Yerushalmi Shevuot 1:4 ירושלמי שבועות א׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: But about where there is no knowledge either at the start or at the end¹²²Undetected infractions of the laws of purity. Mishnaiot 4–6 are reproduced in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 5(2–50)., the he-goats of the holidays and the he-goats of the Days of the New Moon¹²³Num. 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 impure¹²⁴Impure sacrificial meat or cereal.. 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 end¹²⁵Mishnah 3..
They asked him¹⁵⁷He objects to the entire line of reasoning. The purification sacrifices of the holidays are given “to atone for you” (Num. 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 other¹⁵⁸For 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?? He told them, they may be brought. They asked him, since their atoning is not the same¹⁵⁹As R. Simeon stated in Mishnah 5., 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 sancta¹⁶⁰The 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 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-goat<sup>128</sup>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., 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 Jehudah<sup>135</sup>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.. Rebbi Joḥanan<sup>136</sup>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.) 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)..

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 altar¹³⁹Tosephta 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 atone¹⁴⁰Since the Day of Atonement leaves a clean slate, why does the following holiday of Tabernacles need another 8 purification sacrifices?? Rebbi Mana said, since it is written, the pilgrimage of Unleavened Bread, the pilgrimage ofWeeks, and the pilgrimage of Tabernacles¹⁴¹Deut. 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.

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 Moon¹⁴²The 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` 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: ¹⁴³A related text in Tosephta Berakhot3:12.“The one who stands before the Ark on New Year’s holiday in the morning, the House of Shammai say, he prays eight [benedictions]¹⁴⁴The 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., but the House of Hillel say seven. For musaf¹⁴⁵Every New Year’s Day the musaf 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 eleven¹⁴⁶An extra one for the day of the New Moon.? Rebbi Yose said, where do they disagree? In a matter which needs a separate benediction. But here even on a weekday he simply includes it¹⁴⁷In 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.. So he should mention it in “Service”¹⁴⁸The formula used on the other 11 months of the year. The current text originates from the middle benediction of musaf 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 Moon¹⁴⁹While only the elevation offering of the Day of the New Moon is mentioned in the list of sacrifices for New Year’s Day (Num. 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 Mamal¹⁵⁰It seems that one has to read “R. Yose” since R. Ba bar Mamal is not mentioned in the Halakhah. not ask correctly? As it was stated: “The two lambs of Pentecost¹⁵¹Read: “the two he-goats of Pentecost,” one prescribed in Num. 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.¹⁵²Cf. Qiddušin 2:7, Note 166. Is that not Rebbi Simeon’s? And Rebbi Simeon splits atoning¹⁵³The answer is not acceptable since the baraita 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 month¹⁵⁴Num. 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.¹⁵⁵Tosephta 1:2, a statement of R. Simeon about 32 public purification sacrifices to be brought every year. There is exactly one for each month.” A patrician stood before the Ark and did not mention the New Moon; they praised him¹⁵⁶When only the outline of the topics of benedictions were given but no prayer text were prescribed.. 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 them¹⁵⁷He objects to the entire line of reasoning. The purification sacrifices of the holidays are given “to atone for you” (Num. 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.?

“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 change¹⁶¹It 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.. The words of the Sages [imply] that one may change, and you say “could they be brought one for the other”¹⁶²Since for the Sages the answer obviously is positive, why does it have to be asked at all?? They objected to him according to his argument¹⁶³They asked R. Simeon; for themselves the answer was clear.. 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 use¹⁶⁴Animals 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.. Rebbi Yudan said, it was stated thus¹⁶⁵This follows R. Yose (the Tanna) in Mishnah Zevaḥim 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.”