The verse states,

with regard to the goat of the New Moon,

“And one goat for a sin offering to the Lord”—

for

a sin of which no one but the Lord is aware,

that is, the sinner had no awareness either at the beginning or at the end,

this goat shall atone!

And we challenge this:

This

verse

is needed for that which Reish Lakish expounded. For Reish Lakish said: Why is the goat of the New Moon different, in that it is stated with regard to it, “for a sin offering

to

the Lord”?—

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: This goat shall be an atonement for My having diminished the moon .

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse comes only for that which Reish Lakish taught,

let the verse say “a sin offering

for

the Lord.” What

“sin offering

to the Lord”?—

For that which we said,

that this goat atones for a sin of which no one but the Lord is aware.

And we continue to challenge this:

But perhaps the entire

verse

comes only for this purpose,

and not for the novel teaching of Reish Lakish?

And we answer:

If so,

if it comes only for this purpose,

let the verse say, “the sin offering of the Lord.” What

“sin offering

to the Lord”?—

You may infer two matters from it!

And we discuss the matter: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from this verse, “for a sin offering to the Lord,” that anyone whose sin is known only to the Lord is atoned for by the goat of the New Moon,

should the goat of the New Moon not also atone

for the goat of the New Moon

even for other transgressions,

and not only for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings!? For this verse teaches that this goat atones for every sin of which no one but the Lord is aware.

And we answer:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said: Since this,

the goat of the New Moon,

comes at a fixed time, and this,

the outer goat of Yom Kippur,

comes at a fixed time,

we say:

Just as this,

the outer goat of Yom Kippur,

does not atone except for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings [

as it is juxtaposed with the inner goat, and it is explicitly stated with regard to the inner goat that it atones for

the Sanctuary

from the impurities of the Children of Israel],

so too this,

the goat of the New Moon,

does not atone except for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings.

And again we discuss the matter:

We have found that the goats of the New Moons

atone for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, as we derive this from the outer goat.

From where do we derive

that the goats of the Festivals atone for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings? Perhaps they atone only for minor transgressions that do not carry the punishment of karet [and there was no difficulty concerning the goat of the New Moon, since it is explicitly stated with regard to it that it atones for a sin known only to the Lord; this includes all sins, even the more serious ones. On the contrary, we would have had to exclude other transgressions and say that the verse speaks only of impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings].

And if you would say that this too is in accordance with that which the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,

that it can be derived either from the New Moon or from Yom Kippur: Since this comes at a fixed time and that comes at a fixed time, just as that atones for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings, so too this atones like it,

there is room to refute this inference:

If you derive it from the New Moon

—

what is notable about the New Moon is that it is frequent;

can you say the same about the goats of the Festivals, which are not as frequent as it?

If you derive it from Yom Kippur

—there is likewise a basis for refuting the inference:

What is notable about Yom Kippur

is that the outer goat atones together with the essence of the day of Yom Kippur, and the essence of Yom Kippur is stringent,

as its atonement is extensive,

for it atones for all the transgressions in the Torah. Therefore, the combination of the essence of the day [which atones for all transgressions] together with the outer goat can atone for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings. Can you say the same about the goats of the Festivals? Although it is written with regard to them, “to atone,” perhaps they atone only for minor transgressions, and not for transgressions punishable by karet?