Zevachim 40b — the Talmud in English

And from the word

“in the blood”

stated there we learned that it is necessary

that there be

blood in which he dips his finger

the measure of dipping

from the outset

from the time of the first reception, and to exclude a case in which, initially, he received blood in one vessel in an amount less than the measure of dipping of a finger, and additional blood in this measure he received in a second vessel, and he mixed them, and we learned this from what is stated “blood” with a patah vowel beneath the bet, and it means: blood that already existed.

And we further learned

“and he dipped”

in the blood itself

and not absorbed

that this means only wiping the finger on the wall of the vessel.

And the Gemara explains: It was necessary to write both “and he dipped”

and it was necessary

to write “in the blood.” For if the Merciful One had written “and he dipped”

alone,

I would have said

that his dipping is effective

even though there is not

in the vessel

from the outset the measure required for dipping;

and therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in the blood”

to teach you that he must dip in blood that initially contained the measure required for dipping.

And if the Merciful One had written

the word

“in the blood”

alone,

I would have said

that this would be effective

even

if he dipped only

by absorption,

and therefore

the Merciful One wrote “and he dipped”

as was explained.

And now the Gemara returns to the words of Rabbi Judah, who learns the law that all four presentations are indispensable from the exposition of “which is in the Tent of Meeting,” concerning everything stated with regard to the Tent of Meeting. And we raise the objection:

the altar of incense

of

spices—

which is stated there,

why do I need it,

for “before the Lord” was already stated, and from this we knew that the reference is to the inner altar!?

And we answer: To teach us

that if

it happened that the bull for an erroneous communal ruling was brought while the altar was still new, and

the altar had not yet been inaugurated with the incense of spices, he did not sprinkle

blood on its horns.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa

that the amplification “for the bull” comes to compare it, with regard to “the” in “in the blood” and “dipping”: It is stated concerning the bull for an erroneous communal ruling,

“And he shall perform

for the bull

as he performed

for the sin-offering bull,”

what does “for the bull” come to teach? To include the Yom Kippur bull for everything stated in the passage

concerning the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, including “the,” “in the blood,” and “dipping.”

These are the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Ishmael said,

there is no need to bring here the Yom Kippur bull, for from a

kal va-chomer

we learned that all the procedures of the bull for an erroneous communal ruling are performed even with the Yom Kippur bull:

And if in a place where one offering was not made equivalent to another offering

because all the animals are not of one species,

the acts

of the service of this one

were made equivalent to the acts

of the service of that one [and below it will be explained what that place is],

in a place where one offering was made equivalent to another offering,

such as the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, both of which come from the same species,

is it not the case that the act

of the service of this one

will be made equivalent to the act

of the service of that one, and the sprinklings of these will be equal to one another with regard to “the,” “blood,” and “dipping”?

Rather, what does it come to teach

“And he shall perform

for the bull”? This is the bull for an erroneous communal ruling.

And “as he performed

for the bull,” this is the bull of the anointed priest, to compare it with the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, and to teach that even with the bull of the anointed priest, whose presentations were not doubled, if he omitted one of them, it is invalid.

to compare it to the bull for an unwitting communal transgression and teach that even with the bull of the anointed priest, although its applications are not doubled, if he omitted one of them, it is disqualified.

The Master said: And if in a place where one offering was not made equivalent to another offering.

And the Gemara discusses it: What is the meaning of “one offering was not made equivalent to another offering”?

If you say

that you will say that the offering of

the Yom Kippur bull and

the offering of

the Yom Kippur goat

were not made equivalent, for this is a bull and that is a goat, while the acts of this one were made equivalent to the acts of that one, since all their services are equal—and from this we learn by a kal va-chomer concerning the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling that their acts too should be equal.

This

can be refuted: What is distinctive about these,

the Yom Kippur bull and goat,

that their blood enters

of both of them

into the innermost chamber,

and there is no distinction between them in this matter; therefore it is fitting that they should also be made equivalent with regard to the acts of their service. This is unlike the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, which were not made equivalent in this matter, for the blood of the Yom Kippur bull enters into the innermost chamber, whereas the blood of the bull for an erroneous communal ruling does not enter.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

the bull for an erroneous communal ruling and the goats for idolatry

were not made equivalent, since earlier we expounded from the word “the sin-offering” to include the goats for idolatry, and compared them to the bull for an erroneous communal ruling. It follows that their acts were made equivalent even though their offerings were not made equivalent, for this is a bull and that is a goat.

This

can be refuted:

What is distinctive about these,

the bull for an erroneous communal ruling and the goats for idolatry,

that

both of them

atone for violations of a known mitzva.

Since they are both equal in this matter, their services were therefore made equivalent. This is unlike the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, which are not equal in this respect, for the bull for an erroneous communal ruling atones for the violation of a known mitzva, whereas the Yom Kippur bull atones for the violation of a mitzva that is not known, for one who entered the Temple while impure and did not know at the time of his entry that he was impure, and afterward his entry did not become known.

Rather, the bull for an erroneous communal ruling and the Yom Kippur goat,

whose acts were made equivalent.

And this is what he is saying: And if in a place where one offering was not made equivalent to another offering—for this one is a bull and that one is a goat—the acts were made equivalent to the acts with regard to what the Torah explicitly wrote concerning them,

for in the sprinklings written concerning each of them, Scripture did not distinguish one from the other: both of these and both of those had their blood placed on the curtain; both of these and both of those had their blood placed on the horns; both of these and both of those include a presentation with the finger. And although there are some laws that apply to the goat and not to the bull for an erroneous communal ruling—for the blood of the goat enters into the innermost chamber and its blood is presented in eight sprinklings, unlike the bull for an erroneous communal ruling—nevertheless, in the acts of the services that it required for both of them, Scripture did not distinguish one from the other.