Masechet Zevahim, Daf Mem. We begin today’s daf on the first amud, starting from the top line. We are discussing the inner sin offerings: the communal bulls brought for an error, the bull of Yom Kippur, and the goats brought for idolatry. We previously established that, with regard to these offerings, all the applications of the blood are indispensable. The Gemara asked: How do we know this? It derived it from a doubled expression in the Torah, which teaches that the applications are indispensable.
The Gemara then challenged this conclusion. Perhaps only the seven applications are indispensable, while the four applications are not. Whenever the Torah mentions seven applications, those applications are indispensable. Therefore, perhaps the doubled expression teaches only that the seven applications are indispensable. In other words, perhaps, for an inner sin offering that requires seven applications, failing to perform them invalidates the offering, but the four applications might not have the same status.
The Gemara analyzes this possibility: “I know only that the seven applications are indispensable in every place.” What does “in every place” mean? Where do we find that seven applications are indispensable in every place? Rav Pappa answered: With the red heifer and with the leper. In the purification process of the red heifer, the water is sprinkled seven times. Similarly, on the eighth day of a leper’s purification, the water is sprinkled seven times in the Temple. This is not referring to sprinkling the water directly on the person; it refers to taking the water of the red heifer and sprinkling it seven times as part of his final purification.
We therefore have a precedent that seven applications are indispensable. The Gemara then asks: We also find that four applications are indispensable with an inner sin offering. Why, then, do we need the doubled expression to teach this? The Gemara answers by invoking the principle, “As it is done.” Just as the doubled expression teaches that the seven applications are indispensable, it should also teach that the four applications are indispensable. The same verse is discussing all the applications, so why should we limit its force to the seven applications?
The Gemara replies that this derivation is needed for something else. It is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Shimon. The Torah says, with regard to the bull brought by the anointed priest, that the blood is placed on the horns of the altar. One verse says “horn,” which indicates one, while another expression says “horns,” which indicates two. The same expressions appear in the section dealing with the communal bull. From this, Rabbi Shimon derives two applications above and two applications below, for a total of four.
According to the first opinion, the two passages are combined. The two applications mentioned above and the two mentioned below establish that each offering requires four applications. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the requirement of four applications from the words “in the Tent of Meeting.” Since the inner altar is in the Tent of Meeting, and the Tent of Meeting has four corners, the blood must be placed on all four corners.
Rabbi Shimon, however, does not derive the four applications from “in the Tent of Meeting.” He derives them by connecting the passage concerning the communal bull with the passage concerning the bull of the anointed priest. The two passages are linked, and just as there are two applications in one passage, there are two in the other. Together, they establish four applications.
Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda already knows that there are four applications from “in the Tent of Meeting.” Once we know that there are four, the doubled expression can teach that all of them are indispensable. Rabbi Shimon, however, first needs the expression “as it is done” to teach that there are four applications. He then needs the doubled expression to teach that, just as the seven applications are indispensable, the four applications are also indispensable.
Rashi explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, the Torah mentions only two applications in the passage concerning the communal bull. The other two are derived through the comparison between the communal bull and the bull of the anointed priest. The comparison teaches that just as the blood is applied in two places in one passage, it is applied in two places in the other. Once the four applications have been established, the doubled expression teaches that they are indispensable.
Thus, the Gemara’s original question was answered. At this stage, all the blood applications of an inner sin offering—both the seven and the four—are indispensable. The Gemara then raises another question concerning Rabbi Yehuda. From where does Rabbi Yehuda know that there are four applications? He derives that from “in the Tent of Meeting.” What, then, does Rabbi Yehuda derive from “as it is done”?
The Gemara answers that “as it is done” teaches that the comparison between the communal bull and the bull of Yom Kippur applies even to aspects that are not indispensable for atonement. One might have thought that the comparison applies only to the applications of blood, since those are indispensable for atonement. Perhaps it does not apply to other procedures, such as the pouring of the remaining blood or the laying of hands, which are not indispensable for atonement. “As it is done” teaches that the comparison applies even to those procedures.
According to Rabbi Shimon, “in the Tent of Meeting” is not needed to establish the four applications, because he derives those from the comparison between the two passages. He uses “in the Tent of Meeting” to teach that the service must be performed inside a valid structure. If the roof of the sanctuary is breached, it is no longer considered a Tent of Meeting, and the applications performed in that condition are invalid.
Rabbi Yehuda derives the four applications from the word “which” in the expression “which is in the Tent of Meeting.” The word “which” teaches the requirement of four applications, while “in the Tent of Meeting” teaches the requirement that the service be performed within the proper structure. Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, derives the requirement of the structure from the passage concerning the bull, and he does not need this derivation to establish the number of applications.
The Gemara then returns to the question of why a special derivation is needed to establish that the four applications are indispensable. Abaye offers another answer, which applies even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who already knows that there are four applications from “in the Tent of Meeting.” The repetition is needed because one might have compared the four applications of an inner sin offering to the laying of hands and the pouring of the remaining blood in an outer sin offering. Those procedures are required, but they are not indispensable. Perhaps the four applications are likewise required but not indispensable.
That is why the Torah repeats the expression “as it is done.” It teaches that the four applications are, in fact, indispensable. We already know that four applications are required; the question is whether they are indispensable. The repetition answers that question.
One might have thought that since the Torah explicitly teaches that the laying of hands and the pouring of the remaining blood are not indispensable, the four applications should also be placed in that category. After all, there are situations in which four applications are required, but the offering is valid even when fewer are performed. The Torah therefore repeats the expression to teach that, in the case of the inner sin offerings, the four applications are indispensable.
The conclusion is that the four applications of the blood in an inner sin offering are indispensable. Before the derivation from “as it is done,” the matter could have gone either way. We know that seven applications are indispensable in other contexts, while certain other procedures connected with offerings are not indispensable. The repeated expression establishes that the four applications belong to the indispensable category.
The Gemara next discusses the expression “for the bull.” It teaches that the laws of the bull brought for a communal error also apply to the bull of Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks why this comparison is necessary. The Torah already says that the service of Yom Kippur follows a fixed statute, and the word “statute” generally teaches that the procedure is indispensable.
Rashi explains that the word “statute” appears in the section of Yom Kippur: “This shall be for you an eternal statute.” However, that word may teach only that the procedures performed in the Holy of Holies are indispensable. The question before us concerns the service performed outside the Holy of Holies, on the inner altar. Perhaps the order of that service is not indispensable.
One might reason as follows: If, in the Holy of Holies, performing the service out of order does not necessarily invalidate it, perhaps the applications of the blood on the inner altar are also not indispensable. The comparison between the communal bull and the bull of Yom Kippur therefore teaches that the applications on the inner altar are indispensable as well.
The Gemara challenges this reasoning with a teaching of Rabbi Akiva. The verse says, “When he has completed the atonement of the sanctuary.” Rabbi Akiva derives from this that when the priest has completed all the services of the Holy of Holies, he has achieved atonement. If he has not completed them, he has not achieved atonement. This would indicate that the services are indispensable without any need for the comparison to the communal bull.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva may be reading the verse differently. Perhaps “when he has completed the atonement” means that once the priest has completed the essential atonement service in the Holy of Holies, he may proceed to the service involving the scapegoat, even before pouring the remaining blood at the base of the altar. In that case, the verse is not teaching that every service is indispensable; it is teaching when the priest may proceed to the next stage of the service.
The first opinion understands the verse in that way: once the priest has completed the principal atonement service in the Holy of Holies, he may begin the service of the scapegoat, even though the remaining blood has not yet been poured at the base of the altar. Rabbi Akiva, however, understands the verse simply: if the priest completed the entire service, there is atonement; if he did not complete it, there is no atonement. According to Rabbi Akiva, the verse itself establishes that the services are indispensable.
Rav Pappa therefore explains that the comparison between the communal bull and the bull of Yom Kippur is not needed to teach that the blood applications are indispensable. That is learned from “when he has completed the atonement.” The comparison is needed for three laws: the laws of a foreign substance on the finger, the required quantity of blood, and dipping the finger into the blood.
What is the law of a foreign substance? If the priest has a wart on his finger and dips the finger into the blood, one might think that the wart creates an interposition between the finger and the blood. The comparison teaches that it is not considered an interposition. Just as a wart does not invalidate the service in the case of the communal bull, it does not invalidate the service on Yom Kippur.
The second law concerns the quantity of blood. When the blood is received in the vessel, it must contain enough blood for dipping. It is not sufficient for the priest to receive a small amount in several vessels and combine them later. Each vessel must contain the required quantity when the blood is received.
The third law concerns the act of dipping itself. The priest must actually dip his finger into the blood. It is not sufficient for some blood to remain on the side of the vessel and for the priest merely to smear his finger against it. The Torah’s wording teaches both that the vessel must initially contain the quantity required for dipping and that the priest must perform an actual dipping.
Had the Torah mentioned only the blood, one might have thought that it is enough for the vessel to contain the required quantity, even if the priest does not actually dip his finger. By mentioning the act of dipping as well, the Torah teaches both requirements: there must be a sufficient quantity in the vessel, and the priest must dip his finger into it.
The Gemara then returns to the comparison involving the inner altar. The passage concerning the anointed priest says that the blood is placed on the inner altar before God. The Gemara explains that this refers to the incense altar, whose primary purpose is to receive the incense every morning and afternoon. The altar is inaugurated through the offering of incense.
Accordingly, sprinkling the blood on the inner altar does not take effect until incense has been offered on it at least once. That first offering of incense constitutes its inauguration. The Gemara then returns to the expression “for the bull” and explains that it refers to the bull of Yom Kippur, teaching that the three laws of the foreign substance, the required quantity of blood, and dipping apply there as well.
A teaching is brought in support of Rav Pappa’s explanation. The verse says, “For the bull, as he did with the first.” The word “for” comes to include the bull of Yom Kippur, so that everything stated in the relevant passage concerning the communal bull applies to it. This includes the laws of the foreign substance, the quantity of blood, and dipping.
Rabbi Yishmael disagrees. He says that there is no need to derive the laws of the bull of Yom Kippur from the expression “for the bull.” He knows them through an argument from the less stringent to the more stringent. If two offerings that are not the same type of animal nevertheless have the same procedures, then certainly two offerings that are the same type of animal should have the same procedures.
The Gemara asks what two offerings Rabbi Yishmael has in mind. Perhaps he is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur. They are different species, yet their procedures are the same. If so, it would follow that the bull of Yom Kippur and the communal bull, which are both bulls, should certainly have the same procedures.
The Gemara rejects that proof. The bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur have a special feature in common: their blood enters the innermost chamber, the Holy of Holies. Perhaps their procedures are the same because of that shared feature. One cannot necessarily use them to establish the laws of the communal bull and the bull of Yom Kippur.
The Gemara offers another possibility: perhaps the two offerings are the communal bull and the goat brought for idolatry. They are different species, yet they have similar procedures. The communal bull is brought for a known communal transgression, and the goat for idolatry is also brought for a known transgression. Perhaps their procedures are similar because their atonement is for a specifically identified sin.
That comparison is also rejected. The communal bull and the goat for idolatry atone for a known sin, whereas the bull and goat of Yom Kippur atone for sins in general. The shared feature between the communal bull and the goat for idolatry could therefore be the nature of the sin for which they atone, and one cannot necessarily derive from them the laws of Yom Kippur.
The Gemara ultimately explains that the two offerings compared by Rabbi Yishmael are the communal bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. Although they are different species, the procedures written concerning them are the same: the blood is sprinkled on the curtain, placed on the horns of the inner altar, and applied with the priest’s finger. Since a bull and a goat have the same procedures, certainly two bulls—the communal bull and the bull of Yom Kippur—should have the same procedures.
Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael does not need the expression “for the bull” to teach that the bull of Yom Kippur follows the laws of the communal bull. He derives that through the argument from the less stringent to the more stringent. He uses the expression “for the bull” to teach the laws of the foreign substance, the quantity of blood, and dipping.
Rashi emphasizes that the comparison concerns the procedures that are shared by the two offerings, not the procedures in which they differ. The blood of both is applied to the curtain, both are applied to the horns of the inner altar, and in both cases the priest applies the blood with his finger. Those shared procedures establish the comparison.
The Gemara then makes a further argument. Once we know that the bull of Yom Kippur has the laws of the communal bull, including the laws of the foreign substance, the quantity of blood, and dipping, we can apply another argument from the less stringent to the more stringent. The goat for idolatry and the goat of Yom Kippur are the same type of animal, so their laws should be similar as well.
The Gemara objects that there is a special rule in the laws of offerings: once a matter has been derived through a comparison, can one continue and derive another matter from it through an argument from the less stringent to the more stringent? Perhaps once the goat for idolatry has been connected to the communal bull through a comparison, the chain of derivations must stop.
The Gemara answers that in this case the further argument is permitted. The expression “for the bull” makes the comparison explicit, as though the law had been stated directly. Ordinarily, one may not derive from a matter that itself was derived through a comparison, but here the additional wording treats the first law as explicit. It is therefore possible to use it as the basis for the subsequent argument concerning the goat of Yom Kippur.
The Gemara then asks why the expression “for the bull” is needed at all. It appears in the passage concerning the communal bull, so perhaps it should simply refer back to that same bull. The Gemara answers that the expression is an additional teaching concerning the communal bull itself. It makes the comparison to the anointed priest explicit, allowing that comparison to serve as the basis for deriving the law of the goat for idolatry.
A baraita supports Rav Pappa. The verse says, “It shall be done as he did,” and then asks what the expression “for the bull” teaches. The answer is that it includes the bull of Yom Kippur and teaches that all the matters stated in the passage apply to it. This is precisely Rav Pappa’s explanation: the expression establishes the laws of the foreign substance, the required quantity of blood, and dipping.
Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion is that the bull of Yom Kippur is known through the argument from the less stringent to the more stringent, so the expression “for the bull” is available for the other laws. The difference between the opinions is therefore not necessarily the final practical result, but the source from which the result is derived.
The Gemara then asks about an apparent contradiction. Earlier, the expression “for the bull” was interpreted as referring to the bull of Yom Kippur. Now another teaching interprets it as referring to the communal bull itself. The Gemara explains that the expression is written in the passage concerning the communal bull, but it serves to make the comparison explicit. Once the comparison is explicit, it can be used to derive the laws of the other offerings without creating a forbidden double comparison.
A further baraita is cited. In the passage concerning the goat for idolatry, the Torah says “their sin,” while in the passage concerning the communal bull it says “their error.” The similarity between these expressions creates a comparison. Just as, with the communal bull, the blood that remains after the applications is poured on the altar, so too, with the goat for idolatry, the blood that remains is poured on the altar.
The Gemara asks how we know that the communal bull requires the remaining blood to be poured on the altar. That law was itself derived through a comparison to the offering of the anointed priest. The answer is that the expression “for the bull” makes the earlier comparison explicit. Although the requirement was initially derived through a comparison, the additional expression establishes it as though it were written directly, allowing it to be used in the further comparison to the goat for idolatry.
The Gemara then asks why another comparison is needed. The passage concerning the communal bull already includes an expression that compares it to the goat for idolatry. Once that comparison has been made, why is it necessary to use the expression “for the bull” as well?
The answer is that the earlier comparison might have been understood narrowly. It could have taught only the matters explicitly stated in the passage, such as the applications of the blood. The additional wording teaches that even matters not stated explicitly in the passage are included. Thus, the blood remaining after the applications must also be poured on the altar.
We then return to the earlier discussion of the expression “for the bull” and the dispute between the first opinion and Rabbi Yishmael. The first opinion understands the expression as including the bull of Yom Kippur in all matters stated in the passage. Rabbi Yishmael does not need that derivation for the general procedures, because he derives them through the comparison between offerings of different species. He uses the expression for the three specific laws: the foreign substance, the required quantity of blood, and dipping.
The students ask why the Torah explicitly mentions the requirement that the remaining blood be poured on the altar in the section concerning the anointed priest, but does not state it explicitly in the section concerning the communal bull. The Gemara gives a parable involving a king and a city that rebelled against him.
If only one individual in the city rebels, the king’s relationship with the city remains intact. The city as a whole has not rebelled; only one person has sinned. If, however, the majority of the city rebels, the relationship between the king and the city is fundamentally damaged. The king no longer relates to the city in the same way.
The parable corresponds to the distinction between the sin of the anointed priest and the sin of the community. When the anointed priest sins individually, the larger community has not sinned, and the relationship between the King and the community remains. Therefore, the verse uses the expression “the holy curtain.” When the community as a whole sins, the connection represented by that holiness is weakened, and the Torah omits the word “holy.”
The Gemara clarifies that the omission does not mean that the Divine Presence has entirely departed. Rather, it indicates a difference in the degree of the relationship and holiness. When the majority of the community sins, there are consequences, and the holiness is diminished or withdrawn in some respect, but this does not contradict the broader presence of holiness.