Zevachim 40a — the Talmud in English

The Master said:

in the beraita above:

I have only

to know from the exposition of “And he shall do as he did”

the placing of seven

sprinklings, because

they

are

indispensable everywhere.

And the Gemara discusses:

Where

, where do we find that the placing of seven sprinklings is “indispensable everywhere”?

Rav Pappa said: In the case of the red heifer,

as it is stated concerning it: “And he shall sprinkle toward the front of the Tent of Meeting from its blood seven times,” and it is stated concerning it: “a statute,” to teach that its sprinklings are indispensable.

And with regard to leprosy,

as it is stated concerning the sprinkling of a log of oil of the leper: “And he shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times.” And it is stated concerning it: “This shall be the law of the leper,” and “shall be” is an expression of existence, and it implies that it is indispensable.

And the Gemara continues to discuss the words of the beraita, which says:

The placing of four, from where

do we know that it is indispensable? —

The verse says: “So shall he do

to him.”

And the Gemara discusses:

What is different about the placing of seven,

which is obvious to us that it is indispensable, because

it is written

once in the Torah that there are seven sprinklings,

and repeated,

for they were written a second time; and since Scripture repeated them by writing them, this means that they are indispensable.

Behold,

the placing of four also

we ought to know is indispensable, for

it is written

the four placements,

and repeated,

for the words of Scripture “And he shall do as he did” refer to all the placements stated in this passage, including the placing of four. And from where do you have grounds to exclude them from the law of being indispensable, so that you needed to bring another verse to make them indispensable—“So shall he do to him”? And we answer:

Rabbi Jeremiah said: The exposition “So shall he do” was necessary

“So shall he do”

only according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that the giving of four placements was not stated explicitly concerning the bull of the communal error, but only two were stated, and the other two are learned by a hekesh from the bull of the anointed priest.

As it was taught, above,

in the passage concerning the bull of the anointed priest:

He says “horn,” “horns”;

there are here

two.

And likewise

below,

in the passage concerning the bull of the communal error,

he says

also

“horn,” “horns.”

And although “its horns” is written defectively, without a vav, Rabbi Shimon holds that the determining factor is the reading; and since it could have written “horn” and it wrote “horns,” there are here another two. And we have learned from this

four,

two stated explicitly, and two learned by a hekesh,

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Judah says: It is not necessary

to learn two horns from the bull of the anointed priest, for

he says

in both of them: “Upon the horns of the altar of incense, which is before the Lord, which

is in the Tent of Meeting.”

And since “which is before the Lord” has already been written, “which is in the Tent of Meeting” is superfluous; rather, it comes to teach that one must place it

upon every

horn

stated in the Tent of Meeting.

And we object:

And Rabbi Judah,

who holds that all four placements were stated explicitly,

what does he do with “So shall he do,”

since it is not needed for the four placements!?

And we answer:

He needs it for that which was taught: Since we have not learned for the bull of Yom Kippur the requirement of laying on of hands

that one must perform the laying on of hands upon it before its slaughter,

and

likewise we have not learned concerning it the matter of

the remainder of the blood

that it must be poured onto the base of the altar, and if so,

from where

are these laws learned?

The verse says: “So shall he do”

to include the bull of Yom Kippur written in this verse, as we said above: “for the bull”—this is the bull of Yom Kippur; and through this it is included under the law of laying on of hands and pouring the remainder.

And we object:

And for the bull of Yom Kippur have we not learned

without this inclusion?

But you said

above that the word “for the bull,” stated in the verse,

this

bull is

the bull of Yom Kippur.

And consequently laying on of hands and pouring the remainder were included by the hekesh, so why do I need the superfluity of “So shall he do”?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to have both the hekesh and the superfluity, because

it might enter your mind to say

that what we learned from the hekesh,

this applies

specifically

to a service

of this kind

that is indispensable

for the

atonement,

as it is stated in the verse: “And he shall effect atonement.” But

a service that is not indispensable for the atonement,

such as laying on of hands and the remainder,

say that it is not

included in the hekesh.

It teaches us

through the superfluity of “So shall he do” to include these as well concerning the bull of Yom Kippur.

And we object:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who learns the law of four horns from the hekesh to the bull of the anointed priest,

this

superfluity of “in the Tent of Meeting,” what

does he do with it?

And we answer:

He needs “in the Tent of Meeting”

to teach us

that if the ceiling was removed

of its upper chamber and roof,

of

the

Sanctuary,

he may not

sprinkle,

because it is no longer the Tent of Meeting. And we object:

And the other,

Rabbi Judah, who learns the law of four horns from “the Tent of Meeting”—from where does he derive this law, that if the ceiling was removed he may not sprinkle? And we answer: The law of four horns Rabbi Judah derives

from

the word

“which,”

for it should have written only: “which is before the Lord, in the Tent of Meeting,” and the second word “which” comes to teach that he should place it upon all the horns. And from the words “in the Tent of Meeting” he learns that if the ceiling of the Sanctuary was removed, he may not sprinkle.

And the other one,

Rabbi Shimon—the word

“which” he does not expound.

Abaye said:

The exposition of “So shall he do,” which teaches that the four placements are indispensable, is needed not only according to Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Jeremiah said, but also

according to Rabbi Judah,

who holds that the placing of the four horns was stated in the bull of the communal error itself.

It is also necessary

to have this exposition, that they are indispensable, and we cannot learn this matter from the fact that Scripture wrote them and repeated them. For if not for this inclusion,

it might enter your mind to say

that they are not indispensable,

just as is the case with the laying on of hands and the remainder of the blood

in the bull of the communal error,

which, although they are written and repeated, are not indispensable,

as we said above: Since they are not indispensable everywhere, they were excluded by the words “and he shall effect atonement” and “and it shall be forgiven.” If so, the same law applies to

the placing of four

that it is not indispensable,

since they too are not indispensable in the outer sin-offering; we ought to exclude them by “and he shall effect atonement” and “and it shall be forgiven.”

It teaches us

that since the law of the placing of four differs from that of laying on of hands and the remainder—laying on of hands and the remainder are not indispensable even in a case where their mitzva was entirely uprooted, whereas with the placing of four, if he did not place at all, it is indispensable—therefore we learned the law of all of them being indispensable from “So shall he do.”

We learned in the beraita:

“For the bull”—this is the bull of Yom Kippur.

And we object:

For what halakhic matter

is this exposition needed?

If

it is to teach us the law

of being indispensable

if he did not perform all its placements, this matter is

obvious;

for

“a statute” is written concerning it

in the bull of Yom Kippur: “And this shall be for you a statute forever”!

And we answer:

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: This exposition was necessary

for this exposition

only according to Rabbi Judah [ [A0195]]in Yoma 60b],

[in Yoma 60b],

who says: When “a statute” is written [ [A0197]]Leviticus 16] concerning the service of Yom Kippur, it refers only to

[Leviticus 16] concerning the service of Yom Kippur, it refers only

matters that are performed

by the priest

in white garments inside,

such as the incense and the sprinklings between the staves, whose law is

that if he performed one act before another, he has done nothing,

because “a statute” was stated concerning them. But

matters performed in white garments outside,

such as the placements of the blood of the bull and the goat upon the curtain,

if

he changed their order and

performed one act before another, what he did is valid

and he fulfilled his obligation, because “a statute” was not stated concerning these. From now on,

say: Since their order does not render them indispensable

with regard to matters performed in white garments outside, from where do we know that

the sprinklings also do not render them indispensable

if he omitted some of them, since “a statute” was not stated concerning this? For this reason,

it teaches us

the hekesh of “for the bull,” to teach us that the number of its sprinklings is indispensable.

Rav Pappa challenged him: And can you say so

that according to Rabbi Judah the law of being indispensable is learned from the exposition of “for the bull”?

But it was taught:

It is stated in the verse:

“And he shall complete effecting atonement for the Sanctuary

and for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar, and he shall bring forth the live goat” [there].” This is superfluous, for it should have written only: “And he shall bring forth the live goat.” And it comes to teach us that

if he effected atonement

through placing the blood, the atonement that is indispensable in other places, such as seven sprinklings and the placing of four, then

he completed

it through this, even if he did not pour the remainder of the blood onto the base of the altar;

but if he did not effect atonement,

because he did not perform all the placements,

he did not complete it, the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Judah said to him, Why do we not

expound the verse in the order in which it was written, that is, the word “and he completed” before the word “and he atoned,” and

say

as follows:

If he completed

everything, even the pouring of the remainder, this is

atoned for, and if he did not complete

everything and did not pour the remainder,

he has not atoned,

for the remainder is indispensable.

And since from this exposition Rabbi Judah holds that the remainder is indispensable in the bull of the Day of Atonement, it is thereby explained that he learned from here the law that the applications are indispensable in the bull of the Day of Atonement, and not from the exposition of “for the bull,” which is stated concerning the bull for an erroneous decision!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: It was not necessary

to juxtapose the bull of the Day of Atonement with the bull for an erroneous decision except to learn three matters concerning the bull of the Day of Atonement, and these teachings are:

“et,” “blood,” and “by immersion,”

which are expounded from the verse “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood,” stated concerning the bull of an anointed priest, which was juxtaposed to this passage concerning the bull for an erroneous decision, as we said above: “as he did to the bull”—this is the bull of an anointed priest.

From the word "

and the priest shall dip

et

his finger in the blood"

we learned, as

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: It was not necessary

for this word except

to render fit

the priest’s finger for dipping it in the blood even if there arose

[unclear: term]

boils

on the finger,

and this does not constitute an interposition, for we expound “his finger” as including that which is ancillary to his finger.