Zevachim 40

אמר מר אין לי אלא מתן שבע שמעכבות בכל מקום היכא אמר רב פפא בפרה ובנגעים

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).

מתן ארבע מנין תלמוד לומר כן יעשה מאי שנא מתן שבע דכתיבן וכפילן מתן ארבע נמי כתיבן וכפילן

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?

אמר רבי ירמיה לא נצרכא אלא לרבי שמעון דתניא למעלה אומר קרן קרנות שתים למטה הוא אומר קרן קרנות ארבע דברי רבי שמעון

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.

רבי יהודה אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר באהל מועד על כל האמור באהל מועד ורבי יהודה כן יעשה מאי עביד ליה

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?

מיבעי ליה לכדתניא לפי שלא למדנו לפר יום הכפורים לסמיכה ושירי הדם מנין תלמוד לומר כן יעשה

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.”

ולפר יום הכפורים לא למדנו הא אמרת לפר זה יום הכפורים

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.

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי עבודה דמעכבא כפרה אבל עבודה דלא מעכבא כפרה אימא לא קמשמע לן

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.

ורבי שמעון האי באהל מועד מאי עביד ליה באהל מועד מבעי ליה שאם נפחתה תקרה של היכל לא היה מזה ואידך מאשר ואידך אשר לא דריש

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.

אביי אמר לרבי יהודה נמי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא מידי דהוה אסמיכה ושירי הדם דאף על גב דכתיבן וכפילן לא מעכבא מתן ארבע נמי לא תתעכב קא משמע לן

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.

לפר זה פר יום הכפורים למאי הילכתא אי לעכב פשיטא חקה כתיבה ביה

§ 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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לא נצרכא אלא לרבי יהודה דאמר כי כתיבה חקה אדברים הנעשים בבגדי לבן בפנים שאם הקדים מעשה לחבירו לא עשה ולא כלום

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.

אבל דברים הנעשים בבגדי לבן בחוץ הקדים מעשה לחבירו מה שעשה עשוי אימא מדכסידרן לא מעכבי הזאות נמי לא מעכבי קא משמע לן

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.

מתקיף לה רב פפא ומי מצית אמרת הכי והתניא וכלה מכפר את הקדש אם כיפר כילה ואם לא כיפר לא כילה דברי רבי עקיבא

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.

אמר לו רבי יהודה מפני מה לא נאמר אם כילה כיפר ואם לא כילה לא כיפר

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.

אמר רב פפא לא נצרכא אלא לאת דם ובטבילה את אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לא נצרכא להכשיר

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

אמין שבאצבע בדם שיהא בדם שיעור טבילה מעיקרא וטבל ולא מספג

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.

ואיצטריך למכתב בדם דאי כתב רחמנא וטבל הוה אמינא אף על גב דליכא שיעור טבילה מעיקרא כתב רחמנא בדם

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.

ואי כתב רחמנא בדם הוה אמינא אפילו מספג כתב רחמנא וטבל

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.”

מזבח קטרת סמים למה לי שאם לא נתחנך המזבח בקטורת הסמים לא היה מזה

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.

תניא כוותיה דרב פפא ועשה כאשר עשה מה תלמוד לומר לפר לרבות פר יום הכפורים לכל מה שאמור בענין דברי רבי

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.

אמר רבי ישמעאל קל וחומר ומה במקום שלא הושוה קרבן לקרבן השוה מעשים למעשים מקום שהשוה קרבן לקרבן אינו דין שישוה מעשה למעשה

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.

אלא מה תלמוד לומר לפר זה פר העלם דבר של צבור לפר זה פר כהן משיח

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.

אמר מר ומה במקום שלא הושוה קרבן לקרבן מאי לא הושוה קרבן לקרבן

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?

אילימא פר יום הכפורים ושעיר יום הכפורים איכא למיפרך מה להנך שכן נכנס דמם לפניי ולפנים

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.

אלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודה זרה איכא למיפרך מה להנך שכן מכפרין על עבירות מצוה ידועה

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).

אלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעיר של יום הכפורים והכי קאמר ומה במקום שלא הושוו קרבן לקרבן דהאי פר והאי שעיר הושוו מעשים למעשים למאי דכתב בהו מקום שהושוה קרבן לקרבן דהאי פר והאי פר אינו דין

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