זבחים 41:1 — Soncino English Talmud

that 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.