Zevachim 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

And from the objection based on

“with the blood”

stated there we learned that it is necessary

that there be

a quantity of blood in which he can immerse his finger

sufficient for immersion

from the outset

from the time of the first receiving and this excludes a case in which, initially, he received in one vessel an amount of blood less than the amount sufficient for immersing a finger, and received additional blood in that amount in a second vessel, and then mixed them, and we learned this from the fact that the verse says “with blood” with a patah vowel beneath the bet, implying: with blood that was already present.

And we further learned

“and he shall immerse”

in the blood itself

and not merely absorb it

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

And the Gemara explains: It was also necessary to write “and he shall immerse

and it was necessary

to write ‘with the blood.’ For if the Merciful One had written only ‘and he shall immerse,’

alone,

I would have said

that his immersion would be effective

even though there was no

in the vessel

an amount sufficient for immersion from the outset.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote ‘with the blood’

to teach you that he must immerse in blood that initially contained an amount sufficient for immersion.

And if the Merciful One had written

the word

“with the blood”

alone,

I would have said

that this would be effective

even

if he had not immersed, but only

merely absorbed it,

therefore

the Merciful One wrote “and he shall immerse,”

as explained.

The Gemara now returns to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the law that omitting any of the four placements invalidates the rite from the exposition of “which is in the Tent of Meeting,” referring to everything stated concerning the Tent of Meeting. And we ask:

“the incense altar

of

spices”

stated there

why do I need it,

since it was already stated “before the Lord,” from which we know 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 would not sprinkle

blood on its horns.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa’s opinion

that the added word “for the bull” comes to juxtapose it, with regard to “with,” “the blood,” and “immersion”: It is stated concerning the bull for an erroneous communal ruling:

“And he shall perform

for the bull

as he performed

for the bull of the sin offering.”

What does the verse come to teach by saying “for the bull”? To include the Yom Kippur bull with regard to everything stated in this passage

concerning the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, including “with,” “the blood,” and “immersion.”

These are the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Ishmael said:

There is no need to include the Yom Kippur bull here, for from a

kal va-chomer

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

And if in a case where one offering was not equated with another offering

because all the animals are not of one species,

the acts

of the service of this one were equated

with the acts

of the service of that one [and below it will be explained which case this is],

in a case where one offering was equated with another offering

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

is it not logical that the act

of the service of this one should be equated

with the act

of the service of that one, and that the sprinklings of these offerings should be equal with regard to the laws of “with,” “the blood,” and “immersion”?

Rather, what does the verse come to teach by saying

“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 an anointed priest,

to juxtapose it with the bull for an erroneous communal ruling and teach that even with the bull of an anointed priest, whose placements are not doubled, if he omitted one of them, it is disqualified.

The Master said: “And if in a case where one offering was not equated with another offering.”

The Gemara analyzes: What is meant by “one offering was not equated with another offering”?

If you say

that this means that the offering of

the Yom Kippur bull and

the offering of

the Yom Kippur goat

were not equated, since this is a bull and that is a goat, yet the acts of one were equated with the acts of the other, as all their services are identical, and from this we derive by a kal va-chomer that the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling should likewise have identical procedures.

This

can be refuted: What is true of these

bull and goat of Yom Kippur?

Their blood enters

both

into the innermost precincts,

and they do not differ in this matter. Therefore, it is reasonable that they should also be equated with regard to the acts of their service. This is not so with regard to the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, which were not equated in this respect, for the blood of the Yom Kippur bull enters into the innermost precincts, whereas the blood of the bull for an erroneous communal ruling does not enter there.

Rather,

perhaps this means that

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

were not equated, since earlier we expounded the word “the sin offering” to include the goats for idolatry and juxtaposed them with the bull for an erroneous communal ruling. Thus, their procedures were equated even though their offerings were not equated, as this is a bull and that is a goat.

This

can be refuted:

What is true of these

bull for an erroneous communal ruling and goats for idolatry?

For

both of them

atone for violations of a known mitzva.

Since they are equal in this respect, their services were therefore equated. This is not so with regard to the Yom Kippur bull and the bull for an erroneous communal ruling, which are not equal in this respect: the bull for an erroneous communal ruling atones for a violation of a known mitzva, whereas the Yom Kippur bull atones for a violation of a mitzva whose nature is unknown, namely, for one who entered the Temple while impure without knowing at the time of his entry that he was impure, and whose entry subsequently did not become known to him.

Rather, [the comparison is between] the bull for an erroneous communal ruling and the Yom Kippur goat,

whose procedures were equated.

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

for in the sprinklings prescribed for each of them, Scripture did not distinguish between one and the other: the blood of both was placed on the curtain, the blood of both was placed on the horns, and both involved placement with a finger. Even though there are laws applying to the goat that do not apply to the bull for an erroneous communal ruling—for the blood of the goat enters into the innermost precincts and its blood is placed in eight sprinklings, unlike the bull for an erroneous communal ruling—nevertheless, in the acts of service that the Torah required for both, Scripture did not distinguish between one and the other.