Shevuot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And if you would say:

How can you refute this by saying: What is true of Yom Kippur, whose atonement is more extensive—and behold,

here we derive the law of Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur without raising this objection

at all?

Resolve it:

There—

when we derive the law of Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur, we did not learn the very concept of atonement from Yom Kippur, for

atonement

itself

is explicitly written

with regard to the goats of Rosh Chodesh. On the contrary, since it is written concerning them, “a sin-offering for the Lord,” and we expound that they atone for every sin of which the sinner has no awareness whatsoever, but which is known only to the Lord, all sins are included—both minor and severe.

And as for what we derive concerning the goats of Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur,

it is merely a disclosure of the matter

that just as the external goat, by itself, atones only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, so too the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings. [And it is clear that one cannot refute this by saying: What is true of Yom Kippur, whose very day has more extensive atonement? For we are not learning the very atonement of the goat of Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur; on the contrary, we are learning its restriction to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings alone]!

But here,

with regard to the goats of the Festivals, concerning which it was not explained for what they come to atone,

it may be said that we derive nothing at all

from Yom Kippur, since it is impossible to learn from Yom Kippur that they atone even for a severe sin punishable by karet, such as impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, because one can refute this by saying: What is true of Yom Kippur, whose very day has more extensive atonement!

And we conclude:

Rather,

the statement that the goats of the Festivals atone for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings is derived from here:

as Rabbi Hama bar Rabbi Hanina said: “A goat”

alone—the verse could have stated this without the additional conjunctive letter vav in all the goats of the communal sin-offerings; yet in all of them it is written

“and a goat” [with the addition of the letter vav]. The verse thereby indicates that all the goats are to be juxtaposed to one another [through the principle that the vav adds to the preceding matter]. Therefore,

[with the additional letter vav]. The verse thereby compares all the goats to one another [through the principle that a vav adds the matter to what preceded it]. Accordingly,

here too

we shall expound

“a goat”—

“and a goat,” and they are juxtaposed

through this

the goats of the Festivals to the goats of Rosh Chodesh

: Just as the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, so too the goats of the Festivals atone even for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.

And further, according to Rabbi Yehuda, we derive:

Just as the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone only for a case in which there was no awareness either initially or ultimately, so too the goats of the Festivals atone only for a case in which there was no awareness either initially or ultimately!

They raised a dilemma before them: When Rabbi Yehuda said

that the goats of Rosh Chodesh and the Festivals atone

for a case in which there was no awareness either initially or ultimately, this applies

to a sin whose nature is such that it will never become known.

But in the case of a sin that will ultimately become known [

for example, other people saw that he became impure and entered the Sanctuary while impure (Rashi), and they can tell him, but have not yet told him], is he

considered as one who has awareness ultimately, and the external goat and Yom Kippur atone

for him, but not the goat of Rosh Chodesh?

Or perhaps, even in the case of a sin that will ultimately become known, at present, in any event, we call it “a sin known to no one but the Lord,”

and the goat of Rosh Chodesh atones for it?

Come and hear, as it was taught in a beraita: For a case in which there was no awareness either initially or ultimately, and for a sin that will ultimately become known—

the goats of the Festivals and the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone

for one who ate sacred food or entered the Sanctuary while impure.

But not the goats of Rosh Chodesh,

for their atonement is only for a ritually pure person who ate sacred meat that had become impure.

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

For the verse states: “And it He

gave you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” And this verse is written with regard to the goat of Rosh Chodesh [

the goat that was burned on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which was the eighth day of the inauguration].

And he derives

Rabbi Shimon through a gzera shava,

“iniquity”

from “iniquity” from the tzitz

of Aaron the kohen:

It is stated here,

with regard to the goat of Rosh Chodesh,

“iniquity.” And it is stated there,

with regard to the tzitz: “And Aaron shall bear the

iniquity

of the sacred offerings.”

Just as there,

the tzitz effects acceptance only for

impurity of the meat [

when it was offered on the altar while impure, and likewise for blood that became impure and was sprinkled on the altar, or impure fat that was burned on the altar], so that the offering is accepted favorably despite the fact that it was offered unlawfully in a state of impurity of the offering,

so too here,

the goat of Rosh Chodesh atones only for

impurity of the meat.

That is, the sacred meat became impure and a ritually pure person ate it!

And if you refute this by saying:

If so, just as there

the tzitz effects acceptance not for the person, but only for that which

ascends

to be offered on the altar, rendering it fit to be accepted favorably,

so too here,

the goat of Rosh Chodesh should not atone for the sin of one who eats impure sacred meat, but only for that which

ascends,

namely, in a case where the tzitz was broken and cannot effect acceptance, the goat of Rosh Chodesh would effect acceptance for meat and fat that were offered while impure!?

Resolve it:

“The iniquity of the congregation” is written

with regard to the goat of Rosh Chodesh, teaching us that the atonement pertains to the sinful person and not to the acceptance of what ascends upon the altar.

And we refute this:

Since they are both derived

the goat of Rosh Chodesh and the tzitz

from one another

through a gzera shava, therefore

let

the goat

of Rosh Chodesh atone for its own matter,

for the sin of the person who eats impure meat,

and for the matter of the tzitz,

so that the goat would also effect acceptance for the offerings;

the practical difference

would be in a case where the tzitz was broken,

when it does not atone, so that at that time the goat of Rosh Chodesh would atone for both? And we answer:

The verse states “iniquity”—

it bears one iniquity, but it does not bear two iniquities!

We further refute this:

Let the tzitz atone for its own matter,

for offerings that ascended while impure,

and for the matter of Rosh Chodesh,

for one who eats impure sacred meat;

the practical difference

would be in the case of impurity that occurred between

one Rosh Chodesh

and

the next Rosh Chodesh,

so that

the atonement of the tzitz would benefit the person who sinned through impurity of the meat throughout the entire month?

And we answer:

The verse states

with regard to the goat of Rosh Chodesh:

“It

gave you to bear the iniquity of the congregation”—

“it,” the sin-offering of Rosh Chodesh, only it bears the iniquity

of the congregation,

and no other bears the iniquity

of the congregation!

Rav Ashi said:

in both cases there is an extra definite article, teaching a limitation:

It is written here

with regard to the goat of Rosh Chodesh

“the iniquity of the congregation,”

to say to you: the iniquity of

the congregation and not

the iniquity of

the sacred offerings!

And there,

with regard to the tzitz,

it is written “the iniquity of the sacred offerings,”

to say to you: the iniquity of

the sacred offerings and not

the iniquity of

the congregation!

And the Gemara continues its discussion:

We have found

that according to Rabbi Shimon,

the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone for a ritually pure person who ate

sacred

meat that had become impure.

As for the goats of the Festivals, which atone

for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings

in a case in which there was no awareness either initially or ultimately, from where

do we know this according to Rabbi Shimon?

As Rabbi Hama bar Rabbi Hanina said,

there is a juxtaposition through the superfluous conjunctive letter vav of

“a goat”

and “a goat”

to juxtapose all the goats to one another;

here too,

let us derive

“a goat”

and “a goat,”