Zevachim 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

The Master said:

in the beraita above:

I have derived

from the exposition of “and he shall perform as he performed”

only the application of seven

sprinklings, because

they

are

indispensable everywhere.

The Gemara asks:

Where

do we find that the application 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,” teaching that its sprinklings are indispensable.

And in the case of leprosy offerings,

as it is stated concerning the sprinkling of a log of oil of one afflicted with leprosy: “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, indicating that the sprinklings are indispensable.

The Gemara continues to discuss the words of the beraita, which states:

“The application of four, from where

do we know that it is indispensable?” —

The verse states: ‘So shall he perform

it.’”

The Gemara asks:

What is different about the application of seven

that it is obvious to us that it is indispensable, because

it is written

seven sprinklings once in the Torah,

and repeated,

as they were written a second time; and since Scripture repeated them, writing them again, this indicates that they are indispensable.

Then

the application of four as well

should be known to us to be indispensable, for

it is written

the four applications,

and repeated,

as the words of Scripture, “and he shall perform as he performed,” refer to all the applications mentioned in this passage, including the application of four. And from where do you derive grounds to exclude them from the law of indispensability, such that you needed to bring another verse to establish that they are indispensable, namely, “So shall he perform it”? And we answer:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The exposition

of “So shall he perform”

was necessary only according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that the application of four was not stated explicitly in the bull for an unwitting communal transgression, but only two applications were stated, while the other two are derived by analogy 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,’

so there are

two.”

And likewise

below,

in the passage concerning the bull for an unwitting communal transgression,

he says

also

“‘horn,’ ‘horns.’”

Although the word “horns” is written defectively, without a vav, Rabbi Shimon holds that the interpretation follows the pronunciation; and since Scripture could have written “horn” but wrote “horns,” there are here two additional applications. Thus we have learned

four,

two stated explicitly, and two derived by analogy,

the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not necessary

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

it says

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

in the Tent of Meeting.”

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 apply the blood

upon every

one of the

horns mentioned in the Tent of Meeting.

And we challenge this:

And according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that all four applications were stated explicitly,

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

since it is not needed for the four applications!?

And we answer:

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

that must be performed upon it before its slaughter,

and

we have likewise not learned concerning it the law of

the remainder of the blood

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

from where

do we derive these laws?

The verse states: “So shall he perform”

to include the bull of Yom Kippur mentioned in this verse. As stated above, “for the bull” refers to the bull of Yom Kippur, and it is thereby included with regard to the laws of placing of hands and pouring the remainder of the blood.

And we challenge this:

Have we not learned

the law concerning the bull of Yom Kippur without this inclusion?

You said

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

is

the bull

of Yom Kippur.

Consequently, placing of hands and pouring of the remainder are included by analogy. Why, then, do we need the superfluous phrase “So shall he perform”?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to have both the analogy and the superfluous phrase, because

it might have entered your mind

that what we learned from the analogy

applies only

specifically to

a Temple service

of the kind

that prevents

the

atonement,

as stated in the verse, “and he shall effect atonement.” But

a service that does not prevent atonement,

such as placing of hands and the remainder of the blood,

perhaps it does not

fall under the analogy.

It teaches us

through the superfluous phrase “So shall he perform” that these too are included with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur.

And we challenge this:

And according to Rabbi Shimon,

who derives the law of four horns by analogy to the bull of the anointed priest,

what

does he do with the superfluous phrase “in the Tent of Meeting”?

What does he derive from it?

And we answer:

He needs “in the Tent of Meeting”

to teach us

that if the ceiling was removed

of the upper chamber and roof

of

the

Sanctuary,

he could not

sprinkle,

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

And the other one,

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

from

the word

“which,”

as it need only have written: “which is before the Lord, in the Tent of Meeting.” The second occurrence of the word “which” comes to teach that he must apply the blood upon all the horns. And from the words “in the Tent of Meeting” he derives that if the ceiling of the Sanctuary was removed, he may not sprinkle.

And the other one,

Rabbi Shimon: He

does not expound the word “which.”

Abaye said:

The exposition of “So shall he perform,” which teaches that the four applications are indispensable, is necessary not only according to Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Yirmeya said, but

according to Rabbi Yehuda

as well, who holds that the four applications upon the horns were stated in the bull for an unwitting communal transgression itself.

It is also necessary

to establish through this exposition that they are indispensable, and we cannot derive this from the fact that Scripture wrote and repeated them. For, without this inclusion,

it might have entered your mind

that they are not indispensable,

just as is the case with placing of hands and the remainder of the blood

in the bull for an unwitting communal transgression,

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 should apply to

the application of four as well:

it should not be indispensable,

since these applications too are not indispensable in the external sin offering; they should therefore be excluded by “and he shall effect atonement” and “and it shall be forgiven.”

It teaches us

that the law of the application of four differs from that of placing of hands and the remainder: placing of hands and the remainder are not indispensable even when their mitzva is entirely omitted, whereas with the application of four, if he did not apply any blood at all, it is indispensable. Therefore, we learn that all four applications are indispensable from “So shall he perform.”

We learned in the beraita:

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

And we challenge this:

For what halakhic purpose

is this exposition necessary?

If

it is to teach us the law

that it is indispensable

if he did not perform all its applications, this is

obvious,

for

“a statute” is written concerning it

in the passage of the bull of Yom Kippur: “And this shall be for you an eternal statute”!?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This exposition was necessary

only

according to Rabbi Yehuda

[Yoma 60b],

who says: When “a statute” is written

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

to matters 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 accomplished nothing,

because “a statute” was stated concerning them. But

matters performed in white garments outside,

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

if

he altered their order and

performed one act before another, what he did is valid

and he has fulfilled his obligation, because “a statute” was not stated concerning these acts. Now,

perhaps, since their order is not indispensable,

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

the sprinklings likewise are not indispensable

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

it teaches us

through the analogy of “for the bull” that the number of its sprinklings is indispensable.

Rav Pappa challenged him: Can you really say this

that according to Rabbi Yehuda the law of indispensability is derived from the exposition of “for the bull”?

But it was taught:

It is stated in the verse:

“And he shall complete atonement for the Sanctuary

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

if he effected atonement

through the application of the blood—by performing the applications that are indispensable elsewhere, such as seven sprinklings and the application of four—then he

completed

the service thereby, even if he did not pour the remainder of the blood onto the base of the altar.

And if he did not effect atonement,

because he did not perform all the applications,

he did not complete the service; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why do we not

derive the verse in the order in which it is written, namely, with the word “and he shall complete” preceding the word “and he shall effect atonement,” and

say

as follows:

If he completed

everything—even the pouring of the remnants—then he

effected atonement; but if he did not complete

everything and did not pour the remnants,

he did not effect atonement,

as the remnants are indispensable.

And since from this exposition Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the remnants are indispensable in the bull of Yom Kippur, it is evident that he derives from here the law that the applications in the bull of Yom Kippur are indispensable, and not from the exposition of “for the bull,” stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: It was not necessary

to juxtapose the bull of Yom Kippur with the bull for an unwitting communal sin except in order to derive three matters and laws concerning the bull of Yom Kippur. These are

“et,” “blood,” and “by immersion,”

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

From the word "

And the priest shall dip

[the word et]

his finger in the blood"

we learn, as

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: It was not necessary

for this word except

to render fit

the priest’s finger for dipping it into the blood even when a !(pamud.bmp "precise page location")

[unclear: corrupted word]

boil

has arisen on the finger,

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