Zevachim 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

There,

with regard to sukka,

since one verse was set aside entirely for its own purpose,

remove one of the five verses, because Scripture needed to write it for its own purpose and it cannot be expounded from it, leaving four.

And

you must remove another verse from the count of four,

for its roofing,

because once Scripture specified the structure of the sukka, it also needed to specify the roofing together with the walls. Three verses therefore remain, and these three verses teach about three walls.

The halakha given to Moses at Sinai came

and now the halakha stated to Moses at Sinai comes

and reduced the

third wall

and established it as a handbreadth.

And it established that wall at a handbreadth. This is what we learned: Two walls in their proper manner, and the third a handbreadth.

And we raise an objection:

If that is so,

with regard to what was stated concerning the ritual impurity of a woman after childbirth,

“And she shall be impure for two weeks” [Leviticus 12], although the written form is

and the spelling is

“seventy,”

with the letter vav omitted, then according to Beit Hillel we should say that when the reading and the received spelling contradict one another, each is effective for half: The difference between two weeks and seventy days is fifty-six days, half of which is twenty-eight days.

The written reading is effective

to subtract twenty-eight days from the received spelling, which is seventy days,

and the received spelling is effective

to add twenty-eight days to the written reading, which is two weeks. If so,

forty-two

days

must

the woman after childbirth

remain!?

And we answer:

There it is different,

because Scripture equated a woman after childbirth with a menstruant,

as it is written: “

And she shall be impure for two weeks

like her menstrual impurity.”

This indicates that Scripture did not intend to state the number of days, but the number of weeks: A menstruant is impure for one week, and a woman after childbirth for two weeks. Once you say this, you bring the laws of their impurity close to one another. But if you say that a woman after childbirth is impure for seventy days, you greatly distance the impurity of a woman after childbirth from that of a menstruant.

The Gemara adds:

And the tanna

of the beraita below does not explain the rationale of Beit Hillel as Rav Huna does, but rather

derives it from here:

“And he shall make atonement” “and he shall make atonement” “and he shall make atonement”

[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 inference

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 this is how the tanna expounded:

Is this not a logical inference

that a single application should suffice? For

there are applications of blood

that must be placed

below

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

and there are applications of blood

that must be placed

above

the red line, namely, a sin-offering.

Just as the applications of blood stated with regard to those placed below

have the law

that

if he

applied them in a single application, he achieved atonement,

as we learn from the verse, “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,”

so too, the blood stated with regard to those placed above

has this law,

that

if he

applied it in a single application, he achieved atonement.

This kal va-chomer was necessary, because the sin-offering cannot be derived from “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out”: Since the blood of a sin-offering is applied with a finger, the term “pouring” is inapplicable to it; rather, the term “sprinkling” applies.

Or, you may follow this path,

and derive the opposite from another source:

There are applications of blood

with regard to inner sin-offerings that must be placed

inside

the Sanctuary,

and there are applications of blood

with regard to outer sin-offerings that must be placed

outside. Just as the blood stated with regard to that placed inside

has the law that if he

omitted one of the applications, he has done nothing,

and it is as though he did not sprinkle at all,

so too, the blood stated with regard to that placed outside

should have the law that if he

omitted one of the applications, he has done nothing.

To which

sin-offering

is it comparable?

We derive

—to learn the law of an offering whose blood is applied

outside, from

an offering whose blood is applied

outside,

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

but we do not derive

an offering whose blood is applied

outside from

an offering whose blood is applied

inside,

even though both of these offerings are sin-offerings. If so, we should derive from all offerings that even if he applied a single application, he achieved atonement.

Or, you may follow this path

which is the opposite:

We derive

an offering that is

a sin-offering and

is subject to the law that its blood is applied to

four corners,

namely, outer sin-offerings,

from

an offering that is

a sin-offering,

namely, inner sin-offerings,

and

is subject to the law that its blood is applied to

four corners,

as this law applies to them as well.

And do not refute this with outside offerings,

namely, the other offerings whose blood is applied outside,

which are not

sin-offerings and

are not subject to the law of

four corners.

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 if he applied only three

applications, he achieved atonement. And it says again

“And he shall make atonement,”

to teach you

that even if he applied only two,

he achieved atonement. And it says again

“And he shall make atonement,”

to teach you

that even if he applied only

one

application

he achieved atonement.

And we raise an objection:

And

surely

this

“and he shall make atonement” stated in these verses

is needed for its own purpose,

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

And we answer:

Rava bar Adda Mari

explained it to me: The verse states “and he shall make atonement,” and the verse states “and it shall be forgiven.”

The meaning of both is the same, for

this is atonement, and this is forgiveness.

Thus, the three instances of “and he shall make atonement” are superfluous.

And we raise an objection:

Suppose

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

“And he shall make atonement,” even if he applied only three

applications

above

the red line

and one below

it,

“And he shall make atonement,” even if he applied only two below and two above. “And he shall make atonement,” even if he applied nothing above

at all,

but only below

!?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak said: If so,

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

you have nullified the institution of four corners

stated with regard to a sin-offering, and the word “corners,” meaning above the red line, was written in it for no purpose!

The Gemara asks: Why should we be concerned about nullifying “the institution of four corners”?

And

surely

if the Merciful One said

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

let them be nullified!

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 matter that

in order to exclude it

requires

Scripture to repeat

three

times “and he shall make atonement”?

You must say that these are the “corners.”

As stated, the verse comes to exclude the indispensability of applying to three corners, since the application to the fourth is indispensable. But if the verse came to exclude the indispensability of the place of application and to say that if he applied all of them below he achieved atonement, it should have written “and he shall make atonement” four times, in order to exclude all four corners from the law of indispensability.

But the Gemara still asks:

Suppose

it is so:

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

That is, through the three instances of “and he shall make atonement,” we should exclude the requirement that the application above is indispensable with regard to three applications; if he applied them below, it is valid, and this is why “and he shall make atonement” was stated only three times. Since, with regard to at least one application, application above is indeed indispensable, the exclusion “and he shall make atonement” did not come to uproot entirely the law requiring all four applications as an indispensable requirement!?

And we answer: One cannot derive this at all, because

we have not found blood half of which is

applied

above and half below!

And we raise an objection:

And

is it true that

we have not

found blood part of which is applied above and part below?

But we learned

with regard to the order of the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur:

He sprinkled from it

from the blood of the bull

once above and seven times below,

as it is stated: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood toward the face of the cover eastward, and before the cover he shall sprinkle of the blood seven times.” The Gemara reasons that he sprinkled once from the height of half the thickness of the cover upward, and seven times from the height of half its thickness downward. Here, then, is blood half of which is applied above and half below!?

And we answer: The intent is not that he sprinkled once above the upper edge of the cover and the rest below its midpoint, for his sprinklings did not touch the cover at all. Rather, he was

like one lashing,

arranging all eight sprinklings in a vertical row, one beneath the other: He first made the first one upward, and the seven below it, each lower than the one before it.

The Gemara explains:

What is “like one lashing”? Rav Yehuda demonstrated

and showed with his hand

like a flogger.

This refers to a person administering forty lashes with a strap: He begins lashing the person on his shoulders, at the upper part of his body, and continues lashing him with the strap downward, each blow lower than the one before it.

And we raise an objection: Yet we do find blood half of which is above and half below, as we learned in the Mishna there:

He sprinkled on the purity of the altar

the inner

seven times.