Study Keritot folio 26A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and find a way to explain that halakha, neither from that statement of Rav Dimi, who derived it from the verse: “And from their transgressions, for all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16), nor from that statement of Abaye, who derived it from the verse: “For all their transgressions, for all their sins”
Rather, it is derived from that which R' Elazar said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: “From all your sins before YHWH” (Leviticus 16:30). This indicates that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only God is aware, i.e., an uncertain sin for which one brings a provisional guilt offering
And Rav Taḥlifa, father of Rav Huna, further says in the name of Rava: Those liable to receive lashes for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to receive those lashes after Yom Kippur. The Talmud asks: Isn’t that obvious? What is the difference between this case and the case of those liable to brin
The Talmud answers: It might enter your mind to say: There, where the liability to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings is financial in nature, Yom Kippur does not exempt one from financial obligations. But here, where the liability to incur lashes applies to one’s body, one might say
The Talmud asks: How can Rava say that Yom Kippur does not exempt one from the liability to incur lashes? But didn’t we learn in a Mishnah (Shevuot 2b): For other prohibitions that are stated in the Torah, apart from those delineated in that Mishnah, whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippu