Shevuot 9a — the Talmud in English

There shall not be ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

but one during the year.

So that throughout the entire year there will not be another offering that effects such atonement, not even the outer goat, despite the fact that it was equated with the inner one.

And according to Rabbi Ishmael, who says: There is no awareness at the outset, but there is awareness at the end. It is liable for an offering,

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

why does the goat that is performed outside effect atonement?

For that for which there is no awareness, neither at the outset nor at the end,

since he is not liable for an individual offering, because at the end it has still not become known to him.

And we raise a difficulty:

this,

this is the case of one for whom it became known neither at the outset nor at the end;

the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons effect atonement

for him!?

And we answer:

he holds

Rabbi Ishmael

in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says:

all the goats have equal atonement!

For they all come

for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

and effect equal atonement for all the forms of awareness. But nevertheless, for impurity that occurred between one and the other ([unclear: the source fragment is incomplete]).

And again we examine this: It is explained in the Mishna that the two goats were equated with one another. According to our position, the equation comes to say: just as with the inner goat awareness [at the outset] is required, so too with the outer goat awareness [at the end] is required. But according to Rabbi Ishmael, who holds that the outer offering effects atonement for a case in which there is no awareness at all, neither at the outset nor at the end—

rather, for what halakhic purpose was the outer one equated with the inner one?

And we answer: According to Rabbi Ishmael, the equation comes to teach us:

just as the inner one

does not effect atonement except for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, and

does not effect atonement for other transgressions, so too the outer one does not effect atonement for other transgressions!

We learned in the Mishna:

for that for which there is no awareness at the outset and not at the end—

the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons effect atonement; these are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? The verse says,

with regard to the goat of the New Moon,

“And one goat of the goats for a sin-offering for Hashem”—

for

a sin of which only Hashem is aware,

so that the sinner had no awareness neither at the outset nor at the end,

let this goat effect atonement!

And we challenge this:

this

verse

is needed for that which Reish Lakish expounded. For Reish Lakish said: What is different about the goat of the New Moon, that it is said concerning it, “for a sin-offering

for

for Hashem”?—

The Holy One, blessed is He, said: Let this goat be an atonement for My having diminished the moon .

And we answer:

if so,

that the verse comes only for that which Reish Lakish expounded,

let the verse say “a sin-offering

for

for Hashem.” What is the meaning of

“a sin-offering

for Hashem”?—

For that which we said,

that for a sin of which only Hashem is aware, this goat effects atonement.

And we still challenge this:

and perhaps the entire

verse

comes only for this,

and not for the novelty of Reish Lakish?

And we answer:

if so,

that it comes only for this,

let the verse say, “Hashem’s sin-offering.” What is the meaning of

“a sin-offering

for Hashem”?—

You derive two things from it!

And we examine this: According to Rabbi Judah, who derives from this verse, “a sin-offering for Hashem,” that whenever only Hashem knows of the sin, he is atoned for by the goat of the New Moon,

and let the goat of the New Moon also effect atonement

the goat of the New Moon

even for other transgressions,

and not only for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things!? For it was renewed in this verse that this goat effects atonement for every sin of which only Hashem is aware.

And we answer:

The Tanna debei Rabbi Ishmael said: Since this one,

the goat of the New Moon,

comes at a fixed time, and this one,

the outer goat of Yom Kippur,

comes at a fixed time,

we say:

just as this one,

the outer goat of Yom Kippur,

does not effect atonement except for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

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 one,

the goat of the New Moon,

does not effect atonement except for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

And again we examine this:

we have found the goats of the New Moons

that they effect atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, as we derive this from the outer goat.

From where do we derive the goats of the Festivals

that they effect atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things? And perhaps they effect atonement only for minor transgressions that do not involve karet ,

and not for transgressions carrying karet [the difficulty was not raised concerning the goat of the New Moon, since it was explicitly stated concerning it that it effects atonement for a sin known only to Hashem, and this includes all sins, even the severe ones. On the contrary, we should have needed to exclude other transgressions and say that it speaks only of impurity of the Temple and its sacred things]. And if you would say, this too is like that which the Tanna debei Rabbi Ishmael taught,

that there is room to derive it from the New Moon or from Yom Kippur: since this one comes at a fixed time and this one comes at a fixed time, just as this one effects atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, so too this one effects atonement like it—

there is room to refute this:

If you derive it from the New Moon

—

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

would you say the same concerning the goats of the Festivals, which are not as frequent as it?

If you derive it from Yom Kippur

—there is room to refute this:

what is distinctive about Yom Kippur

is that the outer goat effects atonement on it together with the essence of Yom Kippur, and the essence of Yom Kippur is stringent,

for its atonement is extensive,

as it effects atonement for all the transgressions in the Torah; and therefore the combination of the essence of the day [which effects atonement for all transgressions] together with the outer goat is capable of effecting atonement for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things. Would you say the same concerning the goats of the Festivals, for although it is written concerning them, “to effect atonement,” perhaps they effect atonement only for minor transgressions, and not for those carrying karet?