Zevachim — Daf 40b

אמין שבאצבע בדם שיהא בדם שיעור טבילה מעיקרא וטבל ולא מספג

ואיצטריך למכתב בדם דאי כתב רחמנא וטבל הוה אמינא אע"ג דליכא שיעור טבילה מעיקרא כתב רחמנא בדם

ואי כתב רחמנא בדם ה"א אפי' מספג כתב רחמנא וטבל

מזבח קטרת סמים למה לי שאם לא נתחנך המזבח בקטורת הסמים לא היה מזה

תניא כוותיה דרב פפא ועשה כאשר עשה מה ת"ל לפר לרבות פר יום הכפורים לכל מה שאמור בענין דברי רבי

א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה במקום שלא הושוה קרבן לקרבן השוה מעשים למעשים מקום שהשוה קרבן לקרבן אינו דין שישוה מעשה למעשה

אלא מה ת"ל לפר זה פר העלם דבר של צבור לפר זה פר כהן משיח

אמר מר ומה במקום שלא הושוה קרבן לקרבן מאי לא הושוה קרבן לקרבן

אילימא פר יוה"כ ושעיר יום הכפורים איכא למיפרך מה להנך שכן נכנס דמם לפניי ולפנים

אלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים איכא למיפרך מה להנך שכן מכפרין על עבירות מצוה ידועה

אלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעיר של יום הכפורים והכי קאמר ומה במקום שלא הושוו קרבן לקרבן דהאי פר והאי שעיר הושוו מעשים למעשים למאי דכתב בהו מקום שהושוה קרבן לקרבן דהאי פר והאי פר אינו דין

if there is a wart on the finger it is fit.1 ‘In the blood’ [teaches] that there must be sufficient blood for dipping at the outset.2 ‘And he shall dip’ [teaches] but not sponge up.3 Now it is necessary to write both ‘and he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’.4 For if the Divine Law wrote, ‘and he shall dip’ [only], I would say, even where there is insufficient for dipping in the first place; therefore the Divine Law wrote, ‘in the blood’. And if the Divine Law wrote ‘in the blood’ [only], I would say [that] he may even sponge it up; therefore the Divine Law wrote, ‘and he shall dip’. What is the purpose of the altar of sweet incense?5 — [To teach] that if the altar had not been consecrated by sweet incense, [the priest] did not sprinkle. 6 It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: ‘Thus shall he do...as he did’: why does Scripture say, ‘with the bullock’? — To include the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of all that is prescribed in this passage: that is Rabbi's view.7 Said R. Ishmael: It follows a fortiori:8 if rites [of diverse sacrifices] were assimilated to each other even where the sacrifices are not the same,9 Surely rites are assimilated to each other where the sacrifices are the same.10 What then does Scripture intimate by [the phrase] ‘with the bullock’? This refers to the bullock brought for the community's unwitting transgression; while [the other] ‘with the bullock’11 refers to the bullock of the anointed priest.12 The Master said: ‘If where the sacrifices are not assimilated to each other’. To what does ‘the sacrifices are not assimilated to each other’ allude? Shall we say, to the bullock of the Day of Atonement and the goat of the Day of Atonement?13 Then [the argument] can be refuted: as for these, [their rites are similar] because their blood enters the innermost sanctum!14 Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the goats [sacrificed] on account of idolatry.15 But [here too the argument] can be refuted: As for these, [their rites are the same] because they make atonement for the violation of a known precept?16 Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement, and this is what he means: If where the sacrifices are not the same, since one is a bullock and the other is a goat, yet the rites are alike as far as what is prescribed in their case is concerned,17 then where the sacrifices are the same, this one being a bullock and the other being a bullock, it is surely logical together to make enough for that purpose. meeting, why specify ‘the altar of sweet incense’? they both belong to the same category. is invalid. the horns of the altar, and before the veil. Thus they are alike in essence, not withstanding that the blood of one entered the inner sanctum while that of the other did not, and one requires eight sprinklings as against the other's seven.