Shevuot 14

וכתיב התם (במדבר יט, יג) טמא יהיה עוד טומאתו בו מה להלן טומאת מקדש אף כאן טומאת מקדש

And there it is written: He shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 13.');">¹</span> Just as there it refers to entering the Temple while unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid: He hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord.');">²</span>

ואלא בה למה לי

so here it refers to entering the Temple while unclean. - If so, why is the expression by which necessary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 22, n. 5. It had been suggested that by which excludes Terumah; but that argument had been refuted; and now we find that we even require an extra deduction to include Temple; we should therefore not have included Terumah in any case, even without the limitation of by which.');">³</span>

לרבות נבלת עוף טהור

- To include [that he who eats] the carcass of a clean bird<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dead clean bird defiles on being eaten, and not on being touched, as does a dead beast. V. Zeb. 69b.');">⁴</span> [and enters the Temple or eats holy food must bring a sliding scale sacrifice].

הא אמרת בה מיעוטא הוא משום דמיעוטא הוא אייתר כתיב (ויקרא ה, ג) או כי יגע דבר נגיעה אין דלאו בר נגיעה לא וכתיב בה מיעוטא הוה מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבו':

- But you said that by which is intended to exclude [and not include]! For the very reason that it does exclude it is superfluous: it is written: Or if h touch [the uncleanness]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 3.');">⁵</span> - this implies that only that which defiles by touch is included [in the regulation of the sliding scale sacrifice], but that which does not defile by touch is not included.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the carcass of a clean bird is automatically excluded.');">⁶</span>

יש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף שעיר הנעשה בפנים וכו': ת"ר (ויקרא טז, טז) וכפר על הקדש מטומאות בני ישראל וגו'

Then it is written also: by which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Whatsoever his uncleanness be by which he is unclean. By which implies some limitation or exclusion.');">⁷</span> which implies limitation.

יש לי בענין זה להביא שלש טומאות טומאת ע"ז וטומאת גילוי עריות וטומאת שפיכות דמים

We have, then, limitation after limitation; and limitation after limitatio serves to amplify.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A double limitation is equivalent to an amplification, just as a double negative is equivalent to a positive. This is one of the thirty-two hermeneutical principles by which R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose the Galilean, expounds Holy Writ. In the present instance the double limitation serves to include that he who eats the carcass of a clean bird and enters the Temple or eats holy food must bring a sliding scale sacrifice.');">⁸</span> WHERE THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING BUT NOT AT THE END, THE GOAT THE BLOOD OF WHICH IS SPRINKLED WITHIN THE VEIL etc. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the Children of Israel.

בע"ז הוא אומר (ויקרא כ, ג) למען טמא את מקדשי בגילוי עריות הוא אומר (ויקרא יח, ל) ושמרתם את משמרתי לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות וגו' ולא תטמאו בהם בשפיכות דמים הוא אומר (במדבר לה, לד) ולא תטמא את הארץ יכול על ג' טומאות הללו יהא שעיר מכפר ת"ל (ויקרא טז, טז) מטומאות בני ישראל ולא כל טומאות

.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 16: referring to the sacrifice of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement of the goat the blood of which is sprinkled within the veil.');">⁹</span> It is possible in this phrase to include three types of uncleanness - the uncleanness of idolatry, the uncleanness of incest, and the uncleanness of bloodshed.

מה מצינו שחלק הכתוב מכלל כל טומאות הוי אומר טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אף כאן בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דברי ר' יהוד'

Of idolatry the verse says: [He hath given of his seed unto Molech] to defile My sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 3; worshipping Molech is idolatry (Sanh. 64a) .');">¹⁰</span> Of incest it says: Ye shall keep My charge, that ye do not any of these abominable customs.

ר"ש אומר ממקומו הוא מוכרע הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא טז, טז) וכפר על הקדש מטומאות מטומאות של קודש

that ye defile not yourselves therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 30, referring to incest and other offences enumerated in the chapter.');">¹¹</span> Of bloodshed it says: And thou shalt not defile the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 34. n ,tnyn');">¹²</span>

יכול על כל טומאה שבקודש יהא שעיר זה מכפר תלמוד לומר (ויקרא טז, טז) ומפשעיהם לכל חטאתם חטאים דומיא דפשעים מה פשעים שאינם בני קרבן אף חטאים שאינם בני קרבן

Now, I might have thought that for these three types of uncleanness this ['inner'] goat atones, therefore the text says: Of the uncleannesses of the Children of Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 16: The of (of) is taken as partitive, implying some of, and not all.');">¹³</span> and not 'all the uncleannesses'.

ומנין ליש בה ידיעה בתחלה ואין בה ידיעה בסוף ששעיר זה תולה ת"ל לכל חטאתם חייבי חטאות במשמע

[These three are excluded, because] what [uncleanness] do we find that the text has differentiated from all other uncleannesses? - You must say, it is the uncleanness of [the transgressor who enters] the Temple or [eats] holy food;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that a sliding scale sacrifice is brought for unwitting transgression, whereas a fixed sacrifice is brought for other unwitting transgressions.');">¹⁴</span> so here also [the text in stating that the inner goat atones for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness refers to] the uncleanness connected with Temple and holy food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not idolatry, incest, or bloodshed. ,tnyn asev asev ,tnyn');">¹⁵</span>

אמר מר יש לי בענין זה להביא ג' טומאות טומאת ע"ז וטומאת גילוי עריות וטומאת שפיכות דמים

This is the opinion of R'Judah. R'Simeon says: From its own text it may be deduced, for it says.

האי ע"ז היכי דמי אי במזיד בר קטלא הוא אי בשוגג בר קרבן הוא

And he shall make atonement for the holy place, of the uncleannesses. , [i.e.,] of the uncleannesses of the holy place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if in the text the two consecutive words were transposed to read');">¹⁶</span> Now, I might have thought that for every uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where there is knowledge at the end.');">¹⁷</span>

במזיד ולא אתרו ביה בשוגג ולא אתיידע ליה

this goat atones, therefore the text says: And of their transgressions, even all their sins<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 16.');">¹⁸</span> - sins are equated with transgressions; just as transgressions are not liable for sacrifice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Transgressions mean witting sins, and cannot be atoned for by sacrifice.');">¹⁹</span> so sins [in this verse] are those which are not liable for sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluding those where there is knowledge at the end, when a sliding scale sacrifice is brought.');">²⁰</span> And how do we know that [only] when there is knowledge at the beginning and not at the end does this goat hold the sin in suspense?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not atone for the sin where there is no knowledge at the beginning, though it is also not liable for a sacrifice. o,tyj ,tyj');">²¹</span> - Because the text says, even all their sins - implying sins for which a sin offering may ultimately be brought.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' which may be atoned for by ; i.e., where there is knowledge at the beginning, but not at the end; a sacrifice is brought later when knowledge comes to the sinner. But where there is knowledge at the beginning, there is no possibility that a sacrifice may ultimately be brought.');">²²</span> The Master stated: 'It is possible in this phrase<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI. 16.');">²³</span> to include three types of uncleanness - the uncleanness of idolatry, the uncleanness of incest, and the uncleanness of bloodshed.' With reference to idolatry, how is it possible? If it was witting transgression, the transgressor suffers the death penalty;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stoning; v. Sanh. 53a.');">²⁴</span> if unwitting, he brings a sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A she-goat; v. Num. XV, 27. How then could we possibly suggest that the 'inner' goat of the Day of Atonement atones for idolatry.');">²⁵</span> - [Yes, it may atone] for witting transgression without warning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When warning has not been given, the death penalty is not inflicted (Sanh. 41a) .');">²⁶</span> or unwitting transgression before it becomes known to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inner goat will hold the sin in suspense till it become known to him, and he brings a sacrifice.');">²⁷</span>