MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds¹. 5:4 requires a reparation sacrifice for inadvertent breach of a commitment made by oath, “what was pronounced, negatively or positively.” The standard example of a positive oath is somebody swearing that he will eat certain foods. The corresponding negative is an oath that he will refrain from eating certain foods. The exact expression used, לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב, by its hiph`il form points to the future. A natural complement are backward looking oaths, if a person swears that he ate or did not eat certain foods in the past (Mishnah 3:1). These four cases are equal in sanctions for willful or inadvertent breach.. There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds². 5:2–3 requires a reparation sacrifice for a person who became impure, forgot it, and then either ate sancta in his impurity or entered the Sanctuary. The two added cases are that he knew about being impure but forgot that the food was holy or that the place was a Sanctuary.. There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds³ 1:1). “Transport” includes lifting up, moving, and setting down. The two cases where one is liable (for a sacrifice if the sin was unintentional, punishment if the transgression was intentional, and is prosecutable, or extirpation by Divine decree if the crime was intentional but is not prosecutable) are “export” by a person standing inside the private domain, lifting something up inside the domain and putting it down on the outside (e. g., through a window) even without moving his feet, or “import”, somebody lifting an object from the outside to the inside and depositing it there. The two cases where one is not liable refer to a person inside who lifts an object, hands it to a person outside (so that the object never is at rest) and the second person puts it down. Since no one person completed a criminal act, no one can be held liable even though the combined action clearly is forbidden.. There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds⁴. 13:2 defines impure skin disease as שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת “as elevated spot, or sapaḥat, or a white spot.” This is read as “an elevated spot (which makes the surrounding skin look elevated over the whitish spot) and a really white spot and their appendages”, deriving sapaḥat from the root ספח, “to append, adjoin.” This extends the definition of impure skin disease from two relatively well defined cases to two additional weaker symptoms..

footnotes: ¹ Lev ² Lev ³ It is forbidden to transport anything on the Sabbath from a private domain to the public domain (Mishnah Šabbat ⁴ Lev

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. ⁵ 1:1, of which there exists a Genizah parallel (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 62). The text in Šabbat is original since in both versions, “here” refers to Šabbat while “there” refers to Ševuot, and in addition, the statement of R. Ba logically has to precede that of R. Yose as in the Šabbat text. Probably the scribe of the Ševuot text available to the Leiden ms.’s scribe had omitted the statement of R. Ba and added it in the text when he noticed the omission. S. Liebermann, in his Commentary to the Yerushalmi Šabbat (Hayerushalmi Kipshuto, New York 1995, Jerusalem 1935) holds that the source is Ševuot. This is difficult to accept; the text is from Šabbat but the problem is the discrepancy in meaning of the same expression “two which are four” used in very different meanings in our Mishnah. The problem starts with the rather complicated language of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1: “There are two cases which are four for exporting and two cases which are four for importing.” The Mishnah then goes on to explain that if a rich person, the owner, stands at the window of a house (which is a private domain) and a poor person stands in the street (the public domain), if then the rich person delivers an object to the poor outside, or the poor reaches inside and takes the object, the person acting is liable to prosecution but the other is not liable. (In fact, the passive participant never did do anything; the expression “not liable to prosecution” is inappropriate.) But if the rich person lifted the object, kept it moving all the time, and handed it to the poor who put it down, nobody is liable since nobody completed a forbidden act. The same naturally applies if the poor takes up a package and keeps it moving until the the owner of the house takes it and puts it down. In this case, the qualification as “not liable” is appropriate since both participants violated a Sabbath prohibition. The question now arises whether the formulation “two which are four” always implies that the status of the two additional cases is different from the two original ones since in our Mishnah the same expression is used for oaths and Sabbath violations. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability⁶ 1:1 there are four cases of liability, rich or poor taking out or rich or poor bringing in. There are also four cases where there is no liability, depending on who takes up the object first and who takes over, and what the direction of the move is. The question now is raised whether a similar case can be made for the first clause in Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc.⁷ the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability⁸ 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability⁸ 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.. ⁷ the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four⁹ refers to Mishnah Middot 4:1 which explains that the entrance gate to the Temple hall was built in the manner of a city gate, a thick wall closed by an outer double door opening to the outside and an inner two-winged door opening to the inside. The expression “two doors which are four” is simply the description of the structure of the building.? Can you say, liability and no liability¹⁰? Should we state twelve cases of no liability¹¹ 1:1 counts four actions for which one is liable (complete actions, export and import for the rich person, export and import for the poor.) Then it counts four cases for which one is not liable, but since for any incomplete action one is not liable one could consider the possibility that the poor man reaches into the house, lifts the object which the rich then takes up and deposits on the outside. A similar convoluted action is possible for import; two actions for two actors each result in four non-liabilities.? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability¹². Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada¹³: bar Abba. In the Babli, Šabbat 2b/3a, the argument is by Babylonian Amoraim. said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted¹⁴ 1:1 in two completely different senses. As noted earlier (Note 5) if the complete action is performed by one person, the other one is passive and does not infringe on any law; at all times everything he does is permitted. But if the action is completed by two persons, both sinned. While they are not liable for a sacrifice or punishment, they require repentance and Heaven’s forgiveness.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one¹⁵, the Genizah text and the first hand of the Leiden ms. read “Exporting or importing are one but the Sages counted them as two” but as S. Liebermann (Note 5) has noted, the reading here is supported by early Medieval quotes.. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing¹⁶. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports¹⁷? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable¹⁸ Chapters 7–8). For solid food, the minimum is fixed at the volume of a dried fig. The two actions mentioned will combine if there was continuous awareness of the Sabbath prohibitions.. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,¹⁹. 36:6. The verse speaks of donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Babli (Šabbat 96b) finds a tenuous connection with the Sabbath by a gezerah šawah, concurrent use of words.” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.²⁰. 17:22. While prophetic books are not sources of law, they are authentic evidence for the understanding of the Torah by the teachers of past generations. It is proved that in the understanding of Jeremiah (whose student Barukh ben Neriah is credited with bringing the study of Torah to Babylonia) moving objects from a private to the public domain is a violation of biblical law. This supports the interpretation of Ex. 36:6.”

footnotes: ⁵ This paragraph is a slightly garbled copy of the first paragraph in Tractate Šabbat ⁶ S. Liebermann (Note 5) proposes to delete “four which are not liable” as induced by the preceding statement about “two and two” even though the text is common to all three versions at our disposal and it is difficult to assume that the redundant text was taught in the Galilean Academy. For the rules of the Sabbath, the case is simple and there is no redundancy. In the formulation of Mishnah Šabbat ⁷ The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat ⁸ Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat ⁸ Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat ⁷ The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat ⁹ This baraita ¹⁰ This is inappropriate here. ¹¹ Mishnah Šabbat ¹² Only those cases are counted where a direct action, resulting in liability if executed by one person, imply no liability if done by two. The convoluted cases of Note 11 are not noted since they do not correspond to a case that could involve only one actor. ¹³ In Šabbat ¹⁴ The expression “no liability” is used in Mishnah Šabbat ¹⁵ Since both the rich man and the poor are described as executing the same actions, there is no intrinsic reason why they should be considered separately. It only is to emphasize the importance of the rules of transporting on the Sabbath. But, as will be shown in the sequel, not to bring out is a direct biblical command while not bringing into a private domain from the public one is an inference; the rules of importing must be transferred from those of exporting.In Šabbat ¹⁶ Since there are no verses spelling out the prohibition of carrying from the public domain to a private one. ¹⁷ Importing into one domain is exporting from another. There seems to be no reason to make a distinction between domains (even though there is a big difference since in a private domain one may carry without restriction but in the public domain only for a distance of less than 4 cubits.) ¹⁸ While any transport from one domain to another on the Sabbath is sinful, it creates a liability only if the object is of a minimal size (Šabbat ¹⁹ Ex ²⁰ Jer

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution²¹; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices²² (Wayyiqra 2) Parašah 9(8). For the four cases enumerated in Note 1, R. Aqiba requires four separate sacrifices. R. Ismael infers from the forward-looking formulation of the verse that only future-directed oaths can trigger liability for a sacrifice. According to him, for separate oaths in the same period of oblivion at most two sacrifices may be due.. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices²³, New York 1909, p. 264 ff.) but it cannot be correct. The purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease is independent of the particular diagnosis by which he had been declared impure and the number of sacrifices due solely depends on his financial ability. The sequel shows that one has to read “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds,” the second clause in the Mishnah. The difference between RR. Aqiba and Ismael is explained in Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7), Babli 14b. Both verses Lev. 5:2,3 describe situations in which a person might become impure; they both end with the remark “it was hidden from him but then he knew and was found guilty,” i. e., he forgot about the impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and then became aware of his transgression. R. Aqiba holds that since impurity is mentioned twice but the Sanctuary only by inference, no sacrifice is due for causing impurity of the Sanctuary, only for entering it in impurity. R. Ismael holds that the repetition of the clause implies the obligation of a sacrifice both for impurity of the person and of the Sanctuary. R. Aqiba will hold that separate sacrifices might be due for impurity originating outside the person (v. 2) and that created in humans (v. 3). R. Ismael will hold that separate sacrifices are due for a human entering the Sanctuary in impurity and for the impurity thereby caused to the Sanctuary. The problem is that the Mishnah is anonymous, representing R. Meїr’s Mishnah, which is R. Aqiba’s tradition.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin²⁴.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora. explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael²⁵. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta²⁶. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba²⁷ and forgetting the Sanctuary (Mishnah 2:6). R. Ḥaggai’s inference is incorrect; R. Aqiba will not require a sacrifice in his case.? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice²⁸. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice²⁹. In the case in question there was only one forgetting; there is only one sacrifice required. The sentence is missing in G.. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]³⁰? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware³¹. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]³².

footnotes: ²¹ He did not ascribe the following remark to R. Joḥanan or any other earlier Amora. ²² Mishnah 3:1, explicit in Sifra Ḥovah ²³ The reference to skin disease also is in a difficult Genizah text (G, L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah ²⁴ R. Abin mentioned at the start of the paragraph is R. Abin the son, head of the Academy of Tiberias at the time of R. Mana in Sepphoris. The reading “R. Eleazar in the name of R. Abin” (In G: “in the name of R. Abun”, at a second occurrence “R. Eliezer ben R. Abun”) is impossible since R. Abin (Abun) the father lived a generation and a half after R. Eleazar. As already recognized by R. David Fraenckel (Qorban Ha`edah ad loc ²⁵ The Tanna of the Mishnah is not inconsistent in his use of parallel expressions but the two parallel sentences represent two different tannaןtic positions. ²⁶ Since Mishnah 2:1 explains that even R. Aqiba can hold that “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds” only if he distinguishes between awareness of impurity and awareness of the Sanctuary, there seems to be a possibility following him to require a sacrifice for infringing on the purity of the Sanctuary when there was awareness of impurity but oblivion of the Sanctuary. ²⁷ Only R. Ismael requires a sacrifice both for forgetting impurity of sancta ²⁸ Even following R. Ismael. ²⁹ There is no guilt attached to being impure. Guilt by impurity is incurred only if either the impure person enters the Sanctuary or eats from sancta ³⁰ Text of G היךְ עבידה. ³¹ There is only one oblivion and only one sacrifice.The sentence is missing in G. ³² At the first occasion, he was aware of the Sanctuary but he thought that for his kind of secondary impurity the Sanctuary was not forbidden. Then he entered several times while forgetting about the Sanctuary. Finally he realized his error concerning both impurity and Sanctuary. R. Ismael will agree that only one sacrifice is possible.

New paragraph. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.” ³³ 6a.“Rebbi Yose said, Joshua the son of Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Aqiba. He said to him, why did they say, ‘There are two kinds of looks of skin disease which are four kinds’³⁴? He answered him, if not so, what should they have said? He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure.³⁵. 13:38–39), if they contain discolored hair they potentially are sources of impurity. This is characterized in Lev. 13:2 as “s´et, adjoint, or shiny spot” which is read as “s´et, shiny spot, or one of their adjoints”. It is indicated that the Cohen has to determine the nature of the impurity but no details are given, possibly to reserve diagnosis to priests. The details therefore are left to tradition. In Mishnah Nega`im 1:1, “shiny spot” is defined by R. Meїr as color of fresh snow, s´et as color of eggshell (or the color of the membrane enclosing a hard boiled egg.) These colors are characterized as appearing as depressions on normal skin (Lev. 13:3). There are secondary forms for which the spots do not appear as if depressed (Lev. 13:4), these are described as the color of whitewash used in the Temple and that of white wool. The Sages disagreeing with R. Meїr declare eggshell as a secondary color. Since in the Tosephta eggshell is treated as secondary color, R. Meїr cannot represent the teachings of R. Aqiba in this case. In G there is an added sentence which cannot be reconstructed.’ He said to him, to tell you that anybody not expert for them and their names may not see skin lesions.³⁶”

footnotes: ³³ Tosephta Nega`im 1:1, Babli Ševuot ³⁴ In contrast to the three similar statements in the Mishnah, this one does not seem to have legal implications. ³⁵ While white spots on one’s skin in general are harmless (Lev ³⁶ Since the colors are not described in the Torah, the uninitiated lacks the means of determining purity and impurity.

From where that they can be joined one to the other³⁷? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other³⁸ so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin²⁴.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora.: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind³⁹ and “shiny spot” are to be combined then certainly a shiny spot and one of lesser intensity are one and the same.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other⁴⁰, Parašat Negaim*, *Pereq* 1(4) which reads מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה “this teaches that *they can* be joined one to the other.” Already D. Fraenckel in the 18th Century recognized that under the influence of Greek the *h* sound was lost and there was no difference in sound between שֶׁהֵן and שֶׁאֵין.. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot⁴¹ be joined one to the other.” ⁴²“He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.⁴³” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, *behold*, *the diseased spot darkened*⁴⁴. 13:6. Since even for a darkened spot there are conditions which have to be satisfied before the sufferer from skin disease is declared pure, it follows that the change of color alone is not sufficient.. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. ⁴⁵ It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants⁴⁶, *legatus*, the second in command. The decreasing order of brightness is snow, eggshell, whitewash, white wool.. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors⁴⁷. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada]⁴⁸ bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the *Arghabeṭa*⁴⁹, pp. 27b–28b. and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If *s´et* whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third⁵⁰ and *s´et* combine. If one would establish a hierarchy of brightness as the parables indicate and *s´et* was less than *baheret*, a combination of *baheret* with its secondary color would be a combination of degrees 1 and 3, which we had excluded by a previous argument. Therefore *s´et* and *baheret* must be coordinate, not subordinate.? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the *s´et*? The kind of *s´et* is like eggshell. ⁵¹, *Parašat Negaim, Pereq 1(4). A parallel text from another source is in the Babli, 6b.“שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened⁵². 13:3., secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods⁵³. 2:36., etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one⁵⁴. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.⁵⁵ 7:2. מִסְפַּחַת is biblical equivalent of סַפַּחַת (Lev. 13:6,7) used both for impure and pure spots, thereby validating the distinction between deeper and much deeper colors.”

footnotes: ³⁷ A discoloration cannot imply impurity unless it contain an inscribed square of the size of half a Cilician bean; this is defined as (36 hairwidths)2. The spot does not have to be of uniform color. ³⁸ Since they are mentioned together in one verse. ²⁴ R. Abin mentioned at the start of the paragraph is R. Abin the son, head of the Academy of Tiberias at the time of R. Mana in Sepphoris. The reading “R. Eleazar in the name of R. Abin” (In G: “in the name of R. Abun”, at a second occurrence “R. Eliezer ben R. Abun”) is impossible since R. Abin (Abun) the father lived a generation and a half after R. Eleazar. As already recognized by R. David Fraenckel (Qorban Haedah ad loc ³⁹ If the verse implies that spots classified as s´et ⁴⁰ This contradicts everything we know from parallel sources, in particular the otherwise exact parallel in Sifra Tazria ⁴¹ Again, read “they can”. Since the verse mentions three different diseases, the singular implies that for matters of purity all three are one. ⁴² A second version of the discussion between R. Aqiba and his son, not recorded elsewhere. ⁴³ One cannot say that the color of fresh snow, which is blinding in bright sunlight, is the same as eggshell, but that for the rules of impurity both are equal and the relation of the color of snow to whitewash is equal to the relation between eggwhite and white (unbleached) wool. ⁴⁴ Lev ⁴⁵ Babli 6b. ⁴⁶ ὕπαρχος, lieutenant, proconsul ⁴⁷ He thinks that the secondary colors are much darker than the primary ones. ⁴⁸ The reading in parenthesis is that of the ms., the one in brackets that of G. While Rav Ada bar Aḥawa (in the Babli Rav Ada bar Ahavah) is well attested to in both Talmudim, a Rav Aḥa bar Aḥawa is not otherwise known. ⁴⁹ Probably the high Sassanid official mentioned in Greek sources as ἀργαπέτης, a Persion word “commander of a fort.”. The word is discussed at length by Geiger in Additamenta ad librum Aruch Completum ⁵⁰ The problem is what combines with what for impurity. It is clear from the biblical text that the spots in the original color combine, also that baheret ⁵¹ Sifra Tazria ⁵² Lev ⁵³ 1S ⁵⁴ Since the word is placed between the two expressions. ⁵⁵ Mishnah Negaim

MISHNAH: In any case⁵⁶ in such a state, is possible only if the violation occurred while the perpetrator was oblivious of his state (Lev. 5:2–3). This implies that at some earlier time he was aware of his state. If he never remembers, clearly he has no occasion to bring a sacrifice. where there is knowledge at the start and knowledge at the end but forgetting in between there is an increasing or decreasing [sacrifice]⁵⁷. 5:1–13.. If there was knowledge at the start but no knowledge at the end, the he-goat whose blood in brought inside⁵⁸. 16:15–16. and the Day of Atonement⁵⁹ suspend until it becomes a certainty for him and he brings an increasing or decreasing one⁶⁰.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ This refers to violations of the laws of purity (Note 2). A sacrifice to atone for such a violation, either by entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity or eating sacra ⁵⁷ Depending of the perpetrator’s wealth as explained in Lev ⁵⁸ Lev ⁵⁹ If there is no Temple, the Day of Atonement protects the perpetrator from judgment by the Heavenly Court. ⁶⁰ The Day of Atonement suspends but does not eliminate the obligation; there is no statute of limitations.

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. ⁶¹ From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten⁶². 5:2,3. two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta⁶³ (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7)] this is consistently attributed to R. Ismael. The difference between the two is that R. Aqiba considers every stylistic variation a change in meaning whereas R. Ismael holds that “the Torah is written in the manner of common speech.”. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty¹. 5:2,3.⁶⁴? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Babli 4a. ⁶² Lev ⁶³ In Babylonian sources [Babli 14b, Sifra Ḥova ¹ Lev ⁶⁴ The first quote is from the verse about human impurity, the other about impurity from extra-human sources. While it was argued before that one can only forget what one knew, the knowledge explicitly required in v. 3 must be explicit, it cannot have been unconsciously absorbed.

Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice⁶⁵? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning⁶⁶. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring⁶⁷. 4:23, about the purification offering of the prince. Purification offerings are for inadvertent sins; nowhere is prior knowledge and intermediate forgetting indicated. R. Bun’s argument would force the transfer of the rules for variable sacrifices to purification ones against all tradition.? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end⁶⁸. 5:17–18). If he then gains certainty that he has committed an inadvertent sin, a purification sacrifice is due if and only if he gains this knowledge before the next Day of Atonement. R. Bun’s argument is justified.! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement⁷⁰ 8:6 (45b l. 47), Babli Keritut 25b..

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Since any obligatory offering cannot be brought voluntarily, the fact that a sacrifice is commanded implies that the person can prove it is obligatory, i. e., he knows that a sin has been committed. Therefore the mention of ‘knowledge” in the verse cannot refer to his knowledge at the moment he offers the sacrifice. ⁶⁶ And the mention of forgetting must be interpreted as read by R. Aqiba here and R. Ismael in the Babli sources. ⁶⁷ Lev ⁶⁸ A “suspended” reparation sacrifice is brought if the person suspects but is not sure that he has sinned (Lev ⁷⁰ Yoma

⁷¹ Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(9). And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity⁷². 22:15–16, both warning and punishment are written for priests who would violate the purity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. For the laity the corresponding verses are Lev. 7:19–20. The sacrifice for violations in purity is mentioned in Lev. 5:2–3; one has to establish that no sacrifice is possible for violations of sancta which do not belong to the Sanctuary such as heave. and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta⁷³. 26:14. The person who comes to eat his Second Tithe at the place of the Sanctuary has to make a declaration that he followed all the rules; in particular that he did not eat of it while in “deep mourning”, occupied in burying a close relative. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity but no sanction for violation of its purity is spelled out anywhere in the Pentateuch., also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning⁷⁴.14., I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e⁷⁵. 5:4. Prefix מ always is read as partitive, “some but not all.” Since it is not spelled out which infractions of the laws of impurity (or of testimony, or oaths) are included, and which are excluded, the detailed rules are left to rabbinic interpretation. Babli 33b.. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it⁷⁶. 22:9. First Tithe (of which heave of the tithe was separated) is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity at the place of the Sanctuary but there is no penalty for violation of its purity. But heave has to be eaten by the Cohen in purity and violation of its purity is a deadly sin.. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there⁷⁷ [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship⁷⁸. 15:22.? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally⁷⁹. 15:22–29; extirpation in vv. 30–31. Babli Šabbat 69a.. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Babli 6b; Sifra ⁷² In Lev ⁷³ Deut ⁷⁴ Deut ⁷⁵ Lev ⁷⁶ Lev ⁷⁷ The verse mentioned in Note 76. ⁷⁸ The sacrifice atoning for inadvertent idolatry is declared paradigmatic for all sins in Num ⁷⁹ The sacrifice is spelled out in Num ⁸⁰ But no extirpation is mentioned for violating purity of heaves.

Rebbi Ḥanina⁸¹ said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge⁸²! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one⁸³. How did you understand to say that the verse⁸⁴. 5:2–3. Babli 7a. speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal⁸⁵. 5:2. and it is said further on an impure animal⁸⁶. 7:21.. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary⁸⁷ 43b. The question is whether a violation of the purity of the Sanctuary can be expiated by a sacrifice or whether any such violation requires the full ceremony of Lev. 16 describing the Day of Atonement.? ⁸⁸ 14(3–6), partially quoted in Zevaḥim 43b.“The verse says: his impurity is on him⁸⁹. 7:20.. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]⁹⁰. 7:19.? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate⁹¹. 7:21., his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural⁹² but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates⁹³, for severe impurities by one of the prescribed rituals. Impure sacral meat must be burned (Lev. 7:19; it also loses its impurity by rotting but as long as it is meat it remains impure.. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

footnotes: ⁸¹ Read: Ḥinena. ⁸² Since neither prior awareness nor forgetting are mentioned as prerequisite for a sacrifice for unintentional idolatry (nor for any other sacrifice not depending on the sinner’s wealth) one would have to explain away the mention of prior awareness for infractions of the laws of purity. ⁸³ Therefore the previous argument is invalid; one has to find another argument to exclude any sacrifice for violations of the sanctity of heave. ⁸⁴ Lev ⁸⁵ Lev ⁸⁶ Lev ⁸⁷ Babli Zevaḥim ⁸⁸ Sifra Ṣav Pereq ⁸⁹ Lev ⁹⁰ This is prohibited in Lev ⁹¹ Lev ⁹² A well-being offering is always mentioned in the plural, שְׁלָמִים. It is argued that therefore a singular cannot refer to the sacrifice. The argument is unconvincing since the sacrifice is not called שְׁלָמִים in the plural but זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים in the singular. It also is unnecessary since in 7:20 עָלָיו “on him” refers to the subject וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ “but the person”. ⁹³ A person always can remove his impurity, for simple impurity by immersion in a miqweh

If it is so, what does the Day of Atonement help him⁹⁵? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the Day of Atonement acts for him as a suspended reparation sacrifice. In he died before the day of Atonement, the sin is in her⁹⁶. 15:31. The feminine pronoun refers to נֶפֶשׁ “the breathing person”.. After the day of Atonement it already was atoned for⁹⁷.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ This refers to the second part of the Mishnah. If at some time the impurity was known, the eventual obligation of a sacrifice is not eliminated by the day of Atonement. Then what is the effect of this day? ⁹⁶ Num ⁹⁷ Even though an eventual obligation remains for the living person, the guilt has been atoned for.

⁹⁸4(1–3).“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel⁹⁹. 16:16., etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary¹⁰⁰. 20:3.. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations¹⁰¹. 18.30.. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land¹⁰². 35:34, a misquote from memory.. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities¹⁰³. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately¹⁰⁴, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes⁹⁹. 16:16.. These are the rebellions¹⁰⁵, for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me¹⁰⁶. 3:7..

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Babli 7b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq ⁹⁹ Lev ¹⁰⁰ Lev ¹⁰¹ Lev ¹⁰² Num ¹⁰³ Reading the prefix מ as partitive, cf. Note 75. ¹⁰⁴ In his opinion, the Day of Atonement is exclusively for repairing any damage to the Sanctuary. ⁹⁹ Lev ¹⁰⁵ Intentional sins, intended as “breaking the yoke of Heaven”. There is no homily on חַטָּאוֹת “unintentional sins” also mentioned in the verse. ¹⁰⁶ 2K

MISHNAH: If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end¹⁰⁷ was impaired, a sacrifice is needed which, however, cannot be that of a particular person. It must be the people’s sacrifice., the he-goat brought outside¹⁰⁸. 29:11) which is treated following the rules of all holidays and is not mentioned in Lev. 16. or the Day of Atonement¹⁰⁹ atone as it is said, in addition to the atoning purification offering¹¹⁰. 29:11. The atoning purification offering is the one mentioned in Lev. 16:15.; what the one atones for the other atones for. Since the one inside atones only on matters which were known¹¹¹, also the outside one should atone only on matters which were known.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ If there was no knowledge at the start and therefore no forgetting, there can be no variable sacrifice. But since the purity of the Sanctuary or of its sancta ¹⁰⁸ The holiday purification offering of the Day of Atonement (Num ¹⁰⁹ If there is no Temple. ¹¹⁰ Num ¹¹¹ Where there is awareness of violation of the rules of purity. For unknown violations see Mishnah 4.

HALAKHAH: “If there is no knowledge at the start,” etc. What can you see to say? Does the one inside suspend and the one outside atone, or the one outside suspend and the one inside atone, or both of them suspend, or both of them atone¹¹². 16:15 ff.) whose blood is sprinkled on the gobelin separating the Temple Hall from the Holiest of Holies and the incense altar (Ex. 30:10), and one (Num. 29:11) whose blood is sprinkled on the large altar in the Temple courtyard. The question is whether each of these has a separate function or whether the day requires a double sacrifice for all its functions.? What about it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, I saw something. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking before Rebbi Joḥanan and asked him, what are the differences in atoning? I do not know what he answered him. Rebbi Zeira said to him, maybe it is the following: ¹¹³ How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]? The verse says: *his impurity is on him*. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Or both of them atone? What about it? ¹¹⁴ v. 16:21. Babli *Yoma* 36b, *Ševuot*12b, *Keritu* t 25b.*He should over it confess sins*, these are intentional sins, *their crimes*, these are rebellions¹⁰⁵, *their mistakes*, these are unintentional sins. Then He said, *he will atone*. Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, *the he-goat will carry all their sins*¹¹⁵. 16:22., he grabbed intentional sins and left out unintentional sins¹¹⁶, to indicate that just as intentional sins do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice, so those unintentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice¹¹⁷. 15:30–31.) Unintentional sins only require a sacrifice if the corresponding intentional sin is punishable by extirpation (Mishnah *Keritut* 1:2), others require repentance and atonement by the Day of Atonement. Babli *Keritut* 25b.. And why did they come here? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa, for suspension¹¹⁸) or the statement refers to the Mishnah that the Day of Atonement eliminates the obligation of a suspended sacrifice (*Pene Mosheh*). The sequel shows that neither of these alternatives applies but that the first alternative considered in the introductory paragraph applies; one purification sacrifice suspends punishment for certain categories of sins and the second atones.. Would it be understood to suspend for those who eat abominations and crawling things¹¹⁹. 11, *Deut* 14) but not one leading to extirpation. Therefore it is not subject to atonement by sacrifice.? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeira: Their mistakes, their mistakes¹²⁰. 16:21 and refers to the scapegoat and its limited power of atonement, the second one to the final statement Lev. 16:34 which declares that all mistakes are atoned for on that day.. Since their mistakes mentioned there are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice, also their mistakes mentioned here are those which carry the obligation of a sacrifice. This excludes intentional sins which do not carry the obligation of a sacrifice. What is left out by the he-goat brought inside¹¹². 16:15 ff.) whose blood is sprinkled on the gobelin separating the Temple Hall from the Holiest of Holies and the incense altar (Ex. 30:10), and one (Num. 29:11) whose blood is sprinkled on the large altar in the Temple courtyard. The question is whether each of these has a separate function or whether the day requires a double sacrifice for all its functions. the Day of Atonement suspends. What did it leave out? If there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end.¹²¹

footnotes: ¹¹² Since there are two purification sacrifices brought on the Day of Atonement, one (Lev ¹¹³ Halakhah 2, Note 90. These are known differences in the power of atonement but have nothing to do with the Day of Atonement. ¹¹⁴ Le ¹⁰⁵ Intentional sins, intended as “breaking the yoke of Heaven”. There is no homily on חַטָּאוֹת “unintentional sins” also mentioned in the verse. ¹¹⁵ Lev ¹¹⁶ In fact only rebellions are mentioned to be carried to the desert even though three kinds of transgressions were put on the scapegoat’s head. ¹¹⁷ It is not that intentional sins not carry an obligation of a sacrifice but the sinner is prohibited from offering one (Num ¹¹⁸ The commentators differ in what this means. The Day of Atonement suspends punishment to give the sinner time for repentance (Qorban Ha`edah ¹¹⁹ Eating non-kosher animals is a sin (Lev ¹²⁰ The first חַטֹּאתָם is in Lev ¹¹² Since there are two purification sacrifices brought on the Day of Atonement, one (Lev ¹²¹ This justifies the Mishnah; both actions of the Day of Atonement are needed. Babli 10a.

MISHNAH: But about where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end¹²² 5(2–50)., the he-goats of the holidays and the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon¹²³. 28:15,22,30; 29:4,16,19,22,25,28,31,34,38. These are public sacrifices; they atone for damage to public institutions. atone, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, the he-goats of the holidays atone but not the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon. What do the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon atone for? For the pure person who ate impure¹²⁴. Rebbi Meїr says, the atoning of all he-goats is the same, about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Simeon used to say, the he-goats of the holidays atone for the pure person who ate impure; those of the holidays atone for where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end, and those of the Day of Atonement where there is no knowledge at the start but there is knowledge at the end¹²⁵. They asked him¹⁵⁷. 28:22,30; 29:5,11), but no provision is made to ascertain whether atonement is actually needed. This implies that they must be brought even if not needed for atonement. The same applies to the other public offerings for which the purpose is not explicitly stated., could they be brought one for the other¹⁵⁸? He told them, they may be brought. They asked him, since their atoning is not the same¹⁵⁹, how can they be brought one for the other? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta¹⁶⁰.

footnotes: ¹²² Undetected infractions of the laws of purity. Mishnaiot 4–6 are reproduced in Sifra Aḥare Pereq ¹²³ Num ¹²⁴ Impure sacrificial meat or cereal. ¹²⁵ Mishnah 3. ¹⁵⁷ He objects to the entire line of reasoning. The purification sacrifices of the holidays are given “to atone for you” (Num ¹⁵⁸ For example, a he-goat was dedicated as scapegoat for the Day of Atonement but escaped, another he-goat was used, and afterwards the original he-goat was recaptured. Since it had been dedicated, it could not revert to profane status. May it be used as purification offering on the next holiday? ¹⁵⁹ As R. Simeon stated in Mishnah 5. ¹⁶⁰ The dedication prepares it to atone for impurities, to fulfill a biblical commandment. The particular instances of atonement are not on the mind of the person making the dedication; therefore, the he-goat may be used on all occasions where Scripture uses similar wording. It is noted in the next Halakhah that a dedication for sacrifice, whatever it will be, is sufficient.

HALAKHAH: “But about where there is no knowledge,” etc. Halakhah 5: “Rebbi Simeon used to say,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah is and one goat’s he-goat sin offering for the Eternal¹²⁶. 28:15, the sacrifice of the Day of the New Moon. (The verse is quoted not quite correctly.) The root חטא in pāal* means “to sin” but in *piēl “to cleanse, to restitute, to purify.” The word חַטָּאת “purification” can also mean “sin” (Ex. 34:9). Here it is interpreted in both senses. Babli 9a.. This he-goat atones for a sin known only to the Eternal¹²⁷. 145, the example given is that of a an unknown grave which makes everybody stepping over it impure; the impure person never could know of his impurity.. I have not only the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon; from where the he-goats of the holidays? Rebbi Zeira said, *and a he-goat*¹²⁸, the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Zeira and¹²⁹ Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He gave it to you to lift the sins of the congregation¹³⁰. 10:17, referring to the inauguration of the Tabernacle which was on the first of Nisan. On that day, three purification sacrifices were offered. 1° A calf, special to this day. 2° A he-goat for the Day of the New Moon. 3° A he-goat by the chief of the tribe of Jehudah (Num. 7:16). The verse does not spell out to which of the three it refers. In the Babli 9b, the entire argument is quoted as explanation of R. Simeon’s statement; also quoted Zevaḥim 101b.. Where do we hold? If about Naḥshon’s he-goat, it atoned for his tribe. If about the he-goat of the Day of (Atonement)¹³¹, there is nothing similar in later generations¹³² 2(2)]. It is characterized as “given to lift the sin of the congregation”; this is asserted only of the New Moon’s Day he-goat. It follows that the calf of the Inauguration was particular for the Sanctuary and the priests, Naḥshon’s for his tribe.. But we must deal with the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. What about it? It is said here “lifting sin” and it is said there “lifting sin”, Aaron shall lift the sin of the sancta”¹³³. 28:38.. Since there it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers, also here it is the sinfulness of the offerings not the sins of the offerers¹³⁴ 25a, this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Zeira) with a completely different suggestion which is rejected.. What did you see to say, “for the pure person who ate impure”, maybe we should say for the impure person who ate pure? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Jehudah splits the argument of Rebbi Meїr; Rebbi Simeon splits the argument of Rebbi Jehudah¹³⁵. Rebbi Joḥanan¹³⁶ agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeira, he shall make it a purification offering¹³⁷. 16:9. One would have expected the sentence to read וְהִקְרִ֤יב אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־הַשָּׂעִ֔יר אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָלָ֥ה עָלָי֛ו הַגּוֹרָ֖ל לַֽיי לַחָטָּאת. Then חַטָּאת would have referred to the he-goat and meant “purification offering.” But the clause וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת “he turns it into חַטָּאת” defines the word as “unintentional sin.” The he-goat whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary turns intentional into unintentional sins.. He fixed it for suspension, that it could not be changed¹³⁸ 2(5)..

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Num ¹²⁷ In Sifry Deut ¹²⁸ In all occurrences (Note 123) the sentence starts with וּ which also could have been left out. This is read as referring to the first case. Babli 9b. ¹²⁹ Probably “and” should be replaced by a comma. ¹³⁰ Lev ¹³¹ Read: Inauguration. ¹³² The reference is to the calf (Note 129, 1°) which only in this case served as public purification offering; in all other cases the sacrifice is a he-goat. Since the verse is in the singular, it follows that only one purification offering was burnt; the other two were eaten [Sifra Šemini Pereq ¹³³ Ex ¹³⁴ It is explicitly stated in the verse that the High Priest’s diadem is only effective to cure unknown disabilities of sacrifices, not of humans. In the Babli, Menaḥot ¹³⁵ R. Jehudah accepts the argument of R. Meїr but excludes the he-goats of the Day of Atonement from the group. R. Simeon accepts the argument of R. Jehudah but excludes the he-goat of the Day of the New Moon. ¹³⁶ One may conjecture that originally the text read ר״י meaning “R. Jehudah” which was misread by a copyist as “R. Joḥanan”. (In Babli texts, ר״י has both meanings with about the same frequency.) ¹³⁷ Lev ¹³⁸ It cannot be used for any other purpose. If the companion scapegoat would die before it is slaughtered, it could not be used for any other purpose; it must be sent grazing until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to be used as a sacrifice, then be sold and its value used to buy other sacrifices. Sifra Aḥare Pereq

A he-goat which was not brought on the holiday should be brought on the Day of the New Moon. If it was not brought on the Day of the New Moon it should be brought in the future since from the start public sacrifices were dedicated only to be brought onto the outside altar¹³⁹.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Tosephta 1:1. It is forbidden to bring profane animals into the Sanctuary precinct. Therefore all animals brought into the Sanctuary have to be dedicated beforehand. One is careful to make only the most general dedication in order not to lose the use of the animal if something goes wrong.

But did not the Day of Atonement already atone¹⁴⁰? Rebbi Mana said, since it is written, the pilgrimage of Unleavened Bread, the pilgrimage of**Weeks, and the pilgrimage of Tabernacles¹⁴¹. 16:16. Since the other two holidays are far removed from the Day of Atonement, the sacrifices are needed., it is as if they all atoned one atonement. Rebbi Bun said, since they all atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, it is as if they all atoned one atonement.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Since the Day of Atonement leaves a clean slate, why does the following holiday of Tabernacles need another 8 purification sacrifices? ¹⁴¹ Deut

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday does not have to mention the New Moon¹⁴² and the *Amidah* by heart. In the main prayer, the Amidah, in all four times (evening, morning, musaf, afternoon) one does not mention that New Year’s Day also is New Moon Day. (In the Ashkenazic rite, in which the verses describing the sacrifices of the day are recited, the New Moon is mentioned in the quote of Num. 29:6.). Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus said, it was stated thus: ¹⁴³3:12.“The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions]¹⁴⁴, but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf¹⁴⁵ prayer contains three middle benedictions, one to praise God’s Kingdom, the second to His sitting in judgment over the world, the third remembering the shofar blowing at Mount Sinai and the expectation of the shofar blowing announcing the coming of the Messiah. In this version, everybody agrees that the holiday is mentioned in the declaration of God’s Kingdom; the only difference between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel is that the former require a separate benediction for the Sabbath whereas the latter hold that the Sabbath is mentioned together with the holiday in the fourth benediction. None of the parties mentions the New Moon., the House of Shammai say ten, but the House of Hillel say nine.” Should he not say eleven¹⁴⁶? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it¹⁴⁷. So he should mention it in “Service”¹⁴⁸ of New Year’s Day.. Rebbi Yose asked, since the two he-goats of New Year’s day come because of the New Moon, why do you say that he does not have to mention the New Moon¹⁴⁹. 29:6), the traditional interpretation includes also the day’s purification offering (Num. 28:15). Then one should include a mention of the New Moon at least in “Service”.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, does Rebbi Abba bar Mamal¹⁵⁰ not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost¹⁵¹. 28:30 for the holiday, the other in Lev. 23:19 to accompany the two leavened breads which introduce flour from the new harvest to the Sanctuary. This is a statement of R. Simeon in Tosephta 1:2. and the two he-goats of New Year’s Day.” If the first atoned, what does the second atone for? For impurity that happened between them.¹⁵² 2:7, Note 166. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning¹⁵³ is attributed to R. Simeon who in Mishnah 5 explained that different categories of purification sacrifices atone for different categories of impurity. His opinion about the he-goat accompanying the two leavened loaves has not been recorded.. But if both of them were for the New Moon? Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do that, since it is written, in addition to the elevation offering of the month¹⁵⁴. 29:6. Since the verse makes a clear distinction between the sacrifices for the Day of Remembrance (New Year) and the New Moon, certainly for R. Simeon they must have different purposes.. In addition, from what we have stated, “twelve for the twelve months of the year.¹⁵⁵” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him¹⁵⁶. Rav Hoshaia asked: think of it, if they slaughtered both of them simultaneously? What impurity happened between them? Rebbi Bun said, if all of Israel are proper, would they not bring what the Torah prescribed for them¹⁵⁷. 28:22,30; 29:5,11), but no provision is made to ascertain whether atonement is actually needed. This implies that they must be brought even if not needed for atonement. The same applies to the other public offerings for which the purpose is not explicitly stated.?

footnotes: ¹⁴² The reader stands before the Ark. Before the invention of printing, he was the only one having a prayer text before him and was supposed to recite all prayers aloud. Except on holidays, the congregation were supposed to recite the Šema` ¹⁴³ A related text in Tosephta Berakhot ¹⁴⁴ The three beginning and the three final benedictions required daily, one additional benediction for the Sabbath and one for the holiday. The House of Hillel require that the middle benediction refer both to holiday and Sabbath. ¹⁴⁵ Every New Year’s Day the musaf ¹⁴⁶ An extra one for the day of the New Moon. ¹⁴⁷ In the morning, afternoon and evening prayers on a Day of the New Moon there is no additional benediction; the New Moon is mentioned in an insert in the first of the last benedictions, “Service”, which is a prayer for the restoration of the Temple service with a supplication that our prayers be accepted in lieu of sacrifices. ¹⁴⁸ The formula used on the other 11 months of the year. The current text originates from the middle benediction of musaf ¹⁴⁹ While only the elevation offering of the Day of the New Moon is mentioned in the list of sacrifices for New Year’s Day (Num ¹⁵⁰ It seems that one has to read “R. Yose” since R. Ba bar Mamal is not mentioned in the Halakhah. ¹⁵¹ Read: “the two he-goats of Pentecost,” one prescribed in Num ¹⁵² Cf. Qiddušin ¹⁵³ The answer is not acceptable since the baraita ¹⁵⁴ Num ¹⁵⁵ Tosephta 1:2, a statement of R. Simeon about 32 public purification sacrifices to be brought every year. There is exactly one for each month. ¹⁵⁶ When only the outline of the topics of benedictions were given but no prayer text were prescribed. ¹⁵⁷ He objects to the entire line of reasoning. The purification sacrifices of the holidays are given “to atone for you” (Num

“They asked him, could they be brought one for the other,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages [imply] that one may change; the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that one may not change¹⁶¹. The words of the Sages [imply] that one may change, and you say “could they be brought one for the other”¹⁶²? They objected to him according to his argument¹⁶³. According to your argument, since you say that one may not change, could they be brought one for the other? Rebbi Yose said, since public sacrifices are designated only by use¹⁶⁴. Rebbi Yudan said, it was stated thus¹⁶⁵ 4:6: “Even if somebody did not intend [any of the specific uses] it is qualified; it is a stipulation by the court that the thought is determined by the officiating priest.” Since the officiating priest can disqualify a sacrifice by thought, e. g., the intention to eat the sacrificial meat outside the allotted time or place, he also qualifies the sacrifice by his thought if the animal had been dedicated as sacrifice. For a private sacrifice this implies that even if the owner had a disqualifying thought but the officiating priest served having the correct thought, the sacrifice is qualified. The Babli agrees as explained in Maimonides’s Mishnah Commentary ad loc.: “For the purpose of the sacrifice for which it is brought it was sanctified from the beginning.”

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ It may be assumed that the Sages follow R. Meїr, for whom all public purification sacrifices have the same purpose. Then it is obvious that the particular day for which an animal is brought should not have any relevance for the substance of the sacrifice. But for R. Simeon (and also R. Jehudah) there should be a difference; even if in an emergency R. Simeon permits using a he-goat on the next available occasion, he might forbid intentional change. ¹⁶² Since for the Sages the answer obviously is positive, why does it have to be asked at all? ¹⁶³ They asked R. Simeon; for themselves the answer was clear. ¹⁶⁴ Animals dedicated for public sacrifice are dedicated “for any public sacrifice where they might be needed.” The exact kind is determined only at the time of slaughter. ¹⁶⁵ This follows R. Yose (the Tanna) in Mishnah Zevaḥim

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in his¹⁶⁶ name, the rams of the New Moon Days atone for the pure person who ate of impure [sacrifice]. Those of the holidays add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end. Those of the Day of Atonement add to them in that they atone for the pure person who ate impure [sacrifice] and for [infractions] of which there was knowledge neither at the start nor at the end and those for which there was no knowledge at the beginning but there was at the end¹⁶⁷. They said to him, did not the teacher¹⁶⁶ use to say that they may be sacrificed one for the other? He said, yes. They said to him, if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon. But how could those of the Days of the New Moon be brought on the Day of Atonement to atone an atonement which is not theirs¹⁶⁸? He told them, all of them serve to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta¹¹⁶⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). ¹⁶⁷ He disagrees with the Tanna of Mishnah 5. R. Simeon does not hold that the different kinds of public purification sacrifices are for different kinds of offenses but that there are different kinds of effectiveness, the power of the sacrifice of a more holy day is strictly greater than that of the day of lesser holiness. ¹⁶⁶ R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). ¹⁶⁸ Since the rams of the Day of Atonement were destined for two additional powers not in those of the New Moon. ¹ Mishnah 3. ¹⁶⁰ The dedication prepares it to atone for impurities, to fulfill a biblical commandment. The particular instances of atonement are not on the mind of the person making the dedication; therefore, the ram may be used on all occasions where Scripture uses similar wording. It is noted in the next Halakhah that a dedication for sacrifice, whatever it will be, is sufficient.

HALAKHAH: “They said to him, did not the teacher use to say,” etc. Rebbi Yose the Southerner said before Rebbi Jonah: Would it not have been necessary to state, if it is so then those of the Days of the New Moon could be brought on the Day of Atonement since one increases holiness but one does not diminish; but those of the Day of Atonement cannot be brought on the Days of the New Moon since one does not diminish holiness¹⁶⁹ 3:3, Note 57; Yoma 3:8 41a l. 10, Megillah 1:12 72a l. 47, Horaiot 3:3 Note 151; Babli Yoma 12b). Since this principle cannot be overridden, it is an argument not for practice but against R. Simeon’s opinion that the sacrifices can be substituted one for the other and for R. Meїr’s that they cannot. The argument presupposes that the cumulation of cases for which the sacrifices atone indicates a higher state of holiness.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Bun¹⁷⁰ explained it by another explanation¹⁷¹: if it is so then those of the Day of Atonement could be brought on the Days of the New Moon, for included in their atoning is the atoning of the Days of the New Moon¹⁷², but those of the days of the New Moon cannot be brought on the Day of Atonement, for they atone only their atonement. For if anybody ate five olive-sized pieces of fat and dedicated four sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated five, did he atone¹⁷³ 3:3). If he offered only four, one sin by necessity remains without atonement.? Or if he ate four olive sized pieces of fat, dedicated five sacrifices, being of the impression that he had dedicated four, not so much more¹⁷⁴. 4:29), and probably would detect his error.)? And so ¹⁷⁵“Rebbi Simeon used to say, thirty-two rams are brought for the public every year. Thirty one outside, they are eaten. One inside which is not eaten¹⁷⁶. 6:23). All other purification sacrifices must be eaten by the priests, (Lev. 6:22).. And the scapegoat. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Eight on Tabernacles, seven on Passover, two on Pentecost, one for the day and one for the bread. One on New Year’s Day and one on the Day of Atonement.” ¹⁷⁷ 100. It is standard Galilean doctrine that the 11 Psalms 90–100 were composed by Moses (even Ps. 99!), not only Ps. 90 as indicated by its header. In the Babylonian tradition (transmitted by prayer texts) Moses was the author of Pss. 90–91 and the Sabbath of Ps. 92. When Moses heard this he said, it follows that anybody for whom the doubt of a transgression arises should bring all these sacrifices! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses, he shall confess¹⁷⁸. 16:21. This resolved Moses’s problem and informed him that his prior concern, that the slightest doubt might impose an unbearable financial burden on the sinner, was unfounded. on it etc., he started and said, A Song of confession¹⁷⁹. 100:1. Usually, one translates “a song of thanksgiving” since this is appropriate for the תוֹדָה sacrifice [Lev. r. 9(3)]., inspired by he shall confess on it.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁹ A general principle (cf. Bikkurim ¹⁷⁰ The name tradition is impossible. The second generation R. Eleazar cannot transmit in the name of the third generation R. Bun I or the fourth generation R. Bun II. Probably one should read: R. Bun in the name of R. Elazar or even R. Yose ben R. Bun in the name of R. Eleazar. Cf. Note 24. ¹⁷¹ To uphold the text of the Mishnah. Since the argument is directed against one made in the Academy of R. Jonah, of the last generation of Galilean Amoraim, it should be attributed to the absolutely last Amora R. Yose ben R. Bun. ¹⁷² He asserts that all purification sacrifices have the same status of holiness but their effectiveness depends on the intent of their dedication. One sacrifice atones for all instances for which it was dedicated but none for which it was not dedicated. He must assume that the dedication was for a purification sacrifice, not for “a sacrifice whichever it will be” since the only public sacrifices of rams are purification sacrifices including the scapegoat. ¹⁷³ Assuming that he is obligated to bring five different sacrifices for five different inadvertent sins punishable by extirpation of which eating fat is the paradigm (cf. Horaiot ¹⁷⁴ Automatically all sins are atoned for (even though one would expect the case never to happen since the owner of the sacrifice is required to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the head of the sacrifice (Lev ¹⁷⁵ Tosephta 1:2. ¹⁷⁶ Some of the blood of the purification offering of the Day of Atonement is brought inside the Sanctuary; the rest has to be burned outside the Sanctuary (Lev ¹⁷⁷ A similar text in Midrash Tehillim ¹⁷⁸ Lev ¹⁷⁹ Ps

MISHNAH: Intentional impurity¹⁸⁰ but was not duly warned beforehand. Then he cannot bring a sacrifice which is reserved for unintentional sins. He cannot be punished in court since he was not warned and therefore criminal intent cannot be established. The contamination of the Sanctuary and its sancta is removed by the Day of Atonement; whether the person’s guilt is removed without due repentance is a topic for the Halakhah. of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the he-goat whose blood is brought inside and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or serious ones, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones¹⁸¹.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Those that cannot be taken care of otherwise; for example, if a person intentionally ate impure sancta ¹⁸¹ This is reformulated in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: “Intentional impurity of the Sanctuary.” etc. That means it atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional¹⁸², must be atoned for by the public offering..

footnotes: ¹⁸² The purpose of the sacrifice is to safeguard the integrity of the Sanctuary. Therefore it has to repair all infractions which cannot be repaired otherwise, i. e., intentional infractions that cannot be prosecuted (for lack of eye witnesses or prior warnings). Since severe unintentional infractions (those if intentional would be punished by Divine extirpation or judicial execution) require a sacrifice, the public offering does not absolve the sinner from his obligation; it only suspends the damaging influence on the Sanctuary. The statement is incomplete since infractions for which the penalty is not spelled out in the Pentateuch (“simple infractions”) cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice and, if committed against the Sanctity of the Sanctuary or is sancta

¹⁸³8:6 (י). Are not minor sins [positive commandments and]¹. prohibitions; are not serious ones extirpations and capital crimes¹⁸⁴? Rav¹⁸⁵: “Rebbi Jehudah”. The reading here is supported by the Babli. Jehudah said, so is the Mishnah: “Minor or serious ones. Those minor ones, whether he committed them intentionally or committed them unintentionally¹⁸⁶ 1:1 Note 18).. Those intentional ones, whether he obtained knowledge of them or did not obtain knowledge of them¹⁸⁷. The following are minor sins: positive commandments and prohibitions¹⁸⁸. Serious ones, extirpations and capital crimes. Just as the he-goat whose blood is brought inside atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional¹⁸⁹ text adds: “for which no sacrifice is due.” This is understood, cf. Note 182., the same holds for the scapegoat¹⁹⁰. 16:22). This last statement is missing in the Babli Ševuot;, it is discussed in Keritut 25b. The scribe in Yoma originally wrote the same text as here, then crossed out כן “the same holds” and wrote “atones”..”

footnotes: ¹⁸³ The paragraph is repeated in the Babli, 12b. From here on to the end of the Halakhah there is a parallel in Yoma ¹ Text of Yoma ¹⁸⁴ The Mishnah mentions “minor or serious transgressions”; this covers all biblical commandments. But “positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations, and capital crimes” also describe all biblical commandments. Therefore the last clause of the Mishnah must be read as explanation of the preceding one. ¹⁸⁵ In Yoma ¹⁸⁶ This must refer either to infractions for which the penalty is not spelled out (Note 182) or to cases where guilt cannot be ascertained. The standard example is that of a person who ate one of two pieces of meat, one of which was kosher, the other one severely forbidden either as forbidden fat or as sacrificial meat which became impure (Rashi, Note 183). If it is not possible to ascertain which of the two he ate, then a suspended reparation sacrifice is due; but the obligation to bring a suspended reparation sacrifice is cancelled by the Day of Atonement, as determined in the next paragraph (and Halakhah 1:2, Note 69, Horaiot ¹⁸⁷ This refers to the situation described in the previous Note. If he intended to eat one of the two, knowing that one was severely forbidden, he either committed no sin or he committed a serious crime for which no personal sacrifice can atone. ¹⁸⁸ No biblical penalty is attached to the failure to fulfill a positive commandment. “Prohibitions” are those to which no biblical penalty is attached. The basis for the statement are the homiletics quoted at the end of this Halakhah. ¹⁸⁹ The Yoma ¹⁹⁰ Which carries away “all their iniquities”, Lev

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge¹⁹¹. If it did come to his knowledge¹⁹²? Was it not stated:¹⁹³ 1:1, Note 20. The parallel in Yoma seems to quote instead from parts of Mishnah Keritut 6:4. Purification sacrifices must be brought even after the Day of Atonement but obligations of suspended reparation sacrifices are eliminated. “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone¹⁹⁴ 1:1.? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia]¹⁹⁵ and other places by R. Simeon (ben Laqish). The name given here does not appear anywhere else. In the Yoma text, the sentence appears after the next; this seems to be more appropriate., the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement¹⁹⁶ 7a (partially Ševuot 13a), has another example: a person who violates the Sanctuary late on the Day of Atonement and then dies. This example shows even according to Rebbi (later in the Halakhah) who holds that the Day of Atonement atones even without repentance, that the answer to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya might be negative.. Why did he¹⁹⁷ not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones¹⁹⁶ 7a (partially Ševuot 13a), has another example: a person who violates the Sanctuary late on the Day of Atonement and then dies. This example shows even according to Rebbi (later in the Halakhah) who holds that the Day of Atonement atones even without repentance, that the answer to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya might be negative..

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ Then no private sacrifice is due and the public sacrifice must atone for the damage done to the sanctuary. ¹⁹² Did we not imply that the public offering does not relieve the individual of his obligation to bring a sacrifice? ¹⁹³ Horaiot ¹⁹⁴ He asks whether the Day of Atonement eliminates the possibility of a suspended reparation sacrifice for the possibility of a sin committed prior to the Day. The positive answer was deduced from biblical verses in Horaiot ¹⁹⁵ This is the name (“from Sokho”) by which this Amora of the first generation is quoted in Yoma ¹⁹⁶ While it is inferred from the Mishnah that the answer to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question is positive, it is pointed out that the answer still might be negative if the person in question rejects the notion of the Day of Atonement and does not want to be its beneficiary. The Babli, Keritut ¹⁹⁷ The Tanna of the Mishnah. ¹⁹⁶ While it is inferred from the Mishnah that the answer to R. Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question is positive, it is pointed out that the answer still might be negative if the person in question rejects the notion of the Day of Atonement and does not want to be its beneficiary. The Babli, Keritut

¹⁹⁸ is quite different (Note 202). A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, only if he repented¹⁹⁹. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,²⁰⁰. 1:4 indicates that it atones. The next paragraph will investigate for which sins it is atoning.” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” does the Day of Atonement not atone? It atones even against his will. “I cannot accept that it atone for me,” it does not atone against his will²⁰¹. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, the opposite is reasonable²⁰² text which therefore must be taken as original: הָאוֹמֵר. אֵין הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת. אֵין הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עָלי. מְכַפֶּרֶת הִיא. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּכַפֵּר לִי. אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת לוֹ עַל כָּרְחוֹ. אֵין יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר מְכַפֶּרֶת הִיא. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר לִי. מְכַפֵּר הוּא לוֹ עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל. לָא כוֹלָא מִן הָדֵין בַּר נַשָּׂא מֵימוֹר לְמַלְכָּא. לֵית אַתְּ מֶלֶךְ. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,” “the elevation offering does not atone for me,” it atones. “I cannot stand that it atone for me,” it does not atone against his will. “The day of Atonement does not atone,” it atones. “I cannot stand that it atone for me,” it atones for him against his will. Rebbi Hanania ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to that man to say to the King, you are no King. Here the introductory statement of R. Ḥanina (Ḥanania) ben R. Hillel is missing correctly. The two texts are separate formulations. In the Babli, Keritut 7a, there is a related discussion.. It is not up to a person to tell the King, “you do not reign.”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ After the first two sentences, which are identical here and in Yoma except for the spelling of R. Ze`ira’s name, the text in Yoma ¹⁹⁹ While the Mishnah in Rav Jehudah’s interpretation treats positive commandments and simple prohibitions in parallel, there is a difference between the two kinds of sins. The non-performance of a positive commandment is atoned for even without repentance while the atoning for breaching simple prohibitions requires repentance. ²⁰⁰ The biblical text does not indicate for which kind of sin an elevation offering does atone but Lev ²⁰¹ In the prior formulation, it was simply a false statement. But if somebody said, I am opting out, the atoning power of sacrifices shall not be valid for me, what he offers would be profane. If there is no offering, there cannot be atonement. ²⁰² Since he brings the offering on his own initiative, if it is not brought for atoning it does not atone. But the Day of Atonement is given by God; it is not up to man to say what it can or cannot do. This is clearer from the Yoma

²⁰³. In Lev. rabba 7(3) the paragraph is reproduced and the doctrine is attributed to R. Simeon ben Ioḥai. The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be²⁰⁴. 20:32.. Rebbi Levi said, the elevation offering atones for your spirits²⁰⁵. “your thoughts”, f.) is identified with the homonym הָעוֹלָה “the elevation offering”.. And so in Job he says, maybe my children sinned and cursed God in their hearts²⁰⁶ 85b, Keritut 7a. The parallel in Yoma (45b l. 63 ff.) at the end reports the opposite of the tradition here.. This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts.

footnotes: ²⁰³ In slightly different formulation in Yoma ²⁰⁴ Ez ²⁰⁵ This is an untranslatable pun. The verbal noun הָעוֹלָה “that which rises” (scil ²⁰⁶ Babli 13a, Yoma

²⁰⁶ 85b, Keritut 7a. The parallel in Yoma (45b l. 63 ff.) at the end reports the opposite of the tradition here. Rebbi says, the Day of Atonement atones for all sins against the Torah except for him who tears away the yoke, or who breaks the Covenant, or who finds aspects in the Torah²⁰⁷ 1:1 Notes 199–213; cf. also Sanhedrin 10:1, Note 8. One who tears away the yoke is he who recognizes the authority of the Torah but decides to break its laws; one who breaks the covenant is he who tries to reconstruct a prepuce and does not circumcise his sons; one who finds aspects in the Torah is he who denies the divine origin of the Torah., where it atones if he repented but does not atone otherwise. Rebbi Zebida said: Rebbi Yasa asked: Does Rebbi think that the Day of Atonement atones without repentance? There came Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Day of Atonement atones without repentance, and death cleanses without repentance²⁰⁸: Rebbi agrees that the Day of Atonement does not atone without repentance, but death atones without repentance. The Babli supports the statement here about the Day of Atonement; it has no statement of Rebbi about the power of Death.. We have stated thus: The day of death equals repentance. Who stated this? Rebbi! Then what we stated²⁰⁹ 8:7., “death and the Day of Atonement atone with repentance,” does not follow Rebbi²¹⁰.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ Babli 13a, Yoma ²⁰⁷ This was explained in Peah ²⁰⁸ In Yoma ²⁰⁹ Mishnah Yoma ²¹⁰ Since the Mishnah requires repentance also on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi formulated an anonymous Mishnah, i. e., authoritative doctrine, following the majority against his own opinion.

²¹¹ but also in Sanhedrin 10:1, Notes 23–37, 14–22 (and in the Babli Yoma 86b). For part of the text there exists a Geniza fragment (G) edited by L. Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments (1909) p. 267. The main difference between the Leiden ms. text here and in Yoma and the two other sources is that in the Leiden text the quotes of most verses are shortened so that the punch lines mostly are missing. Therefore the Sanhedrin and G texts should be considered original. Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children²¹². 3:22., etc. But another verse says, for on that day, He shall pardon you²¹³. 16:20., etc. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod²¹⁴. 89:33., etc*.* And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die²¹⁵. 22:14.. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, etc. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on**that day, He shall pardon you. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend, and death scours with sufferings²¹². 3:22.. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.

footnotes: ²¹¹ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is not only in Yoma ²¹² Jer ²¹³ Lev ²¹⁴ Ps ²¹⁵ Is ²¹² Jer

Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat pardons. How does it pardon? Rebbi Zeira said, by and by. Rebbi Ḥanania²¹⁶. said, at the end. What is between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Ze`ira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: There is strength in the he-goat which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the he-goat: The Day of Atonement pardons without a he-goat, but the he-goat does not atone without the Day of Atonement. The he-goat pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rebbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.

footnotes: ²¹⁶ This name is used throughout in G and Yoma

Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Justice protects the one on the straight path²¹⁷. 13:6.. Evil deeds will pursue the sinner²¹⁸. 13:4.. He will watch over the feet of His pious ones²¹⁹. 2:9.. While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing²²⁰. 3:34.. Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him, as it is said, all this God will do twice, three times with a man²²¹ 33:29.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, but only if the person does not revert [to sin]. What is the reason? It does not say the triple thread “will never snap” but rather will not quickly snap²²². 4:12.. If you work on it, it will split.

footnotes: ²¹⁷ Prov ²¹⁸ Prov ²¹⁹ 1S ²²⁰ Prov ²²¹ Job ²²² Eccl

Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? As it is said, Who is a Power like You, forgives sin²²³ 7:18.. “He forgets” is written. And so David said, You forgot Your people’s sin²²⁴. 85:3..

footnotes: ²²³ Micha ²²⁴ Ps

MISHNAH: Together Israel, Cohanim, and the Anointed Priest²²⁵. 6:15); as explained in Tractate Horaiot it excludes the High Priests of the Second Temple who were invested, not anointed.. What is the difference between Israel and a Cohen or the Anointed Priest²²⁶, everybody has to bring a sacrifice depending on his wealth except the Anointed Priest who is exempt (Mishnah Horaiot 2:7).? Only that the blood of the bull atones for Cohanim in matters of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Simeon says, just as the blood of the he-goat which is brought inside atones for Israel, so the blood of the bull atones for the Cohanim²²⁷. 16:6), the common priests (v. 13), and the people. But for the action of the scapegoat they are all equal.. Just as the confession of the scapegoat²²⁸. 16:21. atones for Israel, so the confession of the bull atones for Cohanim²²⁹.

footnotes: ²²⁵ This fraction of a sentence is the end of the preceding Mishnah. The scapegoat atones equally for Israel, Cohanim and the High Priest. The expression “Anointed Priest” is biblical (Lev ²²⁶ There is a difference not only on the Day of Atonement, but all year round: the purification offering of the Anointed Priest (not the invested one) is a bull, but everybody else’s a lamb. For impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta ²²⁷ The actual atoning sacrifices on the Day of Atonement are separate for the High Priest (Lev ²²⁸ Lev ²²⁹ He disagrees with the anonymous Mishnah and restricts the action of the scapegoat to the benefit of the people.

HALAKHAH: “Together Israel, Cohanim,” etc. But we did not state²³⁰ “the Anointed.” Why did we not state “the Anointed”? If you say that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice²³¹, it is correct not to state “Anointed”. If you say about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, why do we not state “Anointed”²³²? It was found stated “also the Anointed Priest.”²³³. This implies that we are discussing things which do not imply the obligation of a sacrifice²³⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even if you say, about things which imply the obligation of a sacrifice, if it was done intentionally¹¹⁷. 15:30–31.) Unintentional sins only require a sacrifice if the corresponding intentional sin is punishable by extirpation (Mishnah Keritut 1:2), others require repentance and atonement by the Day of Atonement. Babli Keritut 25b.. As you say, intentionally it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement, here also it needs atoning and the atoning of the Day of Atonement²³⁵.

footnotes: ²³⁰ The Anointed is mentioned in the anonymous statement, the first sentence of the Mishnah. Why is he not mentioned in R. Simeon’s statement? ²³¹ For sins which do not require a purification sacrifice, the status of the High Priest is no different from that of a common priest. The mention of “priests” includes the High Priest. ²³² Since the purification sacrifice of the Anointed Priest is different from that of everybody else (Note 226), it is necessary to mention him if one asserts that the scapegoat really serves everybody. ²³³ In a baraita ²³⁴ In R. Simeon’s statement, the Anointed is not mentioned by design; therefore, the argument of Note 231 applies. ¹¹⁷ It is not that intentional sins not carry an obligation of a sacrifice but the sinner is prohibited from offering one (Num ²³⁵ As explained by R. Eleazar ben Azariah, intentional sins will be forgiven only by prior repentance combined with the Day of Atonement.

²³⁷ 6:2. However, there the sequence of topics is different. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(6–8).Shall be stationed alive; this teaches that it the future it is going to die²³⁸. 16:10. Since the verse later only requires that the scapegoat be sent to a cliff (v. 22) in the desert (v. 21), but nothing is said what happens to the goat there, it is inferred that since it is emphasized that it must be alive as long as it is standing before the Eternal that later it will not continue to live, but will be pushed over the cliff to its death (Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(7,8), Yoma 6:2, Babli Yoma40b,65a,71a.. How long must it live? Up to he will finish from atoning to Sanctuary²³⁹. 16:20. If the scapegoat dies before the blood of the other he-goat was sprinkled on the gobelin and the incense altar in the Sanctuary, the ceremony has to be repeated. Later, no new he-goat has to be provided., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession²⁴⁰. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable²⁴¹. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable²⁴² 40b seems to switch the positions of RR. Jehudah and Simeon in this matter, but since Sifra parallels the Yerushalmi this seems to be unlikely. Maimonides does not mention the matter in his Code.. What is the difference between them? ²⁴³. But in the Yoma text, which has to be considered as original, the scapegoat is treated first, i. e., that a scapegoat sent away without confession for R. Jehudah requires an entire new ceremony with formal confession, but not for R. Simeon. Then it is asserted that by analogy if the bull whose blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary was slaughtered without confession, for R. Jehudah the slaughter is invalid and the entire ceremony has to be repeated, but not for R. Simeon. If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. The same holds for the scapegoat. If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another goat. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession²⁴⁴? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession²⁴⁵ text one has to read: צָרִיךְ לְהַגְרִיל פַּעַם שְׁנִייָה אוֹ כְבָר יָצָא בְּהַגְרִילוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. “Must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first casting of lots?” (Babli Yoma 39b/40a.)?

footnotes: ²³⁷ This paragraph is Yoma ²³⁸ Lev ²³⁹ Lev ²⁴⁰ Until after the High Priest leaves the sanctuary to put his hands on the scapegoat to confess the people’s sins (v. 21). If the he-goat dies at the moment the High Priest starts to put his hands on its head, no new he-goat is needed. ²⁴¹ Since neither the blood of the bull nor that of the he-goat may be brought inside the Sanctuary without prior confession (v. 11) the scapegoat may not be sent to the desert without confession; without a scapegoat the atoning is not complete. ²⁴² Since for him the High Priest only has to stand next to the scapegoat, the final confession itself is needed only if the scapegoat is alive at that time.Commentators note that the Babli Yoma ²⁴³ This is a non sequitur ²⁴⁴ If the bull was slaughtered correctly but for some reason its blood could not be brought into the Sanctuary, does R. Jehudah require a full repetition of the ceremony including confession? ²⁴⁵ If the scapegoat dies before it can be sent away, one needs a replacement. May one bring a single he-goat as replacement or does one have to bring two he-goats, cast new lots, use one as scapegoat and let the other one graze until it develops a bodily defect when it can be sold and one buys other sacrifices with the money? With the Yoma