שְׂעִיר־עִזִּ֥ים אֶחָ֖ד לְחַטָּֽאת׃
un jeune bouc, pour expiatoire;
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
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 Eternal126Num. 28:15, the sacrifice of the Day of the New Moon. (The verse is quoted not quite correctly.) The root חטא in pā`al means “to sin” but in pi`ēl “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 Eternal127In Sifry Deut. 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 Ze`ira said, and a he-goat128In 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., the copula adds to the prior subject. Rebbi Ze`ira and129Probably “and” should be replaced by a comma. 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 congregation130Lev. 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)131Read: Inauguration., there is nothing similar in later generations132The 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 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”133Ex. 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 offerers134It 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 25a, this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Ze`ira) 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 Jehudah135R. 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.. Rebbi Joḥanan136One 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.) agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering137Lev. 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 changed138It 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 2(5)..
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)131Read: Inauguration., there is nothing similar in later generations132The 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 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”133Ex. 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 offerers134It 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 25a, this is the final answer by the fifth Cent. Rav Ashi after a lengthy discussion which also quotes R. Zera (Ze`ira) 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 Jehudah135R. 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.. Rebbi Joḥanan136One 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.) agrees that the he-goat brought inside does not atone; rather it suspends. This parallels Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, he shall make it a purification offering137Lev. 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 changed138It 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 2(5)..
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same231That under certain circumstances a disqualified sacrifice must be burned immediately, without waiting that it lose its shape, even if the disqualification is not in the victim’s body., as it was stated232Sifra Šeminy Pereq 2(8–10).: “it was burned because of deep mourning233This is R. Nehemiah’s statement. The discussion refers to Lev. 10:16–17. Since tradition fixes the inauguration of Tabernacle and Priesthood on a First of Nisan (Seder Olam Chapter 7, in the author’s edition p. 82; cf. Rashi ad 9:1), there were three goats as purification offering: the one required for every New Moon (Num. 28:15), the people’s initiation sacrifice (Lev. 10:3), and the one offered by the chief of the tribe of Judah (Num. 7:16). Only the first of these was presented pursuant a permanent law; the other two were one time affairs from which no conclusions could be drawn for generally valid principles. R. Nehemiah holds that since a deep mourner on the day of burial is biblically excluded from all sacral rites, the order given in 18:12–15 to Aaron and his sons to eat sancta even though Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu had been buried on that day necessarily was restricted to the one time offerings of that day, to the exclusion of offerings presented following a permanent prescription. But the mourning of the priests is a condition of the enablers, not of the victim, and nevertheless Moses agreed that the purification offering correctly had been burned and not eaten.? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them234Since in Moses’s order to eat the sancta purification offerings are not mentioned. should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them235Phineas was born in Egypt (Ex. 6:25). As a nephew of Nadav and Avihu he had no biblical obligation to mourn and could legally have eaten all sacrifices. Since there was one eater, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa would agree that the sacrifice cannot be burned.? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening236Since the talmudic rule is that only the day of burial is biblically forbidden. While his sons would have to observe seven days of mourning, the High Priest is forbidden mourning where it is not prescribed; in the following night he could have joined Phineas. Purification offerings are eaten by the priests during the day of offering and the following night.?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted237There is no doubt that the obligation for which the sacrifice was brought had been fulfilled.. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest238In the initiation rites (Lev. Chapter 8), only Aaron and his sons are mentioned, not his grandson Phineas. This is the basis of the opinion that Phineas was not originally included in the priesthood; priesthood was conferred on him only after the incident with Zimry (Num. 25:13); Babli Zevaḥim 101b.. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them239In the same Chapter of Sifra (Halakhah 5), he deduces from Lev. 10:18 that any purification sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary is disqualified and must be burned immediately. This proves that he agrees with R. Nehemiah that the verses have to be interpreted referring to the ordinary Temple service, and that disqualification of the enabler may trigger an obligation of immediate burning.. 240This paragraph has no direct connection with the preceding; the connection being that R. Yose the Galilean interprets Lev.10:18. And we have stated there:241Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:12. “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside242Since purification sacrifice has to be eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard (Lev. 6:19), if any part leaves the sacred domain it becomes disqualified. Since pouring the blood on the walls of the altar enables the meat to be eaten, if blood is brought outside before it was poured the sacrifice is disqualified.; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior243As noted later, this is required/permitted only in extraordinary cases. The Mishnah here refers to ordinary sacrifices. Since then the blood is not in the courtyard, it is outside its prescribed domain and disqualified., Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside244Slaughtering a victim with the intent of pouring the blood outside the sacred precinct disqualifies the sacrifice; Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:2.
The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior245The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer246The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies.. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones247Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside248In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure249Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it250Lev. 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you251Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood252Lev. 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary250,Lev. 10:18.253If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing.. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned254The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12), of the people (Lev.4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement (Lev.1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel255Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ.. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood256Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version.. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood257Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean..
The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior245The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer246The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies.. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones247Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside248In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure249Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it250Lev. 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you251Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood252Lev. 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary250,Lev. 10:18.253If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing.. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned254The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12), of the people (Lev.4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement (Lev.1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel255Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ.. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood256Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version.. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood257Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean..