Zevachim 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

If so,

where one offering is equated with another offering—for this is a bull and that is a bull, is it not an a fortiori inference!

For

in those rites that are identical in both of them, such as the sprinklings toward the Curtain and the Golden Altar,

the acts

of this one

are equated with the acts

of that one, and therefore the laws of “the,” “with the blood,” and “immersion” should apply to its sprinklings.

And the bull of Yom Kippur comes to

require in its sprinklings the laws of

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

by this kal va-chomer, as we have said.

And

so

the goat of Yom Kippur comes

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

from the goats for idol worship, by a kal va-chomer:

Where one offering was not equated with another offering—namely, the bull for an unwitting communal ruling and the goat of Yom Kippur—nevertheless, the acts explicitly stated with regard to both of them were equated with one another concerning the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. Where one offering was equated with another offering, such as the goat of Yom Kippur and the goats for idol worship, is it not all the more so the case that the acts performed with them should be equated with one another, and that the goat of Yom Kippur, with regard to which Scripture was obscure, should be learned from the goats for idol worship, with regard to which it was explicit?

And we raise an objection: The laws of “the,” “with the blood,” and “immersion” were not themselves stated explicitly with regard to the goats for idol worship. Rather, we know these laws from the fact that they were juxtaposed with the bull for an unwitting communal ruling. If so,

can something learned through a juxtaposition

such as this

return to teach through a kal va-chomer?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

who expounds this kal va-chomer, holds that

something learned through a juxtaposition can return to teach through a kal va-chomer.

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

for the bull”—this is the bull for an unwitting communal ruling!

And we raise an objection: Why do we need to expound this? The word “for the bull”

in

the bull for an unwitting communal

ruling itself is written!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

We needed this exposition

because it was necessary to teach through a juxtaposition

the law of

the bull for an unwitting communal ruling,

which

in

the law governing the burning of its sacrificial portions includes the burning of

the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, to the goats for idol worship,

so that they too would be included in this law.

And the bull for an unwitting communal ruling

itself

does not have written in its own passage

this law of burning the lobe and the two kidneys. Rather, it

comes through a juxtaposition

with the bull of an anointed priest; it

comes

. And we have a principle concerning sacrificial offerings: “Something learned through a juxtaposition does not return to teach through another juxtaposition.” Therefore, without this exposition of “for the bull,” it would not have been possible to learn through a juxtaposition from the bull for an unwitting communal ruling to the goats for idol worship with regard to the burning of the lobe and the two kidneys. Therefore

it was necessary

to expound “And he shall perform

for the bull,”

which juxtaposes the bull for an unwitting communal ruling with the bull of an anointed priest.

That is, since the verse had already juxtaposed them once by saying, “As he performed for the bull”—this refers to the bull of an anointed priest—it now juxtaposed them a second time,

so as to make it as though it were written in it,

in the bull for an unwitting communal ruling, the law of burning the lobe and the two kidneys

in its own passage,

as though the law of burning the lobe and the two kidneys had been stated in the passage of the bull for an unwitting communal ruling itself.

And

through this

it will not be

the juxtaposition from the bull for an unwitting communal ruling to the goats for idol worship

something learned through a juxtaposition that returns to teach through a juxtaposition [since this is not learned in this manner with regard to sacrificial offerings].

[as such a method is not used with regard to offerings].

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa’s

view, that the additional juxtaposition makes it as though the matter had been written explicitly: “And he shall perform for the bull as he performed.” It would have sufficed for it to write

“And he shall perform as he performed.” What is the purpose of stating “for the bull”?

Rather,

since it is stated

in the passage of the offerings for idol worship: “For it is an error,

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

and their sin before the Lord for their error” [Numbers 15], and it would have sufficed for it to write only “For it is an error,” the verse comes to juxtapose these goats for idol worship with the bull for an unwitting communal ruling, and to expound:

“Their sin”—these are the goats for idol worship,

about which the verse is speaking.

“Their error”—this is the bull for an unwitting communal ruling,

as it is stated with regard to it: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall err.”

And by stating

“their sin for their error”

and placing them next to one another,

the Torah says: “Their sin,”

the goats for idol worship,

is for you like “their error,”

like the offering of the bull for an unwitting communal ruling. Just as the bull for an unwitting communal ruling involves the burning of the lobe and the two kidneys, so too, the same law applies to the goats for idol worship. Since it is stated with regard to them, “a fire-offering to the Lord,” we learn that these too are considered “a fire-offering to the Lord.”

The Gemara infers from here: With regard to the offering of

“their error”

itself [that is, the bull for an unwitting communal ruling],

from where did you learn

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

not learn it through a juxtaposition

with the bull of an anointed priest? If so,

can something learned through a juxtaposition return to teach through a juxtaposition?

Rather, necessarily, this is not considered a derivation through a juxtaposition, for

the verse states “And he shall perform

for the bull,”

this is the bull for an unwitting communal ruling; “as he performed

for the bull,”

this is the bull of an anointed priest.

And since the verse repeated the juxtaposition between the bull for an unwitting communal ruling and the bull of an anointed priest, it is as though the law of burning the lobe and the two kidneys [which is stated with regard to the bull of an anointed priest] had been written explicitly with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal ruling.

The Master said: “Their sin”—these are the goats for idol worship.

And we raise an objection: Why did we need to learn the law of burning the lobe and the two kidneys with regard to them from this derivation?

Let it be derived,

let this law be learned

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 for idol worship,

which are thereby equated with the bull for an unwitting communal decision. From this equation we should be able to learn the law requiring the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys as well. Why, then, do we need the additional equation from “their sin for their error”?

and they were juxtaposed through this with the bull for an unwitting communal ruling. From this juxtaposition we can learn the law of burning the lobe and the two kidneys as well. Why, then, do we need the additional juxtaposition of “their sin for their 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 for idol worship were included in the law of the bull for an unwitting communal ruling

only

with regard to

the sprinklings, which are written explicitly in its own passage

of the bull for an unwitting communal ruling.