## Shevuot Daf 10b

###### Shevuot 10b:1
[Shevuot 10b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:1)

חַטַּאת הַכִּפּוּרִים״, וְאִיתַּקּוּשׁ חִיצוֹן לִפְנִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the sin-offering of the atonements”** (Numbers 29:11). “One goat for a sin-offering” is referring to the external goat, and “the sin-offering of the atonements” is referring to the internal goat. With this verse, the **external** goat **is juxtaposed with** the **internal** goat, and therefore the limitations imposed on the atonement of the internal goat are also to be applied to the external goat.


###### Shevuot 10b:2
[Shevuot 10b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:2)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of** Rabbi Shimon a version of his opinion that differs from that of the mishna above: The goats of the New Moons atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. The goats of the Festivals exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and also atone for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods where one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end. The goats of Yom Kippur further exceed them, as they atone both for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food and for cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end; and they also atone for cases in which one did not have awareness at the beginning but did have awareness at the end.


###### Shevuot 10b:3
[Shevuot 10b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:3)

מַאי שְׁנָא דְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים דְּלָא מְכַפְּרִי אַדִּרְגָלִים – דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עֲוֹן״, עָוֹן אֶחָד הוּא נוֹשֵׂא וְאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא שְׁנֵי עֲוֹנוֹת; דִּרְגָלִים נָמֵי לָא נִיכַפְּרוּ אַדְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים – דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אוֹתָהּ״, אוֹתָהּ הוּא נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְאֵין אַחֵר נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן! ״אוֹתָהּ״ לֹא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about the goats **of** the **New Moons that they do not atone for that which** the goats **of** the **Festivals** atone? The Gemara answers: **As the verse states** with regard to any one of the goats of the New Moons: “And He gave it to you to bear **the sin** of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), which teaches that **it bears,** i.e., atones for, **one sin but does not bear two sins.** The Gemara asks: If so, the goats **of** the **Festivals should also not atone for that which** the goats **of** the **New Moons** atone, **as** that same **verse states:** “And He gave **it** to you,” which indicates that **it bears,** i.e., atones for, that **sin, but nothing** else **bears** that **sin.** Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of the Festivals do atone for that which the goats of the New Moons atone? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon **does not learn** anything from the word **“it.”** Accordingly, he holds that any one of the goats of the Festivals can atone for two different sins.


###### Shevuot 10b:4
[Shevuot 10b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:4)

מַאי שְׁנָא דִּרְגָלִים דְּלָא מְכַפְּרִי אַדְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה״, כַּפָּרָה זוֹ לֹא תְּהֵא אֶלָּא אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה; אִי הָכִי, דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים נָמֵי לָא נִיכַפְּרוּ אַדִּרְגָלִים – ״אַחַת״ כְּתִיב, כַּפָּרָה אַחַת מְכַפֵּר וְאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר שְׁתֵּי כַּפָּרוֹת! ״אַחַת״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **What is different** about the goats **of** the **Festivals that they do not atone for that which** the goats **of Yom Kippur** atone? **As the verse states** with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: **“Once a year”** (Exodus 30:10), which teaches that **this atonement** for the specific case that it atones for **should be only once a year,** and therefore no other offering can atone for it. The Gemara challenges: **If so,** the goats **of Yom Kippur should also not atone for that which** the goats **of** the **Festivals** atone, as it **is written: “Once** a year,” which teaches that the goats **effect one atonement** for only one case **but cannot effect two atonements** for two cases. Why then does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda cite Rabbi Shimon as holding that the goats of Yom Kippur atone for everything that the goats of the Festivals atone for? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon **does not learn** anything from the word **“once.”** Accordingly, he holds that the goats of Yom Kippur can atone for three different cases.


###### Shevuot 10b:5
[Shevuot 10b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:5)

אַמַּאי? דְּכִי כְּתִיב ״אַחַת״ – בְּשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים כְּתִיב. אִי הָכִי, דִּרְגָלִים נָמֵי נְכַפְּרוּ אַדְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיב ״אַחַת״ – בְּשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** doesn’t he expound the word “once”? He does not expound it **because when** the word **“once” is written,** it **is written with regard to** the **goat whose** blood presentation is **performed inside** the Sanctuary, and so the *halakha* derived from that verse has no bearing on the capacity of the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary to atone. The Gemara asks: **If so,** the goats **of** the **Festivals also should atone for that which** the goats **of Yom Kippur** atone, **as when** the phrase **“once** a year” **is written,** it **is written with regard to** the **goat whose** blood presentation is **performed inside** the Sanctuary, so the *halakha* derived from that verse has no bearing on whether another offering can atone for that which the external goat atones.


###### Shevuot 10b:6
[Shevuot 10b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:6)

לְעוֹלָם ״אַחַת״ מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל קַרְנֹתָיו אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה״ – קַרְנוֹתָיו דְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי הוּא דְּכַפָּרָה אַחַת מְכַפֵּר וְאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר שְׁתֵּי כַּפָּרוֹת, הָא דְּחִיצוֹן אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי כַּפָּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, he does learn** a *halakha* from the word **“once,”** and he holds that it also teaches about the capacity of the external goat to atone, as the Gemara explained above. **But** it **is different here,** with regard to the derivation that the goat cannot effect two atonements, **as the verse states: “And Aaron shall bring atonement upon its corners once a year”** (Exodus 30:10). The emphasis on “upon its corners” teaches that it is only with regard to the internal goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the **corners of the internal altar, that it effects one atonement** for only one case **but cannot effect two atonements** for two different cases, **but** the external goat, whose blood presentation is performed upon the corners **of the external** altar, can effect **even two** different **atonements.**


###### Shevuot 10b:7
[Shevuot 10b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:7)

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכוּ לַצִּבּוּר, נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Animals purchased with funds collected for public offerings may be sacrificed only during the fiscal year in which those funds were given. For this purpose, the fiscal year begins on the first of Nisan. Generally, once an animal has been consecrated as an offering, then even if for some reason it may no longer be sacrificed, it still cannot be redeemed unless it develops a blemish. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches an exception to this *halakha*: **Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Lambs consecrated for the **daily offerings that were not needed by the public** during the fiscal year in which they were purchased **are redeemed,** even if they are **unblemished,** and they may then be used for non-sacred purposes.


###### Shevuot 10b:8
[Shevuot 10b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:8)

יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן צָיֵית לָךְ וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רַבָּךְ? וְכִי קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba was sitting and reciting this *halakha*. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who will listen to you and Rabbi Yoḥanan, your teacher,** with regard to this *halakha*? Rav Ḥisda clarified: **But** the **sanctity that was** inherent **in them, to where has it gone?** Since these animals were consecrated as offerings, they should have been endowed with inherent sanctity. Only sanctity that inheres in an item’s value, i.e., an item consecrated to the Temple treasury, can be desacralized through redemption, but an item with inherent sanctity can never be desacralized.


###### Shevuot 10b:9
[Shevuot 10b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרַהּ דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן ״קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה״?! וְהָתְנַן: מוֹתַר הַקְּטוֹרֶת, מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? מַפְרִישִׁין מִמֶּנָּה שְׂכַר הָאוּמָּנִין, וּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל מְעוֹת הָאוּמָּנִין, וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ לָאוּמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: Don’t you** also **hold that we do not say** that the question: The **sanctity that was** inherent **in them, to where has it gone,** poses a difficulty? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 4:5): In any fiscal year, one may use only incense that was purchased with funds collected for that year. Accordingly, the mishna asks: With regard to **the surplus incense** that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year, **what would** the Temple treasurers **do with it** in order to render it usable for the following year? They would **separate from** the Temple treasury the **wages for the artisans** who worked for the Temple, and those funds would thereby be desacralized. **And** then **they would desacralize** the surplus incense by transferring its sanctity **to** that **money** that had been set aside **for the artisans.** Then, **they would give** the now-desacralized incense **to the artisans as their wages, and** finally, **they would repurchase it** with funds **from the new collection** carried out for the coming year.


###### Shevuot 10b:10
[Shevuot 10b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:10)

וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: ״קְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁבָּהֶן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכָה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba explains the proof from the mishna: One could ask: **But why** should the method described work? **Let us say:** The **sanctity that was** inherent **in** the incense, **to where has it gone?** It cannot be removed by redeeming it. Perforce, even you must concede that this question does not pose a difficulty.


###### Shevuot 10b:11
[Shevuot 10b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/10b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קְטוֹרֶת קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי קְטוֹרֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to him: Did you say** that there is a proof from the *halakhot* of **incense?** One cannot compare incense to animals consecrated for the daily offerings, since **incense is different,**