## Shabbat Daf 64a

###### Shabbat 64a:1
[Shabbat 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:1)

״כְּלִי״ ״כְּלִי״ מֵהָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**from** the word **vessel** written **there,** with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the word **vessel** written with regard to the *halakhot* of other impurities.


###### Shabbat 64a:2
[Shabbat 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:2)

מוּסָף שַׂק עַל הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁטָּמֵא מִשּׁוּם אָרִיג. אַטּוּ בֶּגֶד לָאו אָרִיג הוּא?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מוּסָף שַׂק עַל הַבֶּגֶד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָרִיג — טָמֵא. לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁכֵּן עָנִי קוֹלֵעַ שָׁלֹשׁ נִימִין וְתוֹלָה בְּצַוַּאר בִּתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the *baraita* that **a sack is added** to the category of “**garment”; it** too **is ritually impure due to woven fabric.** The Gemara asks: **Is that to say that a garment is not a woven fabric?** Rather, the statement should be emended and **say as follows: A sack** made from goat hair **is added to the category of garment; even though it is not woven it** can nevertheless become **ritually impure.** The Gemara asks: **For what is** a garment made of unwoven goat hair **suitable? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since a poor person** occasionally **braids three** goat **hairs and hangs it on his daughter’s neck** as an ornament.


###### Shabbat 64a:3
[Shabbat 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שָׂק״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שַׂק, מִנַּיִין לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַקִּילְקְלִי וְאֶת הַחֲבָק — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ שָׂק״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַחֲבָלִים וְאֶת הַמְּשִׁיחוֹת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שָׂק״. מָה שַׂק טְוִוי וְאָרִיג — אַף כֹּל טְוִוי וְאָרִיג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** a detailed halakhic exposition of that verse in a different *baraita*. From the fact that the verse mentioned **sack, I have only** derived that **a** whole **sack** can become ritually impure. **From where** is it derived **to include** even **reins [*kilkeli*] and a saddle band** fastened under the horse’s belly in the category of those objects that can become ritually impure? **The verse states: “Or sack”;** “or” teaches that the verse is referring to items similar to a sack as well. **I might** have thought, on that basis, **that I** should **include** even **the ropes and** measuring **cords. The verse states: “Sack,” just as a sack is spun and woven, so too, everything that is spun and woven** can become ritually impure. Ropes and measuring cords are not made from spun threads, and they are certainly not woven.


###### Shabbat 64a:4
[Shabbat 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:4)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּמֵת: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי עוֹר וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים וְגוֹ׳ תִּתְחַטָּאוּ״ — לְרַבּוֹת הַקִּילְקְלִי וְאֶת הַחֲבָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Now, it says with regard to** the *halakhot* of ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse:** “And every garment **and all that is made of skins and all work of goats’** hair and all things made of wood **you shall purify”** (Numbers 31:20). This verse comes **to include reins and the band** under the horse’s belly within the category of: All work of goats’ hair. They too can become ritually impure.


###### Shabbat 64a:5
[Shabbat 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:5)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַחֲבָלִים וְאֶת הַמְּשִׁיחוֹת? וְדִין הוּא: טִימֵּא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ, וְטִימֵּא בַּמֵּת. מָה כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ — לֹא טִימֵּא אֶלָּא טְוִוי וְאָרִיג, אַף כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא בַּמֵּת — לֹא טִימֵּא אֶלָּא טְוִוי וְאָרִיג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I **might** have thought **that I** would **include even the ropes and** thin **cords** in this category. The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. **And it** may be inferred **logically** to the contrary, that a rope cannot become impure. The verse **deemed impure** an object that came in contact **with a creeping animal, and it deemed impure** an object that came in contact **with a corpse. Just as when it rendered** an object **impure from** contact **with a creeping animal it only rendered impure** objects **spun and woven,** as stated above; **so too, when it rendered impure** an object from contact **with a corpse, it only rendered impure** objects **spun and woven.**


###### Shabbat 64a:6
[Shabbat 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:6)

הֵן אִם הֵיקֵל בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁהִיא קַלָּה, נָקֵיל בְּטוּמְאַת הַמֵּת שֶׁהִיא חֲמוּרָה?! — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is room to distinguish: Are these **indeed** comparable? **If** the Torah **was lenient with regard to the ritual impurity of** an object that came in contact **with a creeping animal, which is a less severe** form of impurity, saying that ropes do not become impure from contact with that form of ritual impurity, **will we be lenient with regard to ritual impurity** imparted by **a corpse, which is** more **severe?** Perhaps, since impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe, even objects not woven and spun, e.g., ropes, become ritually impure from contact with it. Therefore, **the verse states garment and leather, garment and leather to** establish **a verbal analogy.**


###### Shabbat 64a:7
[Shabbat 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:7)

נֶאֱמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְנֶאֱמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ בְּמֵת. מָה בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר הָאָמוּר בְּשֶׁרֶץ — לֹא טִימֵּא אֶלָּא טְוִוי וְאָרִיג, אַף בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר הָאָמוּר בְּמֵת — לֹא טִימֵּא אֶלָּא טְוִוי וְאָרִיג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The term **garment and leather is stated with regard to** ritual impurity imparted by **a creeping animal:** “And whatever any of them falls upon when they are dead will be impure whether it be any vessel of wood, or a garment, or leather, or sack, whatever vessel it be with which any work is done it must be put into water and it will be impure until evening, then it will be clean” (Leviticus 11:32). **And garment and leather is stated with regard to** ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse. Just as garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal only rendered impure** objects that are **spun and woven, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse only rendered impure** objects that are **spun and woven.**


###### Shabbat 64a:8
[Shabbat 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:8)

וּמָה בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר הָאָמוּר בְּמֵת — טִמֵּא כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים, אַף בֶּגֶד וָעוֹר הָאָמוּר בְּשֶׁרֶץ — טִמֵּא כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Utilizing the same verbal analogy, one could say: **And just as garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse rendered impure any** object that is the **work of goats’** hair, **so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal rendered impure any** object that is the **work of goats’** hair.


###### Shabbat 64a:9
[Shabbat 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:9)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הָעִזִּים, מִנַּיִין לְרַבּוֹת דָּבָר הַבָּא מִזְּנַב הַסּוּס וּמִזְּנַב הַפָּרָה? — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ שָׂק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have only** derived from this verbal analogy that **an object that comes from goats** can become ritually impure; **from where** do I derive **to include an item that comes from a horse’s tail or from a cow’s tail? The verse states: Or a sack,** and anything like a sack, i.e., these other items as well.


###### Shabbat 64a:10
[Shabbat 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:10)

וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְקִילְקְלִי וַחֲבָק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Didn’t you** already **derive** ritual impurity with regard to **reins and a saddle band** from this verse? How can ritual impurity for items that come from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail be derived from the same verse?


###### Shabbat 64a:11
[Shabbat 64a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:11)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִקַּמֵּי דְּתֵיתֵי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתְיָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה אִיַּיתַּר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That applies only before the verbal analogy was cited; now that the verbal analogy was cited,** the verse **is rendered extraneous.** The fact that any item that falls in the category of: “And all work of goats’ hair,” can become ritually impure is derived from the verbal analogy. Reins and a saddle bands are included in the category of work of goats’ hair. Therefore, they need not be derived from that phrase. Consequently, a different *halakha* can be derived from that extraneous phrase: Objects that come from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail can become ritually impure.


###### Shabbat 64a:12
[Shabbat 64a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:12)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁרֶץ, בְּטוּמְאַת מֵת מִנַּיִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And I have** derived that an object made from a horse’s tail can become impure **only with regard to a creeping animal;** however, **with regard to a corpse, from where** is this derived?


###### Shabbat 64a:13
[Shabbat 64a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:13)

וְדִין הוּא: טִימֵּא בְּמֵת וְטִימֵּא בְּשֶׁרֶץ. מָה כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא בְּשֶׁרֶץ — עָשָׂה דָּבָר הַבָּא מִזְּנַב הַסּוּס וּמִזְּנַב הַפָּרָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים, אַף כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא בְּמֵת — עָשָׂה דָּבָר הַבָּא מִזְּנַב הַסּוּס וּמִזְּנַב הַפָּרָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara begins with a logical analysis. **And it** may be inferred **logically** that this is so. The Torah **rendered impure** a sack that came into contact **with a corpse and rendered impure** a sack that came into contact **with a creeping animal. Just as when** the Torah **rendered** items that came into contact **with a creeping animal impure it made** the legal status of **that which comes from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail equal to** the legal status of **that which is made from goats’** hair, i.e., that it contracts ritual impurity, **so too when** the Torah **rendered impure** items that came into contact **with a corpse, it made** the legal status of **that which comes from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail equal to** the legal status of **that which is made from goats’** hair.


###### Shabbat 64a:14
[Shabbat 64a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:14)

הֵן אִם רִיבָּה בְּטוּמְאַת עֶרֶב שֶׁהִיא מְרוּבָּה, נְרַבֶּה בְּטוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה שֶׁהִיא מוּעֶטֶת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: Are these **indeed** comparable? **If** the verse **added** additional objects **to** the category of **ritual impurity** that lasts until **nightfall,** e.g., the impurity imparted by a creeping animal, **which is extensive, will we add** additional objects **to** the category of **ritual impurity that lasts for seven days, which is limited** to the case of impurity from a corpse? The fact that items made of a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail are added to the already broad category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall is not necessarily an indication that they are to be added to the category of ritual impurity that lasts seven days.


###### Shabbat 64a:15
[Shabbat 64a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:15)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. נֶאֱמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ בְּשֶׁרֶץ, וְנֶאֱמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ בְּמֵת. מָה ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ הָאָמוּר בְּשֶׁרֶץ — עָשָׂה דָּבָר הַבָּא מִזְּנַב הַסּוּס וּמִזְּנַב הַפָּרָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים, אַף ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ הָאָמוּר בְּמֵת — עָשָׂה דָּבָר הַבָּא מִזְּנַב הַסּוּס וּמִזְּנַב הַפָּרָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עִזִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse states: Garment and leather, garment and leather to** establish **a verbal analogy. Garment and leather is stated with regard to** ritual impurity imparted by **a creeping animal, and garment and leather is stated with regard to** ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse. Just as** with regard to the **garment and leather stated in** the *halakhot* of **a creeping animal** the Torah **rendered** the legal status of **an item made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail equal to** the legal status of **that which is made from goats’** hair, **so too,** with regard to the **garment and leather stated in** the *halakhot* of **a corpse,** the Torah **rendered** the legal status of **an item made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail equal to** the legal status of **that which is made from goats’** hair.


###### Shabbat 64a:16
[Shabbat 64a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:16)

וּמוּפְנֶה. דְּאִי לָאו מוּפְנֶה, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְשֶׁרֶץ שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it must be that the words garment and leather are **free.** Those terms must be superfluous in their context. The Torah included those terms for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. **Because if** these terms are **not free,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted: What** is unique **to a creeping animal?** Its ritual impurity is stringent **in that** it **renders** objects **ritually impure** even **by means of** contact with **a lentil-bulk** of a creeping animal. That is not the case with regard to a corpse, which is less severe in that it renders objects ritually impure only by means of contact with an olive-bulk of a corpse. Unless the terms are free, the analogy can be refuted.


###### Shabbat 64a:17
[Shabbat 64a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:17)

לָאיֵי אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֵי. מִכְּדֵי שֶׁרֶץ אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל שֶׁרֶץ״, וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע: ״וְכׇל בֶּגֶד וְכׇל עוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה עָלָיו שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״ — ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּשֶׁרֶץ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Indeed [*la’ei*], they are free.** The Gemara proves that the terms garment and leather are extraneous in their context. **Now, since** ritual impurity from contact with **a creeping animal is juxtaposed to** ritual impurity from contact with **semen, as it is written:** “And whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a **man from whom semen is emitted”** (Leviticus 22:4), **and juxtaposed to that** is the verse: **“Or whoever touches any creeping animal** which makes him impure, or a person who may make him impure with any impurity that he has” (Leviticus 22:5). **And it is written** in the *halakhot* **of** the ritual impurity of **semen: “And every garment and every hide on which the semen is** must be washed with water and will be impure until evening” (Leviticus 15:17). Since the verses appear next to each other, the *halakhot* of each can be derived from the other. Consequently, the words **garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to a creeping animal, why do I need** them? The relevant *halakha* could be derived from the *halakhot* of seminal impurity. **Learn from it** that garment and leather were mentioned **to render them free.**


###### Shabbat 64a:18
[Shabbat 64a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:18)

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד לְמֵידִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמֵידִין וּמְשִׁיבִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And still, it is free only from one side** of the verbal analogy. Although the terms garment and leather stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal are extraneous in their context, and the relevant *halakha* could have been derived in another manner, those terms stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are not extraneous in their context. This verbal analogy is only free from one side. **It** works out **well according to the** opinion of the **one who said,** with regard to a verbal analogy that is **free from** only **one side, one can derive from it and cannot refute** it logically. **However, according to** the opinion of **the one who said** that **one can derive from** a verbal analogy of this kind **and one can refute** it logically, **what can be said?**


###### Shabbat 64a:19
[Shabbat 64a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:19)

דְּמֵת נָמֵי אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה: מִכְּדִי מֵת אִתַּקַּשׁ לְשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּכׇל טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע״, וּכְתִיב בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע: ״וְכׇל בֶּגֶד וְכׇל עוֹר״ — ״בֶּגֶד״ וָ״עוֹר״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמֵת לְמָה לִי? — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Garment and leather stated **with regard to** impurity imparted by a **corpse are also free. Now, since a corpse is juxtaposed with semen, as it is written: “And whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man whose semen is emitted from him”** (Leviticus 22:4); **and it is stated with regard to semen: “And every garment and every hide”** (Leviticus 15:17); the terms **garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to** ritual impurity imparted by **a corpse, why do I** need them? **Learn from it** that they are mentioned in order **to render them free.** These terms are extraneous in their context, and were written for the purpose of the verbal analogy with the *halakhot* of creeping animals.


###### Shabbat 64a:20
[Shabbat 64a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:20)

״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר מָצָא כְלִי זָהָב אֶצְעָדָה וְצָמִיד טַבַּעַת עָגִיל וְכוּמָז״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״עָגִיל״ — זֶה דְּפוּס שֶׁל דַּדִּין. ״כּוּמָז״ — זֶה דְּפוּס שֶׁל בֵּית הָרֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interprets verses written with regard to the Midianite war discussed above: **“And we have brought an offering before the Lord what every man has gotten of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, *agil*, and *kumaz*,** to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50). **Rabbi Elazar said: *Agil* is a mold** in the shape of a woman’s **breasts** worn over them as an ornament. ***Kumaz* is a mold** in the shape **of the womb.**


###### Shabbat 64a:21
[Shabbat 64a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:21)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן ״מָחוֹךְ״ — דָּבָר הַמֵּבִיא לִידֵי גִּיחוּךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: מִגּוּפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, ״כּוּמָז״ — כָּאן מְקוֹם זִימָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: If so, that is** the reason **that we translate** *kumaz* into Aramaic as ***maḥokh*,** meaning **an item that leads to foolishness. Rabba said to him: This** meaning **is learned from the verse itself; *kumaz*** is an acronym for: **Here [*kan*]** is the **place of [*mekom*] lewdness [*zimma*].**


###### Shabbat 64a:22
[Shabbat 64a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:22)

״וַיִּקְצֹף מֹשֶׁה עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אָמַר לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁמָּא חֲזַרְתֶּם לְקִלְקוּלְכֶם הָרִאשׁוֹן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״לֹא נִפְקַד מִמֶּנּוּ אִישׁ״. אָמַר לָהֶן: אִם כֵּן כַּפָּרָה לָמָּה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם מִידֵי עֲבֵירָה יָצָאנוּ, מִידֵי הִרְהוּר לֹא יָצָאנוּ! מִיָּד ״וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת קׇרְבַּן ה׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Later in that chapter, it is written: **“And Moses was angry with the officers of the host,** the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14); **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said** that **Moses said to Israel: Perhaps you have returned to your original sinful** behavior, when you sinned with the daughters of Moab and Midian at Shittim? **They said to him: “Not one man of us is missing”** (Numbers 31:49), we remain as wholesome in deed as we were. **He said to them: If so, why** do you need **atonement?** The princes brought these ornaments to atone for their souls. **They said to him: If we have emerged from the grasps of** actual **transgression, we have not emerged from the grasps of thoughts** of transgression. **Immediately,** they decided: **“And we have brought an offering before the Lord.”**


###### Shabbat 64a:23
[Shabbat 64a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/64a:23)

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה הוּצְרְכוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר כַּפָּרָה — מִפְּנֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sage **of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what** reason **did Israel in that generation require atonement? Because**