הָא גָּמְרִינַן רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ מִדְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְלָא פָּרְכִינַן – הָתָם כַּפָּרָה מִיכְתַּב כְּתִיבָא, גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, אֲבָל הָכָא אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כּוּלָּהּ מִילְּתָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן!

Don’t we derive the atonement of the goat of the New Moon through a comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur and we did not refute it by saying that the atonement of the goat of Yom Kippur is more extensive, that is not relevant: There, with regard to the goat of the New Moon, the basic fact that it provides atonement is written in the verse, as Rav Yehuda explains above, and the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur is merely revealing a matter, i.e., it teaches in what way its atonement is limited. But here, with regard to the goats of the Festivals, the verse does not mention any details about atonement, so it is valid to say that we do not derive the entire matter from the comparison to the goat of Yom Kippur, as it provides a more extensive atonement.

אֶלָּא כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: ״שְׂעִיר״ ״וּשְׂעִיר״, הָכָא נַמִי ״שְׂעִיר״ ״וּשְׂעִיר״, וְאִיתְקִישׁ שְׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים לִשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, מַה שְּׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים אֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף, אַף שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים אֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף.

Rather, the atonement of the goats of the Festivals is derived just as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The matter is derived from the fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals (see Numbers, chapters 28–29) the verses that mention the goat could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: “And a goat.” Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: “And a goat,” indicates that the goats of the Festivals are juxtaposed with the goat of the New Moon, which are mentioned at the beginning of that passage, and teaches that they all effect a similar atonement. Just as the goats of the New Moon atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, so too, the goats of the Festivals atone only for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחֵטְא שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לִיוָּדַע, אֲבָל חֵטְא שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לִיוָּדַע – כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ יְדִיעָה בַּסּוֹף דָּמֵי, וְשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. אוֹ דִּלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ חֵטְא שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לִיוָּדַע – הָשְׁתָּא מִיהָא ״חֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ה׳״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Yehuda says that the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for cases in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, does that statement apply only to a sin that will never eventually become known, e.g., where no one was present when the person became ritually impure, but with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, it is considered to be like a case of one who has awareness of his sin at the end, and therefore only the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary and Yom Kippur itself atone for it? Or perhaps, even with regard to a sin that will eventually become known, right now, at least, before it becomes known, I can call it a sin of which only God is aware, and therefore the goats of the New Moons and the Festivals atone for it.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף וְחֵטְא שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לִיוָּדַע – שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara concludes: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita: For a case in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and it is a sin that will eventually become known, the goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons atone. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

״רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין, אֲבָל לֹא שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים״ וכו׳.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: The goats of the Festivals atone for a case in which one never had awareness of his transgression, but the goats of the New Moons do not. Rather, the latter atone for a ritually pure person who unwittingly partook of ritually impure sacrificial food.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא: מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״, וְהַאי קְרָא בְּשָׂעִיר דְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ כְּתִיב; וְיָלֵיף ״עֲוֹן״ ״עֲוֹן״ מִצִּיץ, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֲוֹן״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עֲוֹן״, מַה לְּהַלָּן טוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר, אַף כָּאן טוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר.

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states: “And He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), and this verse is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon. And its capacity to atone is derived from the frontplate through a verbal analogy between the words “sin” in this verse, and the word “sin” stated with regard to the frontplate. The verse there states: “And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead and Aaron will bear the sin of the sacred offerings” (Exodus 28:38). The verbal analogy teaches as follows: It is stated here, with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “Sin,” and it is stated there, with regard to the frontplate: “Sin.” Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where such meat is placed on the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is for a sin involving the ritual impurity of sacrificial meat, i.e., where a ritually pure person partakes of it.

אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן עוֹלִין, אַף כָּאן עוֹלִין! ״עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״ כְּתִיב.

The Gemara asks: If the two cases are to be compared, then one could take the comparison further: Just as there, in the verse in Exodus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar, so too here, in the verse in Leviticus, the atonement is only for meat that ascends upon the altar. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is written with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “To bear the sin of the congregation.” This indicates that it atones for the personal sin of partaking of sacrificial meat that was to be consumed by an individual, which became ritually impure.

מִכְּדִי מִיגְמַר גָּמְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, נְכַפֵּר דְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אַדִּידֵיהּ וְאַדְּצִיץ; נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ לְהֵיכָא דְּנִשְׁבַּר הַצִּיץ! אָמַר קְרָא: ״עֲוֹן״, עָוֹן אֶחָד הוּא נוֹשֵׂא, וְאֵין נוֹשֵׂא שְׁנֵי עֲוֹנוֹת.

The Gemara suggests: Now, the atonement of the goats of the New Moon and that of the frontplate are derived from one another by a verbal analogy. If so, let the goat of the New Moon atone for itself, i.e., for the cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the frontplate normally atones for, and the practical difference will be in a case where the frontplate was broken. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “To bear the sin of the congregation,” which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, only one sin, but it does not bear two sins.

וּנְכַפֵּר צִיץ אַדִּידֵיהּ וְאַדְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ; נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה דְּאֵירְעָה בֵּין זֶה לְזֶה! אָמַר קְרָא: ״אוֹתָהּ״, אוֹתָהּ נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן.

The Gemara suggests: But let the frontplate atone for itself, i.e., for those cases that it normally atones for, and for that which the goats of the New Moon normally atone for, and the practical difference will be in a case of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that occurred between the goat offering of this New Moon and that New Moon which follows. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “And He gave it to you to bear the sin of the congregation,” which indicates that it bears, i.e., atones for, that sin, but another does not bear that sin.

רַב אַשִׁי אָמַר: כְּתִיב הָכָא ״עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״ – עֵדָה וְלֹא קֳדָשִׁים, וְהָתָם כְּתִיב ״עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״, קֳדָשִׁים וְלֹא עֵדָה.

Rav Ashi states another proof for the opinion that each atones in a different case: It is stated here with regard to the goat of the New Moon: “The sin of the congregation,” which indicates that it atones for the sin of the congregation, but not for the sin involving sacred offerings. And there, with regard to the frontplate, it is written: “The sin of the sacred offerings,” which indicates that it atones for the sin involving sacred offerings, but not for the sin of the congregation.

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים דִּמְכַפְּרִי עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא, שְׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים דִּמְכַפְּרִי עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף מְנָלַן?

The Gemara says: We found a source for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion about the goats of the New Moons, that they atone for a ritually pure person who partook of ritually impure sacrificial food. From where do we derive his opinion about the goats of the Festivals, that they atone for cases of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one did not have awareness, neither at the beginning nor at the end?

כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: ״שְׂעִיר״ ״וּשְׂעִיר״, הָכָא נַמִי ״שְׂעִיר״ ״וּשְׂעִיר״,

The Gemara answers: It is derived just as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says, in explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Meir (10a): The fact that with regard to the goat of the Festivals the verses that mention the goats could have simply stated: A goat, but instead state: “And a goat,” teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon that is mentioned at the beginning of that passage. Here too, the fact that the verse could have simply stated: A goat, but instead states: “And a goat,” teaches that the goats of the Festivals effect an atonement similar to that of the goat of the New Moon, which is mentioned at the beginning of that passage.