With regard to the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and then unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal, as a thief would, as she partook of teruma to which she owns no rights. But she does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, which is the fine paid by an Israelite who partakes of teruma unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:14). This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood, since if she becomes widowed or divorced without having borne children she will again be permitted to partake of teruma. And if she commits adultery her death penalty is administered by burning, as is the halakha with regard to the daughter of a priest (see Leviticus 21:9).

By contrast, if she married one of those who are unfit for her to marry due to his lineage, thereby disqualifying herself from the priesthood for the future, she pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and her death is by strangulation, as is the halakha with regard to Israelite women. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that case, whether she was married to an Israelite or to one unfit for her to marry, she pays the principal but she does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, and her death is by burning, as she previously had the status of a daughter of the priesthood. This opinion of the Rabbis is presumably that of Rabbi Yehuda, who is usually the disputant of Rabbi Meir. As explained with regard to the anointing of a king, Rabbi Yehuda requires that the individual in question must have the status of a stranger, i.e., not a High Priest or a king, from beginning to end.

Rav Yosef said the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda applies to the placing of the anointing oil, and it is explained by those answers that we answered earlier, that according to Rabbi Meir one is liable for the placing of any amount, as the verse uses an expression of applying, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda one is liable only if one places oil that is the volume of an olive-bulk. But with regard to placing in general, e.g., the prohibition not to place frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner (see Leviticus 5:11), everyone agrees one is liable for placing only the volume of an olive-bulk.

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: A tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is likewise included as the object of: It shall not be applied, i.e., it is prohibited to apply the oil to him. And anyone not included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is not included as the object of: It shall not be applied. Rabbi Elazar said to that tanna: You are saying well, as it is written: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied [lo yisakh]” (Exodus 30:32), and you read into the verse: Lo yasikh, he shall not apply it to others. This dual reading indicates that one who is commanded not to apply the oil is the same as the one upon whom it is prohibited to apply the oil, as stated by the tanna.

§ Rav Ḥananya taught a halakha before Rava: From where is it derived with regard to a High Priest who took from the anointing oil that is on his head and placed it on his stomach; from where is it derived that he is liable? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied” (Exodus 30:32). Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different between this case and that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of a priest who applied teruma oil to himself, the Israelite son of his daughter may rub against [mitaggel] this oil without concern that he might be deriving benefit from teruma?

Rav Ashi said to him: There, with regard to teruma oil, it is written: “They will die through it if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9), and since the priest has already profaned the oil by using it, it is considered profaned. But with regard to the anointing oil it is written: “For the consecration of the anointing oil of His God is upon him” (Leviticus 21:12). The Merciful One calls it anointing oil even at this stage, to teach that even though it is upon the High Priest it is not considered profaned, and instead remains sacred.

§ The mishna teaches: For any of these prohibitions, one is liable to receive karet for its intentional violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara notes that the mishna further teaches: This is the halakha for all the transgressions listed above except for one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure or renders its consecrated items ritually impure. The Gemara asks: From what halakha does the tanna exclude these cases? After all, one who enters the Temple while impure or renders its consecrated items impure is also liable to receive karet. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is teaching: Except for one who defiles the Temple or renders its consecrated items ritually impure, as he does not bring a provisional guilt offering.

The Gemara suggests: And let the mishna also teach: Except for one who sinned and Yom Kippur passed, as he too does not bring a provisional guilt offering. Reish Lakish said: When the tanna teaches these exceptions he is referring to those cases where there is a sin and nevertheless the Merciful One exempts him from bringing a provisional guilt offering. By contrast, in a case where Yom Kippur passed, there is no remaining sin, as Yom Kippur atoned for him, i.e., for his sin.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is referring to one who rejects the atonement of Yom Kippur, who says: Yom Kippur does not atone for one’s sins. In this situation Yom Kippur does not atone for him, which means that if he retracted from his sinful ways after Yom Kippur he is required to bring a provisional guilt offering. Therefore, it cannot be listed in the exceptions stated in the mishna. The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish does not explain the mishna in this manner, as he maintains that even with regard to one who rejects its atonement, Yom Kippur atones for his sins.

The Gemara notes: And their dispute is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between later amora’im: Concerning one who says: My sin offering, which is sacrificed for me, should not atone for me, Abaye said: This sin offering does not atone for him. Rava said: It atones for him. The Gemara explains: In a case where he said: I do not want it to be sacrificed, everyone agrees that it does not atone for him, as it is written: “He shall bring it in accordance with his will” (Leviticus 1:3), which indicates that if the offering is brought against his will it is not effective. Where they disagree is when he says: The sin offering should be sacrificed but it should not atone for me. Abaye said: It does not atone for him, as he said that it should not atone for him. Rava said: It does atone for him, as once he says it should be sacrificed, the atonement comes by itself.

The Gemara notes: And Rava retracted his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that Yom Kippur atones for those who repent and for those who do not repent. The baraita elaborates: And there is a logical inference to negate this assertion: Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone, and likewise Yom Kippur atones, just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.

The baraita rejects this opinion: No, if you said this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins? Yom Kippur effects atonement even in cases where offerings do not. And since it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is far-reaching in that it atones for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins, it follows that it may atone both for those who repent and for those who do not repent. To dispel this notion, the verse states: “Yet on the tenth day of this month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). By means of the word “yet,” the verse divided and limited the atonement of Yom Kippur so that it atones only for those who repent. This concludes the baraita.

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. What is the meaning of: Those who repent and those who do not repent? Shall we say those who repent are those whose transgressions were unwitting, whereas those who do not repent are those whose transgressions were intentional? This cannot be the case, as the baraita teaches: No, if you said this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins. Since the baraita is referring to the concepts of intentional and unwitting sins in this clause, the categories of those who repent and do not repent must have another meaning.

Rather, the category of those who do not repent is like that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and became an apostate and subsequently retracted his apostasy, nevertheless, since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was an apostate, it shall remain rejected. Accordingly, the baraita is suggesting that the same applies to one who became an apostate and Yom Kippur passed: Even if he retracts his apostasy, the following Yom Kippur should not atone for his transgression.

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: Granted, the offering is rejected from the altar, and therefore it cannot be sacrificed at a later stage. But the man himself is fit for atonement, and he can bring another sin offering. The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the baraita: Rather, it must be that the category of those who repent is referring to one who says: My sin offering should atone for me, and the category of those who do not repent is referring to one who says: My sin offering should not atone for me. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that a sin offering does not atone for one who states beforehand: My sin offering should not atone for me, in contradiction of the earlier statement of Rava. Since Rava was aware of this baraita, he must have retracted his opinion.

The Gemara continues its analysis of this baraita by comparing it to another baraita. And the Sages raise a contradiction: One might have thought that Yom Kippur shall atone only for one who fasted on it and did not perform labor on it and declared it a holy convocation. With regard to one who did not fast on it, or performed labor on it, or did not declare it a holy convocation, one might have thought that Yom Kippur shall not atone for him. To counter this the verse states: “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27); the additional emphasis of “it is” serves to teach that the day atones in any case. The ruling of this baraita disputes the one cited earlier, which states that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, and both are unattributed baraitot in the Sifra. They are difficult, as they contradict each other.

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that second baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with his own opinion. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: This is the halakha except for one who divests himself of the yoke of God, by denying His existence, and one who impudently reveals facets of the Torah in a manner that departs from their true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. With regard to these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone. This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Yom Kippur atones even if one did not repent.

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with his own opinion, that Yom Kippur atones even for those who do not repent, but even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that with regard to the transgressions of violating Yom Kippur itself, e.g., if one ate or performed labor on Yom Kippur, that Yom Kippur does not atone for those transgressions. He must necessarily concede this point, as if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to the punishment of karet for transgressing the prohibitions of Yom Kippur, since each and every hour of the day atones for one’s sins, how can you find the application of karet in this case?

The Gemara questions this proof: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps you find a case where he performed labor the entire night of Yom Kippur and died at dawn, as in such a case there was no daytime of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, to atone for him. The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to the punishment of karet for transgressing at night; but with regard to karet for transgressing at daytime, how can you find these circumstances, i.e., how can he be liable to receive karet for transgressing in the day?

The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps while eating bread he choked on a chunk of meat he ate with it, and died, as there was not enough time in the day after his transgression to atone for him. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where he performed labor close to sunset; alternatively, it is referring to a case where as he was performing labor, the hoe with which he was working cut his thigh and he died, as in these cases too there was no time in the day after his transgression to atone for him, either because it was no longer Yom Kippur or because he died immediately.

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The halakha is the same, i.e., there is no obligation to bring a sin offering, even with regard to the one who blasphemes, as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: “You shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly” (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech. The Gemara asks: What caused the Rabbis to specify: Even one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action? Why do the Rabbis mention this explanation?

The Gemara explains: The Rabbis heard that Rabbi Akiva teaches in his list of those who must bring a sin offering a necromancer, and he does not teach a sorcerer in his list, and therefore they said to him: What is different about a sorcerer that he does not bring an offering? It must be due to the fact that his transgression does not involve an action. If so, with regard to the sin of one who blasphemes as well, it does not involve an action.

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:1): One who unwittingly blasphemes brings an offering, since karet is stated with regard to it. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the verse states: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And is it an established principle that wherever it is written karet with regard to a mitzva, one who violates it unwittingly brings an offering? But there is the case of the mitzva of the Paschal offering, and the mitzva of circumcision, as the punishment of karet is written for failing to perform them, and yet one does not bring an offering for failing to perform these mitzvot unwittingly.