זבחים 40 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The Master said: ‘I know [it] only of the seven applications which are indispensable elsewhere.’ Where? — Said R. Papa: In the case of the [red] heifer and leprosy. ‘How do we know [it] of the four applications? Because it is written, so shall he do’. Why do the seven applications differ? [presumably] because they are prescribed and reiterated? Then the four applications too are prescribed and reiterated? — Said R. Jeremiah: This is necessary only according to R. Simeon. For it was taught: In the upper section ‘horns’ is written, [where] horn [would suffice] [which implies] two, and in the lower section ‘horns’ is written [instead of] horn, which implies four: this is R. Simeon's view. R. Judah said: It is unnecessary, [for] surely it says, [which] is in the tent of meeting, [intimating,] upon all which is mentioned in the tent of meeting. Now, how does R. Judah employ [the text], so shall he do? He requires it for what was taught: As we have not learnt about laying on [of hands] and the residue of the blood in the case of the bullock of the Day of Atonement, whence [then] do we know it? From the text, So shall he do. But have we not learnt [it] of the bullock of the Day of Atonement? Surely you said, ‘"with the bullock" refers to the bullock of Atonement Day.’ — It is necessary: You might think that it applies only to a service which is indispensable for atonement; but as for a service which is not indispensable for atonement, I would agree that it is not so. Hence he informs us [otherwise]. Now, how does R. Simeon employ this [phrase] ‘in the tent of meeting’? — He utilises it [as teaching] that if the ceiling of the hekal was broken, [the priest] did not sprinkle. And the other? — [He deduces it] from ‘which is’. And the other? — He does not interpret ‘which is’ [as having a particular significance]. Abaye said: According to R. Judah too [the text] is required. You might think that it is analogous to laying [hands] and [pouring out] the residue of the blood, which are not indispensable in spite of being prescribed and reiterated; so you might argue that the four applications too are indispensable. Hence [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. [The Master said:] ‘"With the bullock" refers to the bullock of the Day of Atonement.’ In respect of which law? if [to intimate] that [the four applications] are essential, it is obvious, [since] ‘statute’ is written in connection with it? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: This is necessary only on R. Judah's view, for he maintained: ‘Statute’ is written only in reference to the rites performed in the white vestments, within [the inner Sanctuary], [and it teaches] that if one rite was [wrongly] performed before another, [the High Priest] has done nothing; but as for the rites performed in the white vestments without,if not performed in correct order, what he has done is done. Then I might argue, since their [prescribed] order is not indispensable, the sprinklings too are not indispensable. Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise]. To this R. Papa demurred: Can you say so? Surely it was taught: And he shall make an end of atoning for the holy place, [and the tent of meeting, and the altar]: if he atoned, he made an end; while if he did not atone, he did not make an end: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah to him: Why should we not interpret: If he made an end, he atoned, while if he did not make an end, he did not atone? Rather said R. Papa: It is required only in respect of [deductions from] the eth and [those relating to] the blood and the dipping. ‘Eth’: R. Aha b. Jacob said: That is required only to teach that^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:The red heifer: This is the statute (hukkath) of the law . . . And Eleazar. . . shall . . . sprinkle of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times (Num. XIX, 2-4). Leprosy: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing . . . And the priest . . . shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord (Lev. XIV. 2, 16). It is a general principle that where a law is designated ‘statute’ or introduced by ‘shall be’, denoting emphasis, it is indispensable.
^ᵇnote:Why is an additional text required to shew that all the four applications are essential? The reiteration of the seven applications (according to the present exegesis) is pari passu a reiteration of the four.
^ᶜnote:The upper and the lower sections are Lev. IV, 1-12, and Lev. IV, 13-21, dealing with the bullock of the anointed priest and the bullock of the whole congregation respectively. In the upper section: And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar (v. 7). In the lower section: And he shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord (v. 18). The plural implies two in each case, and then by analogy the provisions of each are transferred to the other too, which gives the four horns for each. But this transference is made only because we have the repetition, which is thus necessary in R. Simeon's view.
^ᵈnote:Lev. IV, 7, 18.
^ᵉnote:I.e., upon all the horns which Scripture prescribed for the altar in the tent of meeting.
^ᶠnote:Why this repetition?
^ᵍnote:I.e., that laying hands and pouring out the residue at the altar's base are necessary. These are not prescribed in Lev. XVI, which treats of the Day of Atonement ritual.
^ʰnote:An extension which intimates that the bullock of the Day of Atonement requires these, since ‘with the bullock’ has been interpreted as referring to it.
^ⁱnote:Which exegesis automatically teaches that the provisions of the passage, including the two under discussion, apply to it; what need then of the further words, ‘so shall he do’?
^ʲnote:Only those services are included, since Scripture adds, And the priest shall make atonement for them.
^ᵏnote:Such are not included in the extension implied in the text. Laying hands and pouring out the residue at the altar's base are not essential for atonement.
^ˡnote:Because it is no longer the ‘tent’ (of meeting).
^ᵐnote:R. Judah; whence does he know this?
^ⁿnote:Which he regards as superfluous.
^ᵒnote:R. Simeon: how does he interpret ‘which is’?
^ᵖnote:Lev. XVI, 29: And it shall be a statute for ever unto you — which implies that all the prescribed rites are essential!
^ᵠnote:His service is invalid.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘one before the other.’
^ˢnote:It is valid; v. Yoma 60a.
^ᵗnote:That R. Judah learns the indispensable character of the four sprinklings from the present text.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XVI, 20.
^ᵛnote:I.e., if he performed the rites which are essential for atonement in other cases, e.g., the four sprinklings on the altar and the seven sprinklings before the veil.
^ʷnote:He could end his service there, even if he did not pour out the residue of the blood at the base of the outer altar.
^ˣnote:I.e., the service is valid and atonement is made only if he made an end, having performed all the prescribed rites (v. Yoma 60b). Thus it is from this text that R. Judah deduces the indispensability of the prescribed rites, including the four applications.
^ʸnote:The text ‘with the bullock’.
^ᶻnote:In connection with the anointed priest's bullock it is written: And the priest shall dip (eth) his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord (Lev. IV, 6). ‘Eth’, which is the sign of the accusative, which is treated as an extension, as well as the phrases ‘he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’ teach the number of additional laws about the sprinkling and dipping as anon. Through the present exegesis, that ‘with the bullock’ applies to the Atonement Day bullock, Scripture assimilates it to the bullock of the anointed priest, and so teaches that what is deduced from the ‘eth’ applies to this too.

²if there is a wart on the finger it is fit. ‘In the blood’ [teaches] that there must be sufficient blood for dipping at the outset. ‘And he shall dip’ [teaches] but not sponge up. Now it is necessary to write both ‘and he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’. 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? — [To teach] that if the altar had not been consecrated by sweet incense, [the priest] did not sprinkle. 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. Said R. Ishmael: It follows a fortiori: if rites [of diverse sacrifices] were assimilated to each other even where the sacrifices are not the same, Surely rites are assimilated to each other where the sacrifices are the same. 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’ refers to the bullock of the anointed priest. 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? Then [the argument] can be refuted: as for these, [their rites are similar] because their blood enters the innermost sanctum! Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the goats [sacrificed] on account of idolatry. 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? 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, then where the sacrifices are the same, this one being a bullock and the other being a bullock, it is surely logical^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵃᵃnote:That is learnt from the eth: though the blood is taken up by the wart, yet it is fit.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sufficient must be caught in one vessel at the outset; but the blood must not be received in two vessels and poured together to make enough for that purpose.
^ᵃᶜnote:By wiping round the sides of the utensil.
^ᵃᵈnote:Emended text (Sh. M.)
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. 7. Seeing that ‘in the tent of meeting’ has been interpreted as intimating everything which was in the tent of meeting, why specify ‘the altar of sweet incense’?
^ᵃᶠnote:If this bullock was offered at a new altar, upon which incense had never yet been burnt, the priest did not sprinkle.
^ᵃᵍnote:Yalkut reads: that is R. Akiba's view.
^ᵃʰnote:No text is necessary for this.
^ᵃⁱnote:Even where the sacrifices differed in certain respects.
^ᵃʲnote:E.g., the Day of Atonement bullock and that brought for the sin of the whole community. These are similar, since they both belong to the same category.
^ᵃᵏnote:The phrase is repeated in the verse, q.v.
^ᵃˡnote:Teaching that the same law applies to this as to the former, viz., that if one of the sprinklings is omitted, the sacrifice is invalid.
^ᵃᵐnote:These are not the same, being different animals, yet their rites of sprinkling etc. are the same.
^ᵃⁿnote:But the blood of the community's bullock did not enter the innermost sanctum.
^ᵃᵒnote:Whose rites are the same, as stated supra.
^ᵃᵖnote:V. Shebu. 2a.
^ᵃᵠnote:In the matter of sprinkling, which Scripture prescribes for both, they are alike. Both are sprinkled with the finger, on 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.