זבחים 41 — Soncino English Talmud

¹that their rites shall be alike. Then the [rites of the] Day of Atonement bullock are learnt from [those of] the bullock of the anointed priest, [insofar as the latter are deduced] from ‘eth’, ‘in the blood’ and the mention of dipping. And [the rites of] the goat of the Day of Atonement are also learnt from [those of] the goats brought on account of idolatry, a fortiori. But can that which is learnt through a hekkesh then in turn teach a fortiori? — Said R. Papa: The Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael holds [that] that which is learnt through a hekkesh can in turn teach a fortiori. ‘"With the bullock" refers to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression.’ But that is written in the very text? — Said R. Papa: Because he wishes that the community's bullock for unwitting transgression shall teach that the goats for idolatry require [the burning of] the lobe [above the liver] and the two kidneys [on the altar]; yet that is not prescribed in the actual passage on the community's bullock for unwitting transgress, but is learnt through a hekkesh; therefore ‘with the bullock’ is needed, to make it as though it were prescribed in the actual text, and thus it should not be a case of what is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teaching through a hekkesh. It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: ‘Thus shall he do [with the bullock] as he did’: why does Scripture [further] state, with the bullock? Because it is said, And they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire unto the Lord, [and their sin-offering before the Lord, for their error]. Now, ‘their sin-offering’ refers to the he-goats for idolatry, while ‘their error’ alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression. [Hence when the text says] ‘their sin-offering . . . for their error’, the Torah intimates: Behold, you must treat their sin-offering as their [offering for] error. But whence have you learned [the law in the case of] their [offering for] error? Was it not through a hekkesh? Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teach through a hekkesh? Therefore the text states, ‘[As he did] with the bullock’, which refers to the community's bullock for transgression; while [the other] ‘with the bullock’ alludes to the anointed priest's bullock. The Master said: ‘"Their sin-offering" refers to the he-goats for idolatry.’ Deduce this from the earlier verse, for a master said, ‘"The sin-offering" is to include the he-goats of idolatry’? — Said R. Papa, It is necessary. I might argue that [the force of this extension] applies only to the sprinklings, which are prescribed in that very passage;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ

^ᵃnote:Such as the sprinklings before the veil and on the golden altar.
^ᵇnote:V. supra 40a.
^ᶜnote:If where the sacrifices are not the same, viz., the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the goat of the Day of Atonement, the rites prescribed for both are alike, since Scripture does not explicitly say that those which they have in common, e.g., the sprinklings in the hekal, are different; then where the sacrifices are the same, e.g. the goat of the Day of Atonement and the goats of idolatry, their rites are surely alike.
^ᵈnote:As here. For the rites of the anointed priest's bullock, insofar as these are deduced from ‘eth’, ‘in the blood’ and the mention of dipping, are transferred to the goats for idolatry only by a hekkesh (q.v. Glos.); then we make them in turn teach a fortiori that the same applies to the goats of the Day of Atonement.
^ᵉnote:The whole passage deals with this.
^ᶠnote:It is stated infra that the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys of the goats of idolatry are burnt on the altar, and that this is learnt through a hekkesh from the community's bullock of unwitting transgression. But there too Scripture does not explicitly state the law, which is learnt through a hekkesh from the anointed priest's bullock, where it is explicitly prescribed, and in the case of sacrifices it is stated infra 49b that what is learnt through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a hekkesh. Now, here we have in any case a hekkesh between the community's bullock and the anointed priest's bullock, since ‘as he did with the bullock’ has been interpreted as referring to the anointed priest's bullock, while the whole passage in which it occurs treats of the community's bullock. Hence when Scripture further reiterates this hekkesh by saying, ‘thus shall he do with the bullock’, which being superfluous is made to refer to the community's bullock, the effect of this repeated hekkesh is to make it as though the burning of the lobe and the kidneys were not derived through a hekkesh but explicitly prescribed. Hence one can no longer object that what is learnt through a hekkesh cannot teach through a hekkesh.
^ᵍnote:Num. XV, 25.
^ʰnote:Viz., that the lobe and the kidneys of the former, as of the latter, must be burnt on the altar. This is a hekkesh deduction.
^ⁱnote:V. p. 205, n. 5.
^ʲnote:That the lobe and kidneys of these must be burnt on the altar.
^ᵏnote:Sc. Lev. VII, 19 which is now being discussed.
^ˡnote:Supra 39b. By this inclusion its rites are brought into line with those of the other sacrifices alluded to in that verse, and hence include the burning of the lobe and the kidneys on the altar.
^ᵐnote:Teaching that the blood of the he-goats must be sprinkled in the same way as that of the community's bullock.

²but [as for the burning of] the lobe and the two kidneys, which are not prescribed in that passage, I would say [that it is] not [intimated]. Therefore the text informs us [that it is not so]. R. Huna the son of R. Nathan said to R. Papa: But surely the Tanna states, ‘"with the bullock" includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of everything which is prescribed in the text’? — It is a controversy of Tannaim. The Tanna of the Academy includes it in this way, while the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael includes it in that way. The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why are the lobe and the two kidneys mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock for unwitting transgression? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his friend, but spoke little of his offence, out of his love for him. The School of R. Ishmael also taught: Why is the ‘veil of the sanctuary’ mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock of unwitting transgression? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood against whom a province sinned — If a minority offended, his retainers remain [with them], but if the majority offend, his retainers do not remain [with them]. THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. We learnt elsewhere: If [the priest] made a piggul intention at the [burning of the] fistful [of flour] but not at [the burning of the] incense, [or] at the frankincense but not at the fistful, R. Meir says that it is piggul, and one is liable to kareth on its account; but the Sages maintain: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] makes a piggul intention for the whole mattir. R. Simeon b. Lakish commented: Do not say that R. Meir's reason is because he holds that you can make a [sacrifice] piggul in half a mattir. Rather the circumstances here are that [the priest] presented the fistful [on the altar] with a [piggul] intention, and the frankincense in silence. He [R. Meir] holds [that] when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention. How do you know it? — Because [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence [if he applies] one correctly and all [the others] incorrectly, it is piggul. With whom does this agree? If with the Rabbis? Surely the Rabbis say [that] you cannot make piggul at half a mattir? Hence it must be R. Meir; now if R. Meir's reason is that you can make piggul at half a mattir, then even in the conditions which he teaches it is still piggul. Hence it must surely be because he holds that when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention. Said R. Samuel b. Isaac: In truth it agrees with the Rabbis, and what is meant by CORRECTLY? In the proper manner for piggul. But since [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH, it follows that INCORRECTLY means [in a manner] to make it fit? — Said Raba: What does INCORRECTLY mean? — [With an intention of eating it] without bounds. R. Ashi said: [It means] under a different designation. Hence it follows that if [the priest] did not do it [with an intention of consuming it] without bounds or under a different designation, one is liable? — Because the first clause teaches, IT IS PIGGUL, AND ONE IS LIABLE TO KARETH ON ITS ACCOUNT, the second clause too teaches, IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. An objection is raised: When is this said? In the case of blood that is presented on the outer altar.^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ⁿnote:Which implies that even the sprinklings are indispensable, whereas you say (supra 40a bottom) that only those laws which are deduced from ‘eth’ etc. are learnt in this way.
^ᵒnote:This is the meaning of Be Rab as used here, and it refers to the anonymous statement introduced by ‘Our Rabbis taught’.
^ᵖnote:In the same way God treats the community's offence more shortly, and leaves a number of details to be deduced rather than state them explicitly.
^ᵠnote:Lev. IV, 6, speaking of the former, states, And the priest . . . shall sprinkle of the blood . . . in front of the veil of the sanctuary. But in IV, 17, which treats of the latter, Scripture merely mentions ‘the veil’ not the veil of the sanctuary.
^ʳnote:To shew his resentment he withdraws them. Thus where the whole community sins God, as it were, withdraws His holiness, and there is no sanctuary left.
^ˢnote:The burning of these two permits the meal-offering to be eaten. The two rites together therefore constitute the mattir (q.v. Glos.), and each is only half a mattir.
^ᵗnote:If one eats of the offering.
^ᵘnote:Hence his silence here is the equivalent of a piggul intention.
^ᵛnote:Even if the first application is made in silence and the others with a piggul intention, it should be piggul.
^ʷnote:In a manner which will render it piggul. Thus: the first application with a piggul intention, and the others in silence.
^ˣnote:For silence could not be called’ INCORRECTLY’.
^ʸnote:And since it is a sin-offering, it becomes invalidated (v. supra 2a) and consequently is not rendered piggul.
^ᶻnote:I.e., if the second application was made in silence, it is piggul, which shews that we regard the second action as done with the same intention as the first. But that is R. Meir's view, not the Rabbis.
^ᵃᵃnote:CORRECTLY does mean in a proper manner for piggul whilst INCORRECTLY means with the intention of consuming it without bounds. Actually then even if he made the second sprinkling in silence it would not be piggul, but INCORRECTLY is taught for the sake of parallelism. For in the first clause, dealing with the outer sacrifices, he teaches IF HE APPLIED THE FIRST WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING IT AFTER TIME, AND THE SECOND WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING IT WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH. There, this second intention is particularly stated in order to teach that it does not nullify the first and free it from piggul, because since a single application permits it, a single application makes it piggul. For that reason he teaches in the second clause, dealing with the inner sacrifices, that here the second intention does nullify the first and free it from piggul, though this in truth need not be taught, since in any case, even if he remained silent at the second application, it would not be piggul, as the Rabbis do not hold that he makes the second application with the same intention as the first.
^ᵃᵇnote:That the sacrifice becomes piggul through one application.