Zevachim 40
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara cites a braita to locate the source for the halakha that all placements of the sin-offering blood performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. The braita’s author treats the seven sprinklings as essential because they are treated as essential elsewhere – this statement is explained as referring to seven sprinklings in the rituals of the red heifer and the purification of a leper.
The ruling that the four placements are essential is derived from the phrase “and as such he should do.” Why not derive them from the phrase “and he should do like he did,” which is used to teach the seven sprinklings – why can’t both be derived from the same verse? Rabbi Yirmiya and Abaye offer different answers.
The braita explains that the word “bull” mentioned first in Vayikra 4:20 refers to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak teaches from this that the blood placements are essential. Rav Papa, however, maintains that the essential nature can be derived from the verses of Yom Kippur and therefore understands the verse as teaching three specific laws about dipping the finger in the blood, laws drawn from the sin offering of the kohen gadol. A braita is brought in support of Rav Papa’s position.
Rabbi Yishmael held that the laws for the bull of Yom Kippur could be derived by kal v’chomer reasoning and therefore understood the “bull” in the verse to be referring to the communal sin offering.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Zevachim 40
אָמַר מָר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַתַּן שֶׁבַע שֶׁמְּעַכְּבוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּפָרָה וּבִנְגָעִים.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita in detail. The Master said in the baraita: I have a derivation only with regard to the seven placements on the Curtain separating between the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, that they are indispensable, as these seven are indispensable in all cases. The Gemara asks: Where are the seven indispensable? Rav Pappa says: In the case of the red heifer (see Numbers 19:2–4), and in the purification process of one afflicted with leprous marks (see Leviticus 14:16).
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״. מַאי שְׁנָא מַתַּן שֶׁבַע – דִּכְתִיבָן וּכְפִילָן, מַתַּן אַרְבַּע נָמֵי – כְּתִיבָן וּכְפִילָן!
The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the same applies to the four placements on the inner altar? The verse states: “So shall he do” (Leviticus 4:20). The Gemara asks: What is different about seven placements, that they should be indispensable? If you say that the reason is that the seven placements are written and repeated, by means of the terms “And he shall do…as he did,” which teaches that they are indispensable, I can say that the four placements as well are written and repeated. Why then should their halakha be any different?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, לְמַעְלָה אוֹמֵר: ״קֶרֶן״–״קַרְנוֹת״ – שְׁתַּיִם; לְמַטָּה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״קֶרֶן״–״קַרְנוֹת״ – אַרְבַּע. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that only two placements are written in this chapter, while the other two are derived through a juxtaposition. Consequently, a specific derivation is required for these. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the placements on the inner altar: Above, in the case of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the verse states corner in the plural form of corners (see Leviticus 4:7), i.e., it says “corners [karnot],” in the plural, where it could have written corner, in the singular. These are two corners. And below, with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, it again states corner in the plural form of corners (see Leviticus 4:18). Together these amount to four corners. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – עַל כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, ״כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
Rabbi Yehuda says: This derivation is not necessary, as it states in these same verses: “And he shall put of the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:18). The superfluous expression “in the Tent of Meeting” teaches that the blood must be placed on all the corners of the altar that are stated with regard to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., on all four corners. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the phrase “so shall he do,” which Rabbi Shimon interprets as referring to the four placements?
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ לְפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִסְמִיכָה. וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda requires this verse for that which is taught in a baraita: As we did not learn with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur that placing hands is required, i.e., that the High Priest must place his hands on this animal before it is slaughtered, and likewise it is not stated that the remainder of its blood must be poured on the base of the altar. From where is it derived that these actions must be performed? The verse states: “So shall he do.”
וּלְפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לֹא לָמַדְנוּ? הָא אָמַרְתָּ: ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים!
The Gemara asks: And did we not learn with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur that these requirements apply? But you said earlier in the baraita: “With the bull” (Leviticus 4:20); this alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur, which indicates that all the rites performed in connection with the bull for an unwitting communal sin apply also to the bull of Yom Kippur.
אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – עֲבוֹדָה דִּמְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל עֲבוֹדָה דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה – אֵימָא לָא; קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: The derivation from the phrase “so shall he do” was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that this matter, the comparison between the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the bull of Yom Kippur, applies only to a service that is indispensable for atonement, e.g., the sprinkling of the blood. But with regard to a service that is not indispensable for atonement, such as placing hands on the head of the animal or pouring out the remainder of the blood, one might say that these actions need not be performed. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “So shall he do,” i.e., these services, too, must be performed with the bull of Yom Kippur.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁאִם נִפְחֲתָה תִּקְרָה שֶׁל הֵיכָל, לֹא הָיָה מַזֶּה. וְאִידַּךְ – מֵ״אֲשֶׁר״. וְאִידַּךְ – ״אֲשֶׁר״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this phrase: “In the Tent of Meeting,” from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that the blood must be placed on all four corners of the altar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon requires the phrase “in the Tent of Meeting” to teach that if the roof of the Sanctuary was breached by a hole, the priest would not sprinkle the blood, as it would no longer be called the Tent of Meeting. The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda derives it from the superfluous term “which is in the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7, 18). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon? He does not interpret the term “which is” as he maintains that this expression is not significant enough to serve as the source of a halakha.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַסְּמִיכָה וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם – דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיבָן וּכְפִילָן לָא מְעַכְּבָא, מַתַּן אַרְבַּע נָמֵי לָא תִּתְעַכַּב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Abaye said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, it was necessary to learn from the phrase “so shall he do” that the four placements are indispensable. As it might enter your mind to say that just as it is with regard to placing hands and the remainder of the blood, that even though they are written and repeated they are not indispensable, so too, the four placements of blood should not be indispensable. Therefore, the phrase “so shall he do” teaches us that this is not the case, and the four sprinklings are indeed indispensable.
״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אִי לְעַכֵּב – פְּשִׁיטָא, ״חֻקָּה״ כְּתִיבָה בֵּיהּ!
§ The baraita teaches: “With the bull” (Leviticus 4:20), this alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur. To what halakha does this statement relate? If it serves to teach that all matters stated with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur are indispensable, this is obvious, since the word “statute” is written concerning it: “And this shall be an everlasting statute to you” (Leviticus 16:29), and there is a principle that halakhot described as statutes are indispensable.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: כִּי כְּתִיבָה ״חֻקָּה״ – אַדְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן בִּפְנִים, שֶׁאִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם;
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This statement is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: When the term “statute” is written concerning the Yom Kippur service, indicating that no details may be altered, it is written only with regard to actions performed in white garments inside the Holy of Holies, e.g., burning the incense and sprinkling the blood, which are the essential services of the day, and it teaches that if the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, i.e., not in the proper order, he has done nothing.
אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן בַּחוּץ, הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי; אֵימָא מִדִּכְסִידְרָן לָא מְעַכְּבִי, הַזָּאוֹת נָמֵי לָא מְעַכְּבִי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
But with regard to those actions performed in white garments outside, in the Sanctuary, if he performed one action before another, what he did is done and he is not required to repeat the rite. Consequently, one might say that from the fact that their order is not indispensable, it may be derived that the sprinklings, i.e., placements, themselves are also not indispensable. Therefore, the term “with the bull” teaches us that the placements are indeed indispensable.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּילָּה, וְאִם לֹא כִּיפֵּר לֹא כִּילָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Pappa objects to this: And how can you say this, that Rabbi Yehuda derives from here that the placements are indispensable? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the Yom Kippur service states: “And when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 16:20). This indicates that if he performed the atonement, i.e., the sprinklings, inside the Sanctuary, he has finished the order of the service, even though he has not poured the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar; and if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֹאמַר: אִם כִּילָּה כִּיפֵּר, וְאִם לֹא כִּילָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר?
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: For what reason do we not say: If he finished the entire service, which includes sprinkling the blood in the Sanctuary and pouring the remainder of the blood onto the base of the altar, he has facilitated atonement; and if he did not finish, he has not facilitated atonement? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda derives from this verse the halakha that the sprinklings in the Sanctuary are indispensable.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְאֶת (דם) [בְּדָם] וּבִטְבִילָה. ״אֶת״ – אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לֹא נִצְרְכָא לְהַכְשִׁיר
Rav Pappa says: This reference to the bull of Yom Kippur in the term “with the bull,” is necessary only to apply to the bull of Yom Kippur three halakhot that are derived from that which is stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest: “And the priest shall immerse his finger [et etzba’o] in the blood” (Leviticus 4:6). These halakhot can be summarized in the shortened form: Et, blood, and with immersion. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the word et, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This word is necessary only to render fit
אַמִּין שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע. ״בַּדָּם״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדָּם שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרָא. ״וְטָבַל״ – וְלֹא מְסַפֵּג.
service performed by a priest who has a wart or blister on his finger. These are not considered an interposition between his finger and the blood. With regard to the term “in the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), this teaches that the blood in the service vessel must be of a sufficient measure for immersion from the outset. The priest must initially collect in the vessel enough blood for all the sprinklings, rather than adding blood to the vessel for each sprinkling. Finally, the term “and the priest shall immerse his finger in the blood” indicates that there must be enough blood in the vessel such that the priest can immerse his finger in it and not have to wipe the sides of the utensil to collect blood for sprinkling.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״בַּדָּם״, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָבַל״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרָא; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּדָּם״.
The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for the verse to state both these last two terms. It had to write “in the blood,” as had the Merciful One written only “and the priest shall immerse,” I would say that the sprinklings are valid even if there was not a sufficient measure of blood for immersion from the outset, but only enough for a single sprinkling, provided that the priest then added more blood to the vessel for each sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “in the blood” to teach that from the outset there must be enough blood in the vessel for all the sprinklings.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּדָּם״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ מְסַפֵּג; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְטָבַל״.
And conversely, had the Merciful One written only “in the blood,” I would say that even if there was enough blood in the vessel at the outset it is not necessary that there be enough blood for immersion for the last sprinklings, as the priest can wipe the sides of the utensil to collect blood for sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “and the priest shall immerse.”
״מִזְבַּח קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים״ לְמָה לִי? שֶׁאִם לֹא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּקְטוֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים – לֹא הָיָה מַזֶּה.
The Gemara addresses another apparently superfluous phrase in the same chapter: “And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord” (Leviticus 4:7). Why do I need the verse to mention the sweet incense? It would have been enough to identify the altar as being “before the Lord” and one would have understood that the reference is to the inner altar. Rather, this serves to teach that if the altar had not been inaugurated with sweet incense, the priest would not sprinkle blood on it.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: ״וְעָשָׂה… כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַפָּר״? לְרַבּוֹת פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכׇל מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa that the superfluous phrase in the passage discussing the bull for an unwitting communal sin alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur in order to teach the three halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion, from the case of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is also alluded to in that verse. The baraita states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:20). What is the meaning when the verse states “with the bull”? This serves to include the bull of Yom Kippur for all that is stated in this matter, i.e., in the passage concerning the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, specifically the halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: קַל וָחוֹמֶר! וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – הִשְׁוָה מַעֲשִׂים לְמַעֲשִׂים; מָקוֹם שֶׁהִשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּשְׁוֶה מַעֲשֶׂה לְמַעֲשֶׂה?!
Rabbi Yishmael said: This inclusion is unnecessary, as these halakhot can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering of a different type of animal, the Torah equated the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering with the actions of the blood in the other offering, as will be explained, in a case in which the Torah equated one offering with another offering, i.e., the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and the bull of Yom Kippur, isn’t it logical that the Torah should equate the actions of sprinkling the blood in the one offering with the actions of the blood in the other offering? Therefore, the derivation by way of a special inclusion is not necessary.
אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר. ״לְפַר״ – זֶה פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ.
Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering”? With regard to the first instance of “with the bull,” this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. And with regard to the second instance of “with the bull,” this is the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. And the verse serves to teach that just as in the first case, if the priest omitted one of the sprinklings, he has done nothing, the same is true in the second case.
אָמַר מָר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן. מַאי לֹא הוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן?
The Gemara clarifies the baraita. The Master said above: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering. What is the meaning of the expression: One offering is not equated with another offering? Which offerings are not brought from the same type of animal, but nevertheless the halakhot governing the sprinkling of their blood are the same?
אִילֵּימָא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וּשְׂעִיר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָס דָּמָם לִפְנַיי וְלִפְנִים!
If we say that Rabbi Yishmael is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur, and from them he derives by way of an a fortiori inference that the actions concerning the bull of Yom Kippur are the same as those concerning the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which are the same animal, this can be refuted as follows: What is notable about these offerings, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur? They are notable in that their blood enters the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies. This is not so of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the blood of which is sprinkled only in the outer area of the Sanctuary.
אֶלָּא פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל עֲבֵירוֹת מִצְוָה יְדוּעָה!
Rather, say that the reference here is to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. But once again this claim can be refuted: What is notable about these offerings? They are notable in that they both atone for the known transgressions of a mitzva, whereas the bull of Yom Kippur atones for unknown transgressions (see Shevuot 2a).
אֶלָּא פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּשְׁווּ קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – דְּהַאי פַּר וְהַאי שָׂעִיר, הוּשְׁווּ מַעֲשִׂים לְמַעֲשִׂים – לְמַאי דִּכְתַב בְּהוּ; מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – דְּהַאי פַּר וְהַאי פַּר, אֵינוֹ דִּין
Rather, the reference here is to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goat of Yom Kippur, and this is what Rabbi Yishmael is saying: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering, as this is a bull and that is a goat, nevertheless the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering are equated with the actions of the blood in the other offering with regard to that which is written concerning it, in a case in which one offering is equated with another offering, i.e., the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and the bull of Yom Kippur, as this is a bull and that is a bull, isn’t it logical
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Zevachim 40
אָמַר מָר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַתַּן שֶׁבַע שֶׁמְּעַכְּבוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּפָרָה וּבִנְגָעִים.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita in detail. The Master said in the baraita: I have a derivation only with regard to the seven placements on the Curtain separating between the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, that they are indispensable, as these seven are indispensable in all cases. The Gemara asks: Where are the seven indispensable? Rav Pappa says: In the case of the red heifer (see Numbers 19:2–4), and in the purification process of one afflicted with leprous marks (see Leviticus 14:16).
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״. מַאי שְׁנָא מַתַּן שֶׁבַע – דִּכְתִיבָן וּכְפִילָן, מַתַּן אַרְבַּע נָמֵי – כְּתִיבָן וּכְפִילָן!
The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the same applies to the four placements on the inner altar? The verse states: “So shall he do” (Leviticus 4:20). The Gemara asks: What is different about seven placements, that they should be indispensable? If you say that the reason is that the seven placements are written and repeated, by means of the terms “And he shall do…as he did,” which teaches that they are indispensable, I can say that the four placements as well are written and repeated. Why then should their halakha be any different?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, לְמַעְלָה אוֹמֵר: ״קֶרֶן״–״קַרְנוֹת״ – שְׁתַּיִם; לְמַטָּה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״קֶרֶן״–״קַרְנוֹת״ – אַרְבַּע. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that only two placements are written in this chapter, while the other two are derived through a juxtaposition. Consequently, a specific derivation is required for these. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the placements on the inner altar: Above, in the case of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the verse states corner in the plural form of corners (see Leviticus 4:7), i.e., it says “corners [karnot],” in the plural, where it could have written corner, in the singular. These are two corners. And below, with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, it again states corner in the plural form of corners (see Leviticus 4:18). Together these amount to four corners. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – עַל כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, ״כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
Rabbi Yehuda says: This derivation is not necessary, as it states in these same verses: “And he shall put of the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:18). The superfluous expression “in the Tent of Meeting” teaches that the blood must be placed on all the corners of the altar that are stated with regard to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., on all four corners. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the phrase “so shall he do,” which Rabbi Shimon interprets as referring to the four placements?
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ לְפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִסְמִיכָה. וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda requires this verse for that which is taught in a baraita: As we did not learn with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur that placing hands is required, i.e., that the High Priest must place his hands on this animal before it is slaughtered, and likewise it is not stated that the remainder of its blood must be poured on the base of the altar. From where is it derived that these actions must be performed? The verse states: “So shall he do.”
וּלְפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לֹא לָמַדְנוּ? הָא אָמַרְתָּ: ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים!
The Gemara asks: And did we not learn with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur that these requirements apply? But you said earlier in the baraita: “With the bull” (Leviticus 4:20); this alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur, which indicates that all the rites performed in connection with the bull for an unwitting communal sin apply also to the bull of Yom Kippur.
אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – עֲבוֹדָה דִּמְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל עֲבוֹדָה דְּלָא מְעַכְּבָא כַּפָּרָה – אֵימָא לָא; קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: The derivation from the phrase “so shall he do” was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that this matter, the comparison between the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the bull of Yom Kippur, applies only to a service that is indispensable for atonement, e.g., the sprinkling of the blood. But with regard to a service that is not indispensable for atonement, such as placing hands on the head of the animal or pouring out the remainder of the blood, one might say that these actions need not be performed. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “So shall he do,” i.e., these services, too, must be performed with the bull of Yom Kippur.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁאִם נִפְחֲתָה תִּקְרָה שֶׁל הֵיכָל, לֹא הָיָה מַזֶּה. וְאִידַּךְ – מֵ״אֲשֶׁר״. וְאִידַּךְ – ״אֲשֶׁר״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this phrase: “In the Tent of Meeting,” from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that the blood must be placed on all four corners of the altar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon requires the phrase “in the Tent of Meeting” to teach that if the roof of the Sanctuary was breached by a hole, the priest would not sprinkle the blood, as it would no longer be called the Tent of Meeting. The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda derives it from the superfluous term “which is in the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7, 18). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon? He does not interpret the term “which is” as he maintains that this expression is not significant enough to serve as the source of a halakha.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַסְּמִיכָה וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם – דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיבָן וּכְפִילָן לָא מְעַכְּבָא, מַתַּן אַרְבַּע נָמֵי לָא תִּתְעַכַּב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Abaye said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, it was necessary to learn from the phrase “so shall he do” that the four placements are indispensable. As it might enter your mind to say that just as it is with regard to placing hands and the remainder of the blood, that even though they are written and repeated they are not indispensable, so too, the four placements of blood should not be indispensable. Therefore, the phrase “so shall he do” teaches us that this is not the case, and the four sprinklings are indeed indispensable.
״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אִי לְעַכֵּב – פְּשִׁיטָא, ״חֻקָּה״ כְּתִיבָה בֵּיהּ!
§ The baraita teaches: “With the bull” (Leviticus 4:20), this alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur. To what halakha does this statement relate? If it serves to teach that all matters stated with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur are indispensable, this is obvious, since the word “statute” is written concerning it: “And this shall be an everlasting statute to you” (Leviticus 16:29), and there is a principle that halakhot described as statutes are indispensable.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: כִּי כְּתִיבָה ״חֻקָּה״ – אַדְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן בִּפְנִים, שֶׁאִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם;
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This statement is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: When the term “statute” is written concerning the Yom Kippur service, indicating that no details may be altered, it is written only with regard to actions performed in white garments inside the Holy of Holies, e.g., burning the incense and sprinkling the blood, which are the essential services of the day, and it teaches that if the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, i.e., not in the proper order, he has done nothing.
אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן בַּחוּץ, הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי; אֵימָא מִדִּכְסִידְרָן לָא מְעַכְּבִי, הַזָּאוֹת נָמֵי לָא מְעַכְּבִי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
But with regard to those actions performed in white garments outside, in the Sanctuary, if he performed one action before another, what he did is done and he is not required to repeat the rite. Consequently, one might say that from the fact that their order is not indispensable, it may be derived that the sprinklings, i.e., placements, themselves are also not indispensable. Therefore, the term “with the bull” teaches us that the placements are indeed indispensable.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּילָּה, וְאִם לֹא כִּיפֵּר לֹא כִּילָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Pappa objects to this: And how can you say this, that Rabbi Yehuda derives from here that the placements are indispensable? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the Yom Kippur service states: “And when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 16:20). This indicates that if he performed the atonement, i.e., the sprinklings, inside the Sanctuary, he has finished the order of the service, even though he has not poured the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar; and if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֹאמַר: אִם כִּילָּה כִּיפֵּר, וְאִם לֹא כִּילָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר?
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: For what reason do we not say: If he finished the entire service, which includes sprinkling the blood in the Sanctuary and pouring the remainder of the blood onto the base of the altar, he has facilitated atonement; and if he did not finish, he has not facilitated atonement? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda derives from this verse the halakha that the sprinklings in the Sanctuary are indispensable.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְאֶת (דם) [בְּדָם] וּבִטְבִילָה. ״אֶת״ – אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לֹא נִצְרְכָא לְהַכְשִׁיר
Rav Pappa says: This reference to the bull of Yom Kippur in the term “with the bull,” is necessary only to apply to the bull of Yom Kippur three halakhot that are derived from that which is stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest: “And the priest shall immerse his finger [et etzba’o] in the blood” (Leviticus 4:6). These halakhot can be summarized in the shortened form: Et, blood, and with immersion. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the word et, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This word is necessary only to render fit
אַמִּין שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע. ״בַּדָּם״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדָּם שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרָא. ״וְטָבַל״ – וְלֹא מְסַפֵּג.
service performed by a priest who has a wart or blister on his finger. These are not considered an interposition between his finger and the blood. With regard to the term “in the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), this teaches that the blood in the service vessel must be of a sufficient measure for immersion from the outset. The priest must initially collect in the vessel enough blood for all the sprinklings, rather than adding blood to the vessel for each sprinkling. Finally, the term “and the priest shall immerse his finger in the blood” indicates that there must be enough blood in the vessel such that the priest can immerse his finger in it and not have to wipe the sides of the utensil to collect blood for sprinkling.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״בַּדָּם״, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָבַל״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרָא; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּדָּם״.
The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for the verse to state both these last two terms. It had to write “in the blood,” as had the Merciful One written only “and the priest shall immerse,” I would say that the sprinklings are valid even if there was not a sufficient measure of blood for immersion from the outset, but only enough for a single sprinkling, provided that the priest then added more blood to the vessel for each sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “in the blood” to teach that from the outset there must be enough blood in the vessel for all the sprinklings.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּדָּם״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ מְסַפֵּג; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְטָבַל״.
And conversely, had the Merciful One written only “in the blood,” I would say that even if there was enough blood in the vessel at the outset it is not necessary that there be enough blood for immersion for the last sprinklings, as the priest can wipe the sides of the utensil to collect blood for sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “and the priest shall immerse.”
״מִזְבַּח קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים״ לְמָה לִי? שֶׁאִם לֹא נִתְחַנֵּךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּקְטוֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים – לֹא הָיָה מַזֶּה.
The Gemara addresses another apparently superfluous phrase in the same chapter: “And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord” (Leviticus 4:7). Why do I need the verse to mention the sweet incense? It would have been enough to identify the altar as being “before the Lord” and one would have understood that the reference is to the inner altar. Rather, this serves to teach that if the altar had not been inaugurated with sweet incense, the priest would not sprinkle blood on it.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: ״וְעָשָׂה… כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַפָּר״? לְרַבּוֹת פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכׇל מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa that the superfluous phrase in the passage discussing the bull for an unwitting communal sin alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur in order to teach the three halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion, from the case of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is also alluded to in that verse. The baraita states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:20). What is the meaning when the verse states “with the bull”? This serves to include the bull of Yom Kippur for all that is stated in this matter, i.e., in the passage concerning the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, specifically the halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: קַל וָחוֹמֶר! וּמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – הִשְׁוָה מַעֲשִׂים לְמַעֲשִׂים; מָקוֹם שֶׁהִשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּשְׁוֶה מַעֲשֶׂה לְמַעֲשֶׂה?!
Rabbi Yishmael said: This inclusion is unnecessary, as these halakhot can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering of a different type of animal, the Torah equated the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering with the actions of the blood in the other offering, as will be explained, in a case in which the Torah equated one offering with another offering, i.e., the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and the bull of Yom Kippur, isn’t it logical that the Torah should equate the actions of sprinkling the blood in the one offering with the actions of the blood in the other offering? Therefore, the derivation by way of a special inclusion is not necessary.
אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר. ״לְפַר״ – זֶה פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ.
Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering”? With regard to the first instance of “with the bull,” this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. And with regard to the second instance of “with the bull,” this is the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. And the verse serves to teach that just as in the first case, if the priest omitted one of the sprinklings, he has done nothing, the same is true in the second case.
אָמַר מָר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן. מַאי לֹא הוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן?
The Gemara clarifies the baraita. The Master said above: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering. What is the meaning of the expression: One offering is not equated with another offering? Which offerings are not brought from the same type of animal, but nevertheless the halakhot governing the sprinkling of their blood are the same?
אִילֵּימָא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וּשְׂעִיר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָס דָּמָם לִפְנַיי וְלִפְנִים!
If we say that Rabbi Yishmael is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur, and from them he derives by way of an a fortiori inference that the actions concerning the bull of Yom Kippur are the same as those concerning the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which are the same animal, this can be refuted as follows: What is notable about these offerings, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur? They are notable in that their blood enters the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies. This is not so of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the blood of which is sprinkled only in the outer area of the Sanctuary.
אֶלָּא פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל עֲבֵירוֹת מִצְוָה יְדוּעָה!
Rather, say that the reference here is to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. But once again this claim can be refuted: What is notable about these offerings? They are notable in that they both atone for the known transgressions of a mitzva, whereas the bull of Yom Kippur atones for unknown transgressions (see Shevuot 2a).
אֶלָּא פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הוּשְׁווּ קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – דְּהַאי פַּר וְהַאי שָׂעִיר, הוּשְׁווּ מַעֲשִׂים לְמַעֲשִׂים – לְמַאי דִּכְתַב בְּהוּ; מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּשְׁוָה קׇרְבָּן לְקׇרְבָּן – דְּהַאי פַּר וְהַאי פַּר, אֵינוֹ דִּין
Rather, the reference here is to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goat of Yom Kippur, and this is what Rabbi Yishmael is saying: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering, as this is a bull and that is a goat, nevertheless the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering are equated with the actions of the blood in the other offering with regard to that which is written concerning it, in a case in which one offering is equated with another offering, i.e., the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and the bull of Yom Kippur, as this is a bull and that is a bull, isn’t it logical
