Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 23, 2018 | 讟壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 40

Study Guide Zevachim 40. Various drashot聽are brought regarding the verse about the bull offering of the community and compare from there to other offerings. What comparisons are made and according to whose opinions?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪转谉 砖讘注 砖诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘驻专讛 讜讘谞讙注讬诐

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鈥4), and in the purification process of one afflicted with leprous marks (see Leviticus 14:16).

诪转谉 讗专讘注 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪转谉 砖讘注 讚讻转讬讘谉 讜讻驻讬诇谉 诪转谉 讗专讘注 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘谉 讜讻驻讬诇谉

The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the same applies to the four placements on the inner altar? The verse states: 鈥淪o shall he do鈥 (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 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did,鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 拽专谞讜转 砖转讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 拽专谞讜转 讗专讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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 鈥渃orners [karnot],鈥 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 注诇 讻诇 讛讗诪讜专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

Rabbi Yehuda says: This derivation is not necessary, as it states in these same verses: 鈥淎nd he shall put of the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18). The superfluous expression 鈥渋n the Tent of Meeting鈥 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 鈥渟o shall he do,鈥 which Rabbi Shimon interprets as referring to the four placements?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诇驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讬注砖讛

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: 鈥淪o shall he do.鈥

讜诇驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇驻专 讝讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

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: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥 (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.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: The derivation from the phrase 鈥渟o shall he do鈥 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: 鈥淪o shall he do,鈥 i.e., these services, too, must be performed with the bull of Yom Kippur.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讗诐 谞驻讞转讛 转拽专讛 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗砖专 讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖专 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this phrase: 鈥淚n the Tent of Meeting,鈥 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 鈥渋n the Tent of Meeting鈥 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 鈥渨hich is in the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:7, 18). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon? He does not interpret the term 鈥渨hich is鈥 as he maintains that this expression is not significant enough to serve as the source of a halakha.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘谉 讜讻驻讬诇谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诪转谉 讗专讘注 谞诪讬 诇讗 转转注讻讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Abaye said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, it was necessary to learn from the phrase 鈥渟o shall he do鈥 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 鈥渟o shall he do鈥 teaches us that this is not the case, and the four sprinklings are indeed indispensable.

诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗讬 诇注讻讘 驻砖讬讟讗 讞拽讛 讻转讬讘讛 讘讬讛

搂 The baraita teaches: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥 (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 鈥渟tatute鈥 is written concerning it: 鈥淎nd this shall be an everlasting statute to you鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), and there is a principle that halakhot described as statutes are indispensable.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讻转讬讘讛 讞拽讛 讗讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This statement is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: When the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 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.

讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讚讻住讬讚专谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讛讝讗讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渨ith the bull鈥 teaches us that the placements are indeed indispensable.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讗诐 讻讬驻专 讻讬诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻讬驻专 诇讗 讻讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rav Pappa objects to this: And how can you say this, that Rabbi Yehuda derives from here that the placements are indispensable? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the Yom Kippur service states: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻讬诇讛 讻讬驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻讬诇讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗转 讚诐 讜讘讟讘讬诇讛 讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 诇讛讻砖讬专

Rav Pappa says: This reference to the bull of Yom Kippur in the term 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall immerse his finger [et etzba鈥檕] in the blood鈥 (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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: This word is necessary only to render fit

讗诪讬谉 砖讘讗爪讘注 讘讚诐 砖讬讛讗 讘讚诐 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪住驻讙

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 鈥渋n the blood鈥 (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 鈥渁nd the priest shall immerse his finger in the blood鈥 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.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讘讚诐 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讚诐

The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for the verse to state both these last two terms. It had to write 鈥渋n the blood,鈥 as had the Merciful One written only 鈥渁nd the priest shall immerse,鈥 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 鈥渋n the blood鈥 to teach that from the outset there must be enough blood in the vessel for all the sprinklings.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讚诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住驻讙 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇

And conversely, had the Merciful One written only 鈥渋n the blood,鈥 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 鈥渁nd the priest shall immerse.鈥

诪讝讘讞 拽讟专转 住诪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖讗诐 诇讗 谞转讞谞讱 讛诪讝讘讞 讘拽讟讜专转 讛住诪讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讝讛

The Gemara addresses another apparently superfluous phrase in the same chapter: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put some of the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord鈥 (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 鈥渂efore the Lord鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜注砖讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专 诇专讘讜转 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讗诪讜专 讘注谞讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

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: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渨ith the bull鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讛砖讜讛 诪注砖讬诐 诇诪注砖讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬砖讜讛 诪注砖讛 诇诪注砖讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥? With regard to the first instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. And with regard to the second instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉

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?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜砖注讬专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 谞讻谞住 讚诪诐 诇驻谞讬讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛

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 transgressions of a known mitzva, whereas the bull of Yom Kippur atones for unknown transgressions (see Shevuot 2a).

讗诇讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讜讜 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讚讛讗讬 驻专 讜讛讗讬 砖注讬专 讛讜砖讜讜 诪注砖讬诐 诇诪注砖讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讚讻转讘 讘讛讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讚讛讗讬 驻专 讜讛讗讬 驻专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉

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鈥檛 it logical

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 40

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪转谉 砖讘注 砖诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘驻专讛 讜讘谞讙注讬诐

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鈥4), and in the purification process of one afflicted with leprous marks (see Leviticus 14:16).

诪转谉 讗专讘注 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪转谉 砖讘注 讚讻转讬讘谉 讜讻驻讬诇谉 诪转谉 讗专讘注 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘谉 讜讻驻讬诇谉

The baraita continues: From where is it derived that the same applies to the four placements on the inner altar? The verse states: 鈥淪o shall he do鈥 (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 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did,鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 拽专谞讜转 砖转讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 拽专谉 拽专谞讜转 讗专讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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 鈥渃orners [karnot],鈥 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 注诇 讻诇 讛讗诪讜专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

Rabbi Yehuda says: This derivation is not necessary, as it states in these same verses: 鈥淎nd he shall put of the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18). The superfluous expression 鈥渋n the Tent of Meeting鈥 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 鈥渟o shall he do,鈥 which Rabbi Shimon interprets as referring to the four placements?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诇驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讬注砖讛

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: 鈥淪o shall he do.鈥

讜诇驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇驻专 讝讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

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: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥 (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.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 注讘讜讚讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: The derivation from the phrase 鈥渟o shall he do鈥 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: 鈥淪o shall he do,鈥 i.e., these services, too, must be performed with the bull of Yom Kippur.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讗诐 谞驻讞转讛 转拽专讛 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讗砖专 讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖专 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this phrase: 鈥淚n the Tent of Meeting,鈥 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 鈥渋n the Tent of Meeting鈥 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 鈥渨hich is in the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:7, 18). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon? He does not interpret the term 鈥渨hich is鈥 as he maintains that this expression is not significant enough to serve as the source of a halakha.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘谉 讜讻驻讬诇谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诪转谉 讗专讘注 谞诪讬 诇讗 转转注讻讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Abaye said: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as well, it was necessary to learn from the phrase 鈥渟o shall he do鈥 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 鈥渟o shall he do鈥 teaches us that this is not the case, and the four sprinklings are indeed indispensable.

诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗讬 诇注讻讘 驻砖讬讟讗 讞拽讛 讻转讬讘讛 讘讬讛

搂 The baraita teaches: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥 (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 鈥渟tatute鈥 is written concerning it: 鈥淎nd this shall be an everlasting statute to you鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), and there is a principle that halakhot described as statutes are indispensable.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讻转讬讘讛 讞拽讛 讗讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This statement is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: When the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 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.

讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讚讻住讬讚专谉 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讛讝讗讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渨ith the bull鈥 teaches us that the placements are indeed indispensable.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讗诐 讻讬驻专 讻讬诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻讬驻专 诇讗 讻讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rav Pappa objects to this: And how can you say this, that Rabbi Yehuda derives from here that the placements are indispensable? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse discussing the Yom Kippur service states: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻讬诇讛 讻讬驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻讬诇讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗转 讚诐 讜讘讟讘讬诇讛 讗转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 诇讛讻砖讬专

Rav Pappa says: This reference to the bull of Yom Kippur in the term 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall immerse his finger [et etzba鈥檕] in the blood鈥 (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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: This word is necessary only to render fit

讗诪讬谉 砖讘讗爪讘注 讘讚诐 砖讬讛讗 讘讚诐 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪住驻讙

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 鈥渋n the blood鈥 (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 鈥渁nd the priest shall immerse his finger in the blood鈥 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.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讘讚诐 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讚诐

The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for the verse to state both these last two terms. It had to write 鈥渋n the blood,鈥 as had the Merciful One written only 鈥渁nd the priest shall immerse,鈥 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 鈥渋n the blood鈥 to teach that from the outset there must be enough blood in the vessel for all the sprinklings.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讚诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住驻讙 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇

And conversely, had the Merciful One written only 鈥渋n the blood,鈥 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 鈥渁nd the priest shall immerse.鈥

诪讝讘讞 拽讟专转 住诪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖讗诐 诇讗 谞转讞谞讱 讛诪讝讘讞 讘拽讟讜专转 讛住诪讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讝讛

The Gemara addresses another apparently superfluous phrase in the same chapter: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put some of the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord鈥 (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 鈥渂efore the Lord鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜注砖讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专 诇专讘讜转 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讗诪讜专 讘注谞讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

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: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渨ith the bull鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讛砖讜讛 诪注砖讬诐 诇诪注砖讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬砖讜讛 诪注砖讛 诇诪注砖讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥? With regard to the first instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. And with regard to the second instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉

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?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜砖注讬专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 谞讻谞住 讚诪诐 诇驻谞讬讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 注讘讬专讜转 诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛

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 transgressions of a known mitzva, whereas the bull of Yom Kippur atones for unknown transgressions (see Shevuot 2a).

讗诇讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 讛讜砖讜讜 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讚讛讗讬 驻专 讜讛讗讬 砖注讬专 讛讜砖讜讜 诪注砖讬诐 诇诪注砖讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讚讻转讘 讘讛讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜砖讜讛 拽专讘谉 诇拽专讘谉 讚讛讗讬 驻专 讜讛讗讬 驻专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉

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鈥檛 it logical

Scroll To Top