Shevuot 26

כרת דיממא לרבי לית ליה

Does not Rabbi hold that there is kareth for the day [of the Day of Atonement]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he holds that the Day atones even for transgression of the Day itself, the punishment of kareth decreed for transgressing the Day can never he put into effect; yet Scripture says: For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people');">¹</span> Why not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi may still hold that the Day atones even for the kareth which it carries, and yet it is possible to have a case where kareth operates.');">²</span> It is possible in the case where he ate a piece of meat, which choked him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that not even a moment of the Day passed after the eating of it; but had he lived a moment after eating, the Day would have atoned.');">³</span>

אלמה לא משכחת לה דאכל אומצא וחנקיה ומית אי נמי דאכל סמוך לשקיעת החמה דלא הוה שהות לכפורי ליה:

so that he died; or, he ate it almost at the setting the sun,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the termination of the Day.');">⁴</span> so that there was not time to atone for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is possible that Rabbi holds the Day atones even for the kareth it involves, and Raba's distinction does not necessarily follow.');">⁵</span> [THE SCAPEGOAT BRINGS ATONEMENT EQUALLY FOR] ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2b.');">⁶</span>

אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח:

This itself is contradictory: he states that [THE SCAPEGOAT BRINGS ATONEMENT EQUALLY FOR] ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST; then he states WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISRAELITES, PRIESTS, AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">⁷</span> Rab Judah said, thus he means: Israelites, priests, and the anointed High Priest all equally obtain atonement with the scapegoat for other sins, and there is no difference between them [in this respect]; but what is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed High Priest? [This:] the bullock atones for the priests for transgression of the laws of uncleanness in connection with the Temple and holy food thereof [whereas for Israelites the inner and outer goats atone for these transgressions].

הא גופא קשיא קתני אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח והדר תני מה בין ישראל לכהנים ולכהן משוח אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אחד ישראל ואחד כהנים ואחד כהן משוח מתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות ואין חילוק ביניהן ומה בין ישראל לכהנים ולכהן משוח אלא שהפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכו'

And who holds this view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the scapegoat atones also for priests for other sins.');">⁸</span> R'Judah; for it was taught: [Scripture says:] And he shall make atonement for the most holy place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span> this means the Holy of Holies; and the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span>

ומני רבי יהודה היא דתניא (ויקרא טז, לג) וכפר את מקדש הקדש זה לפני ולפנים את אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו יכפר אלו עזרות כהנים כמשמעו עם הקהל אלו ישראל יכפר אלו הלוים

this means the Holy place; and the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span> - in its usual sense; he shall atone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span> this means for the various compartments in the Temple court; and for the priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span>

הושוו כולן לכפרה אחת שמתכפרין בשעיר המשתלח בשאר עבירות דברי ר' יהודה

- in the usual sense; and for all the people of the assembly;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span> this means the Israelites;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this verse it is deduced that the High Priest on the Day of Atonement makes atonement with the bullock and goat for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness in the Holy of Holies, holy place, altar, etc. If one, that is to say, became unclean in the Holy of Holies, and tarried for such time as he could prostrate himself (v. infra 16b) , or if he offered incense on the golden altar while unclean, or entered other compartments of the Temple court while unclean, he has transgressed the law of uncleanness, and for this the bullock atones for priests, and the goat for Israelites.');">¹⁰</span> he shall atone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">⁹</span>

רבי שמעון אומר כשם שדם שעיר הנעשה בפנים מכפר על ישראל על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו כך דם הפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכשם שוידויו של שעיר המשתלח מכפר על ישראל בשאר עבירות כך וידויו של פר מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

this means for the Levites; they are all equated for one atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Priests, Levites, and Israelites, are all deduced from this latter part of the verse, which is superfluous, as obtaining equal atonement; but this equal atonement cannot refer to the atonement for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food, because in this case the atonements are not equal, the bullock atoning for priests, and the inner and outer goats for Israelites and Levites. The equal atonement, consequently, refers to the scapegoat which atones for priests, Israelites, and Levites, for other sins.');">¹¹</span> in that they obtain atonement with the scapegoat for other sins: this is the opinion of R'Judah. R'Simeon Says: Just as the blood of the goat offered within [the veil] atones for Israelites for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof, so the blood of the bullock atones for the priests for transgression of the laws of uncleanliness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof; and just as the confession pronounced over the scapegoat atones for Israelites for other sins, so the confession pronounced over the bullock atones for the priests for other sins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 4, n. 7.');">¹²</span>

ולרבי שמעון הא ודאי הושוו מאי הושוו דבני כפרה נינהו מיהו כל חד וחד מכפר בדנפשיה

But according to R'Simeon [it may be asked]: Surely they have been equated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse quoted by R. Judah above seemingly implying that both Israelites and priests obtain atonement with the scapegoat for other sins.');">¹³</span> - In what respect are they equated? In that they all obtain atonement, but each obtains atonement with his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Priest with the bullock, and Israelite with the goat.');">¹⁴</span>

מאי טעמיה דרבי שמעון דכתיב (ויקרא טז, ז) ולקח את שני השעירים איתקש שעיר המשתלח לשעיר הנעשה בפנים מה שעיר הנעשה בפנים אינו מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו דכתיב ביה אשר לעם אף שעיר המשתלח אינו מכפר על הכהנים בשאר עבירות

What is R'Simeon's reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For stating that the scapegoat does not atone for priests for other sins.');">¹⁵</span> - It is written: And he shall take the two goats:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 7: the inner goat and the scapegoat.');">¹⁶</span> the scapegoat is equated with the goat offered within [the veil]; just as the goat offered within [the veil] does not atone for the pries for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof, because it is written concerning it: [the goat of the sin offering] that is for the people;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 15.');">¹⁷</span>

ורבי יהודה אמר לך להכי איתקוש שיהו שוים במראה ובקומה ובדמים הוא דאתא

so the scapegoat does not atone for the priests for other sins. And R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How will he explain this equation of the two goats?');">¹⁸</span> - He may say to you: For this reason they are equated, that they should be alike in colour, height, and value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma VI. 1.');">¹⁹</span>

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן ושחט את שעיר החטאת אשר לעם שאין הכהנים מתכפרין בו ובמה מתכפרין בפרו של אהרן

Who is the Tanna who made this statement which the Rabbis taught. [viz. , Scripture says:] He shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 15.');">²⁰</span> [this teaches] that the priests do not obtain atonement with it and with what do they obtain atonement?

יכול לא יתכפרו בפרו של אהרן שהרי כבר נאמר אשר לו מעתה אין להן כפרה כשהוא אומר יכפר על הכהנים מצינו להן כפרה

With the bullock of Aaron.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or his successor in the High Priest's office.');">²¹</span> I might think that they should not obtain atonement with the bullock of Aaron, for it has already been said: [And Aaron shall offer the bullock of the sin offering] which is for himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 6.');">²²</span> hence they would have no atonement at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither with the goat, which is for the people, nor with the bullock, which is for Aaron.');">²³</span>

במה הן מתכפרין מוטב שיתכפרו בפרו של אהרן שהרי הותר מכללו אצל ביתו ואל יתכפרו בשעיר הנעשה בפנים שלא הותר מכללו אצל ביתו

But when Scripture says: And he shall make atonement for the priests,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">²⁴</span> we find that they have atonement. With what do they obtain atonement?

ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר (תהלים קלה, יט) בית אהרן ברכו את ה' בית הלוי ברכו את ה' יראי ה' ברכו את ה'

It is better that they should obtain atonement with the bullock of Aaron, for it was released from its implication,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Biblical statement, which is for himself, implies that the bullock atones only for himself, and for other priests.');">²⁵</span> in order to include also his house;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 6: And he shall make atonement for himself in for his house, i.e., household. The bullock, therefore, atones for more than himself; it may, therefore, atone also for the other priests.');">²⁶</span> and that they should not obtain atonement with the goat offered within [the veil], which was not released from its implication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 15: The goat of the sin offering that is for the people.');">²⁷</span>

מאן תנא אמר ר' ירמיה דלא כר' יהודה דאי ר' יהודה האמר כהנים יש להן כפרה בשעיר המשתלח ומני רבא אמר ר' שמעון היא דאמר כהנים אין להם כפרה בשעיר המשתלח

in order to include also his house. And if you desire to say anything,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In refutation of this argument.');">²⁸</span> [I may add another argument, for] Scripture says: O house of Aaron, bless ye the Lord; O house of Levi, bless ye the Lord; ye that fear the Lord, bless ye the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXXXV, 19, 20. All priests are included in House of Aaron; therefore the priests obtain atonement with Aaron's bullock, for Scripture says: And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house.');">²⁹</span>

אביי אמר אפי' תימא ר' יהודה הכי קאמר מעתה אין להם כפרה בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו כשהוא אומר יכפר על הכהנים מצינו שיש להן כפרה בשאר עבירות וכמו דמצינו שיש להן כפרה בשאר עבירות כך יש להן כפרה

Who is the Tanna [of this Baraitha]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which states that if the priests would not obtain atonement with Aaron's bullock, they would have no atonement at all.');">³⁰</span> - R'Jeremiah said: It is not R'Judah, for if R'Judah, surely he says the priests obtain atonement with the scapegoat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At least for other sins; whereas, according to the Baraitha, it appears that their atonement depends entirely on the bullock of Aaron.');">³¹</span> Then who is it? Raba said: It is R'Simeon who holds that the priests do not obtain atonement with the scapegoat. Abaye said: You may even say that it is R'Judah, and thus he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah who is the Tanna of the Baraitha.');">³²</span> reasons: Hence they would have no atonement at all for transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food thereof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If we should say that the priests can obtain atonement neither with the inner goat of the people nor with bullock of the High Priest for the sins of uncleanness connected with the Temple, the result would be that they would have no atonement at all for these sins; though for other sins they would still obtain atonement with the scapegoat.');">³³</span> but when Scripture says: And he shall make atonement for the priest, we find that they have atonement for other sins; and just as we find that they have atonement for other sins, so they have atonement