Shevuot 9b — the Talmud in English

And if you say:

how can you refute: What is the case with Yom Kippur, whose atonement is greater—and yet

we derive Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur, and we do not raise any refutation

at all?

Resolve it:

There—

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

atonement

itself

is explicitly written

regarding the goats of Rosh Chodesh. On the contrary, from the fact that it is written concerning them, “a sin-offering for the Lord,” and we expound that every sin of which the sinner has no knowledge whatsoever, but only the Lord knows of it, the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone for it. Thus, all sins are included, both the minor and the severe.

And that which we derive concerning the goats of Rosh Chodesh from Yom Kippur,

is merely a disclosure of the matter

, that just as the external goat, in itself, atones only for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, so too the goats of Rosh Chodesh atone only for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings. [And it is understood that one cannot refute: What is the case with Yom Kippur, whose very day has greater 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 the 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 can be said that we do not derive the entire matter

from Yom Kippur, for it is impossible to learn from Yom Kippur that they atone even for a severe transgression punishable by karet, such as the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, because one can refute: What is the case with Yom Kippur, whose very day has greater atonement!

And we conclude:

Rather,

this that we say that the goats of the Festivals atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings—we learn it from here:

As Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said: “A goat”

alone, without the addition of the conjunctive vav, the verse could have said concerning all the goats of the communal sin-offerings; but it is written concerning all of them

“and a goat” [with the addition of the letter vav]. And the verse comes to juxtapose all the goats to one another [through the teaching that the vav adds to the first matter]. If so,

[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 were juxtaposed

thereby,

the goats of the Festivals to the goats of Rosh Chodesh

—just as the goats of the New Moons atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, so too the goats of the Festivals atone even for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.

And further we derive, according to Rabbi Yehuda:

Just as the goats of the New Moons atone only for that concerning which there was no knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end, so too the goats of the Festivals atone only for that concerning which there was no knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end!

They raised a dilemma before them: When Rabbi Yehuda said

that the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone

for that concerning which there was no knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end, this applies to a sin whose end is never to become known

forever;

but a sin whose end is to become known [such as where other people saw him become impure and enter the Sanctuary, and they can tell him, but have not yet told him], is

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

considered like one concerning which there is knowledge at the end, and the external goat and Yom Kippur atone

for it, but not the goat of Rosh Chodesh.

Or perhaps, even a sin whose end is to become known, at present, in any event, we call it “a sin of which none knows except the Lord,”

and the goat of Rosh Chodesh will atone for it!?

Come and hear: For it was taught in a beraita: For that concerning which there was no knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end, and a sin whose end is to become known—

the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone

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

But not the goats of Rosh Chodesh,

for their atonement is only for a pure person who ate impure sacred flesh.

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

For the verse says: “And that you

have given to you to bear the sin of the assembly.” And this verse is written concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh

[concerning the goat that was burned on the first of Nisan, which was the eighth day of the inauguration].

And he derives

Rabbi Shimon through a gzera shava

“sin”—

“sin” from the frontplate

of Aaron the priest:

It is stated here,

concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh,

“sin.” And it is stated there,

concerning the frontplate: “And Aaron shall bear the

sin

of the sacred offerings.”

Just as there,

the frontplate effects acceptance only for

impurity of flesh

[which was offered on the altar while it was impure, and likewise for blood that became impure and was cast on the altar, or impure fat that was burned on the altar], so that the offering should be accepted favorably despite the fact that they offered it improperly, with impurity of the offering,

so here too,

the goat of Rosh Chodesh atones only for

impurity of flesh.

That the sacred flesh became impure and the pure person ate it!

And if you refute:

If so, just as there,

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

ascends

to be offered on the altar, so that it becomes fit to be accepted favorably,

so here too,

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

ascends,

namely, in a case where the frontplate was broken and cannot effect acceptance, the goat of Rosh Chodesh would then effect acceptance for flesh and fat that were burned in impurity!?

Resolve it—

“the sin of the assembly” is written

concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh, to teach us that the atonement refers to the sinful person and not to the acceptance of that which ascends on the altar.

And we refute:

Since, in any event, they are derived

the goat of Rosh Chodesh and the frontplate

from one another

through a gzera shava, if so,

let

the goat

of Rosh Chodesh atone for its own matter,

for the sin of the person who eats impure flesh,

and for the matter of the frontplate,

let the goat also effect the acceptance of the frontplate;

the practical difference—

in a case where the frontplate was broken,

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

The verse says “sin”—

it bears one sin, and it does not bear two sins!

And further we refute:

Let the frontplate atone for its own matter,

for that which ascends in impurity,

and for the matter of Rosh Chodesh,

for one who eats impure sacred flesh;

the practical difference—

for impurity that occurred between

one

Rosh Chodesh

and

another,

so that the atonement of the frontplate should benefit the person who sinned through impurity of flesh throughout the entire month?

And we answer:

The verse says,

concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh,

“that

you have given to you to bear the sin of the assembly”—

“that” sin-offering of Rosh Chodesh, only it shall bear the sin

of the assembly,

and no other shall bear the sin

of the assembly!

Rav Ashi said:

In both of them there is an extra definite article, to teach you a limitation:

It is written here,

concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh,

“the sin of the assembly,”

to tell you—the sin of

the assembly and not

the sin of

the sacred offerings!

And there,

concerning the frontplate,

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

to tell you—the sin of

the sacred offerings and not

the sin of

the assembly!

And the Gemara continues to discuss:

We found

according to Rabbi Shimon

that the goats of the New Moons atone for a pure person who ate

sacred flesh

that was impure.

As for the goats of the Festivals, which atone

for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings

concerning which there was no knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end, from where do we derive it

according to Rabbi Shimon?

As Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said,

that there is a juxtaposition through the extra 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,”