Zevachim 41a — the Talmud in English

If so,

where one offering was equated with another offering, for this bull and this bull, is it not an inference? ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

For

those procedures that are equal in both of them, such as the sprinklings upon the curtain and the golden altar,

the acts

of this one

with the acts

of that one were equated, and the laws of “the,” “in the blood,” and “immersion” will apply to its sprinklings.

And the bull of the Day of Atonement comes to

require in its sprinklings the laws of

“the,” “in the blood,” and “immersion,” from the bull of an anointed priest

by this kal va-chomer, as we said.

And

so

the goat of the Day of Atonement comes to

require in it as well the laws of “the,” “in the blood,” and “immersion,”

from the goats of idolatry, by a kal va-chomer:

From a place where one offering was not equated with another offering, namely, the bull for an erroneous matter and the goat of the Day of Atonement, nevertheless the acts explicitly stated in both of them were equated with one another with regard to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. In a place where one offering was equated with another offering, such as the goat of the Day of Atonement and the goats of idolatry, is it not an inference that the acts should be equated with the acts, and that the goat of the Day of Atonement, concerning which Scripture was silent, should be learned from the goats of idolatry, concerning which it was explicit?

And we object: the goats of idolatry themselves— the laws of “the,” “in the blood,” and “immersion” were not stated explicitly concerning them; rather, from the fact that they were equated with the bull for an erroneous matter, we knew these laws concerning them. If so,

does a matter learned through an equation

such as this

return and teach by a kal va-chomer?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, who expounds this kal va-chomer, holds

that

a matter learned through an equation returns and teaches by a kal va-chomer.

We learned in the words of Rabbi Ishmael above: “And he shall perform

for the bull”—this is the bull for an erroneous matter of the community!

And we object: why do we need to expound this? For this word “for the bull”

in

the bull for an erroneous matter of the

community itself is written!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

we required this exposition

because it was necessary to teach through an equation

through

the bull for an erroneous matter of the community,

in which

in

the law of its burning is included the burning of

the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys, to the goats of idolatry,

to include them in this law.

And the bull for an erroneous matter of the community

itself

does not have written in itself

this law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys; rather,

through an equation

from the bull of an anointed priest it

comes.

And we have a principle concerning sacred offerings: “A matter learned through an equation does not return and teach through an equation.” Therefore, without this exposition of “for the bull,” it would not have been possible to learn through an equation from the bull for an erroneous matter to the goats of idolatry concerning the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys. Therefore

it was necessary

the exposition “And he shall perform

for the bull,”

which equates the bull for an erroneous matter with the bull of an anointed priest.

And this is because, since the verse had already equated them once by saying, “as he performed for the bull,” this being the bull of an anointed priest, Scripture now equated it a second time, so as

to make it as though it were written concerning it

in the bull for an erroneous matter, the law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys

in itself,

as though the law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys had been stated in the section of the bull for an erroneous matter itself.

And

through this

it will not be

the equation from the bull for an erroneous matter to the goats of idolatry

a matter learned through an equation that returns and teaches through an equation

[for one does not learn this way concerning sacred offerings].

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa

that the additional equation indeed makes it as though it had been written explicitly: “And he shall perform for the bull as he performed.” It should have written only

“And he shall perform as he performed.” What does “for the bull” teach?

Rather,

since it is stated

in the section of the offerings for idolatry: “For it was an inadvertent error,

and they brought their offering, a fire-offering to the Lord,

and their sin-offering before the Lord for their inadvertent error” [Numbers 15], and it should have written only, “For it was an inadvertent error,” the verse came to equate these goats of idolatry with the bull for an erroneous matter, and to expound:

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

about which the verse spoke.

“Their inadvertent error”—this is the bull for an erroneous matter of the community,

as it is stated concerning it: “And if the entire assembly of Israel should err.”

And by saying that the verse stated

“their sin-offering for their inadvertent error”

and juxtaposed these to one another,

the Torah said: “Their sin-offering,”

the goats of idolatry,

“is for you like ‘their inadvertent error,’

like the offering of the bull for an erroneous matter. Just as the bull for an erroneous matter has the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys, so too the goats of idolatry. Since it is said concerning them, “a fire-offering to the Lord,” we learn through this that these too are considered “a fire-offering to the Lord.””

The Gemara infers from here: concerning the offering of

“their inadvertent error”

itself [that is, the bull for an erroneous matter],

from where did you learn

the law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys? Did you

not learn it through an equation

from the bull of an anointed priest? If so,

does a matter learned through an equation return and teach through an equation?

Rather, necessarily this is not considered a learning through an equation, for

the verse says “And he shall perform

“for the bull,”

this is the bull for an erroneous matter of the community,

“as he performed

for the bull,” this is the bull of an anointed priest

. Since Scripture repeated the equation between the bull for an erroneous matter and the bull of an anointed priest, it is as though the law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys [stated concerning the bull of an anointed priest] had been written explicitly concerning the bull for an erroneous matter.

The master said: “Their sin-offering”—these are the goats of idolatry.

And we object: why did we need to learn the law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys concerning them from this derivation?

Let it emerge,

let us learn this law

from the first verse

above,

as the master said:

“And he shall perform for the bull as he performed for the bull of the sin-offering,”

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

and through this they were equated with the bull for an erroneous matter. From this equation we can learn even with regard to the law of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys; why do we need the additional equation of “a sin-offering for their inadvertent error”?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: It was necessary

for both of them.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that the goats of idolatry were included in the law of the bull for an erroneous matter,

this applies

with regard to

the sprinklings, which are written explicitly in itself

of the bull for an erroneous matter.