Zevachim 39b — the Talmud in English

“As he did for the bull” -

this is the bull of the anointed koen,

mentioned in the passage above; and since the law of its gifts was not repeated in it, it taught here that the omission of one of them prevents [the offering from being valid]. [Here the Gemara expounded the word “for the bull,” since “as he did” was already expounded above].

“The sin-offering”—these are the goats of idolatry,

whose law is like that of the bull for an unwitting matter, and they were included here with regard to sprinkling on the curtain and on the golden altar, and with regard to burning them outside the three camps, for these laws were not specified in their own place.

I might be able to include even

the

goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons,

and these too should have their blood given inside, and be burned? The text states: “So shall he do

to it”

—to this one shall he do so, but not to another!

And what have you seen to include these,

the goats of idolatry,

and to exclude these,

the goats of the Festivals and of the New Moons?

After

we have found that

the verse included

on one side

and excluded

on one side,

I include these

the goats of idolatry, to be like the bull for an unwitting matter, because

they

искупают

effect atonement for a known mitzva transgression,

which became known to the sinner, that he had sinned with it, just as the bull for an unwitting matter also comes for a known mitzva transgression;

and I exclude

the

these,

the goats of the Festivals and of the New Moons, so that they will not be equal to the bull for an unwitting matter, since

they do not

effect atonement for a known mitzva transgression.

For they come to effect atonement for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, for one who entered the Sanctuary in a state of impurity, and did not know before his entry that he had become impure, and even after his departure it did not become known to him that he had entered in a state of impurity; and they are not comparable to the bull for an unwitting matter in its atonement.

“And he shall effect atonement

for them, the koen

”—even though the elders did not place their hands

on the head of the bull, as they were commanded there in the passage.

“And it shall be forgiven

for them

”—even though he did not give

the

remainders

of the blood on the base of the external altar; and we required this exposition, for it might have been said: Since the verse repeated [the requirement] to prevent [validity] with regard to all its gifts, perhaps the same should also be said with regard to the remainders; therefore the verse excluded them.

And

what have you seen to invalidate

if he omitted

the sprinklings, and to validate with

the absence of

the laying of hands and the pouring of the remainders?

You said: I invalidate

when he omitted

the sprinklings

because

they prevent [validity]

everywhere,

as is explained below with regard to the red heifer and the offering of one afflicted with a skin affliction,

and I validate

when he omitted

the laying of hands and

the pouring of

the remainders, which do not

their omission

prevent [validity] everywhere,

for the laying of hands does not prevent [validity] at all, and the pouring of the remainders in an external sin-offering, according to everyone, does not prevent [validity].