Zevachim 38a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

there,

with regard to a sukka,

since one verse was taken entirely for itself,

remove one of the five verses from them, because the verse had to write it for itself and it cannot be expounded from it, and four remained.

And

you have to remove from the number of four another verse,

one, for its roofing,

because since the verse specified the structure of the sukka, it also had to specify the roofing together with the walls; and three remained, and three verses remained to teach about three walls.

The halakha came,

and now the halakha that was said to Moses at Sinai came,

and it diminished the

third wall,

and established it at a handbreadth.

And it established it at a handbreadth. And this is what we learned: two walls according to their halakha, and the third a handbreadth.

And we object:

From now on,

with regard to what was said concerning the impurity of a woman who gives birth,

“and she shall be impure for two weeks” [Leviticus 12], but the spelling is

“seventy,”

with the letter vav missing, so according to Beit Hillel we should say: Since when the written text and the received reading contradict one another, each is effective for half, and the difference between two weeks and seventy days is fifty-six days, half of which is twenty-eight days,

the written text is effective

to subtract twenty-eight days

from the received reading, which is seventy days,

and the received reading is effective

to add twenty-eight days to the written text, which is two weeks, and if so,

forty-two

days

must

the woman who gives birth

remain!?

And we answer:

There is a difference there,

for the verse equated the woman who gives birth with a menstruating woman,

as it is written: “

and she shall be impure for two weeks

like her menstruation.”

And it indicates that the verse did not intend to state the number of days, but rather the number of weeks, and said that the menstruating woman is impure for one week, and the woman who gives birth for two weeks. And when you say so, you find that the laws of their impurity are brought close to one another. But if you say that a woman who gives birth is impure for seventy days, you find that you make the impurity of the woman who gives birth greatly distant from the impurity of the menstruating woman.

And the Gemara adds:

And the tannai

of the beraita below does not explain the reason of Beit Hillel like Rav Huna, but rather

brings it from here:

“And he shall make atonement,” “and he shall make atonement,” “and he shall make atonement” [Leviticus 4] were said three times: one concerning the male goat of the sin-offering of a ruler, the second concerning the female goat of the sin-offering of an individual, and the third concerning the sheep of the sin-offering of an individual, for all these sin-offerings are offered on the outer altar; and these three verses came to validate even in a case in which he omitted some of its applications, because there was a need for this,

[Leviticus 4]. These words are stated three times: once with regard to the male goat brought as the sin-offering of a leader, once with regard to the female goat brought as the sin-offering of an individual, and once with regard to the sheep brought as the sin-offering of an individual. All these sin-offerings are sacrificed on the outer altar. These three verses were written to validate the offering even when some of the applications were omitted, because this was necessary

because of the repeated argument [as will be explained immediately], which apparently teaches concerning an outer sin-offering that all its applications are indispensable. Therefore these verses were written to validate even with one application of blood.

that repeats itself [as will be explained immediately], which seemingly teaches that, with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is applied on the outer altar, all its applications are indispensable. Therefore, these verses were written to validate the offering even with a single application of blood.

And thus the tannai expounded:

Is it not a logical inference

to validate with one application, for

blood applications were stated

that they are to be given

below

the red line, namely, all the offerings except a sin-offering,

and blood applications were stated

to be given

above

the red line, namely, a sin-offering.

Just as the application of the blood stated below

has the law

that

if he

gave it in one application, he achieved atonement,

as we learned this from “and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,”

so too the blood stated above

has this law,

that

if he

gave it in one application, he achieved atonement.

And we required this binyan av, because one cannot learn the sin-offering from “and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,” since, as the giving of the blood of the sin-offering is performed by an application of the finger, the language of pouring cannot apply to it, but rather the language of sprinkling.

Or go by this path,

to learn the opposite from another place:

blood applications were stated

for inner sin-offerings to be given

inside

the Sanctuary,

and blood applications were stated

for outer sin-offerings to be given

outside. Just as the blood stated inside

has the law that if he

omitted one of the applications, he did nothing at all,

and it is as though he did not sprinkle,

so too the blood stated outside

should have this law, that if he

omitted one of the applications, he did nothing at all.

To whom

does the sin-offering

resemble?

We derive

to learn an offering whose blood is given

outside, from

an offering whose blood is given

outside,

even though this one is a sin-offering and that offering is a burnt-offering,

but we do not derive

an offering whose blood is given

outside from

an offering whose blood is given

inside,

even though both of these offerings are sin-offerings. And if so, we have to learn from all the offerings that even if he gave one application, he achieved atonement.

Or go by this path

that is the opposite:

we derive

an offering that is

a sin-offering and

has the law of giving blood on

four horns,

namely, outer sin-offerings,

from

an offering that is

a sin-offering,

namely, inner sin-offerings,

and

has the law of giving blood on

four horns,

for this law applies to them as well,

and let outside not prove,

namely, the other offerings whose blood is given outside,

which are not

them

sin-offerings, and

the law of

four horns was not stated concerning them. And it follows that we have to learn from inner sin-offerings that even one application is indispensable in outer sin-offerings.

It follows that we should derive from inner sin-offerings that even one application is indispensable for outer sin-offerings.

Therefore,

the verse states, “and he shall make atonement,”

to teach you that

even though he gave only three

applications, he achieved atonement. And it was stated again

“and he shall make atonement,”

to teach you that

even though he gave only two,

he achieved atonement. And it was stated again

“and he shall make atonement,”

to teach you

even though he gave only

one

application,

he achieved atonement.

And we object:

And

but

this “and he shall make atonement,” which are said concerning these,

is needed for itself,

to teach you in each case that he achieved atonement for the sin!?

!?

And we answer:

Rava bar Adda Mari said

“I explained it to myself: The verse says ‘and he shall make atonement,’ and the verse says ‘and it shall be forgiven.’”

And the meaning of both is equal, for

this is atonement, this is forgiveness.

And three words “and he shall make atonement” are found to be superfluous.

And we object:

Say

that “and he shall make atonement” did not come to uproot entirely the law requiring the giving of all four applications, and to teach that after the fact, even if he gave not all four applications but only one of them, he achieved atonement. Rather, the verse came only to teach that the law concerning the place of the application, which is above the red line, is not indispensable. And thus you should expound:

“And he shall make atonement,” even though he gave only three

applications

above

the red line

and one below

it,

“And he shall make atonement,” even though he gave only two below and two above. “And he shall make atonement,” even though he did not give above

at all,

but below

only!?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Yitzhak said: If so,

if you wish to say that giving the blood in the place above the red line is not indispensable, it follows that

you have nullified the law of the four horns

stated concerning a sin-offering, and “horns,” meaning above the red line, was written concerning it for no purpose!

And the Gemara asks: What concern is it to us that “the law of the four horns” is nullified?

And

but

if the Merciful One said in the exposition of “and he shall make atonement” that after the fact it is effective even if he gave all four applications below, indeed

let them be nullified!

And let it be said that the Torah wrote them only as a mitzva ab initio, and not as indispensable!?

Let us say that the Torah wrote them only as a mitzva from the outset, but not as an indispensable requirement!?

And we answer:

Rava said: What is the thing that

in order to diminish it

requires

the verse to repeat and say

three

times “and he shall make atonement”?

You must say that these are the “horns.”

As stated, the verse came to diminish the indispensability of the giving on three horns, for the giving on the fourth is indispensable. But if the verse had come to diminish the indispensability of the place of the giving, and to say that if he gave them all below he achieved atonement, it should have written four times “and he shall make atonement,” in order to diminish all four horns from the law of indispensability.

But the Gemara still asks:

Say

this:

“And he shall make atonement,” even though he gave only one above and three below.

That is, through the three times “and he shall make atonement,” we should diminish the idea that giving above is indispensable for three applications, and if he gave them below it is valid, and for this reason “and he shall make atonement” was said only three times, since at least for one application giving above is indeed indispensable. But nevertheless, the diminution “and he shall make atonement” did not come to uproot entirely the law requiring all four applications as indispensable!?

And we answer: One cannot learn in this manner at all, because

we have not found blood whose halves are

given

above and whose halves are below!

And we object:

And

is it true that

not

have we found blood, part of which is given above and part of which is given below?

And we learned

concerning the order of the service of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement:

he sprinkled from it

from the blood of the bull

once above and seven below,

as it is stated, “And he shall sprinkle from the blood upon the face of the cover, eastward, and before the cover he shall sprinkle seven times.” And the Gemara’s reasoning is that he sprinkles one sprinkling from the height of half the thickness of the cover upward, and seven sprinklings he sprinkles from the height of half its thickness downward. Thus, blood whose halves are given above and whose halves are below is found!?

And we answer: The intention is not that he sprinkled one above the tip of the cover and the remainder below its midpoint, for his sprinklings did not touch the cover at all. Rather, he was

like one who lashes,

arranging all eight sprinklings in a row, one below the other: he first gave the first one upward, and the seven beneath it, each lower than the preceding one.

The Gemara explains:

What is “like one who lashes”? Rav Yehuda demonstrated

and showed with his hand,

like a flogger.

A person who administers forty lashes with a strap begins to lash upon the person’s shoulders, at his height, and continues lashing him with the strap downward, each one lower than the preceding one.

And we object: And still we have found blood whose halves are above and whose halves are below, for we learned in the Mishna there:

He sprinkled upon the purity of the altar

the inner altar

seven times.