## Zevachim Daf 41a

###### Zevachim 41a:1
[Zevachim 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:1)

שֶׁהוּשְׁווּ מַעֲשִׂים לְמַעֲשִׂים?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that** the **actions** of sprinkling the blood in one offering **are equated with** the **actions** of the blood in the other offering? The blood of the goat of Yom Kippur is sprinkled even inside the Holy of Holies, which is not so concerning the blood of the bull. Nevertheless, with regard to the sprinkling in the Sanctuary, which is common to both, their actions are performed in the same manner, with the blood being sprinkled with a finger on the Curtain and on the corners of the altar.


###### Zevachim 41a:2
[Zevachim 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:2)

וַאֲתָא לֵיהּ פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (נָמֵי) לְאֶת בְּדָם וּטְבִילָה מִפַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ; וְאָתֵי לֵיהּ שְׂעִיר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מִשְּׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** by means of this *a fortiori* inference the case of **the bull of Yom Kippur is derived from** the case of **the bull of** an unwitting sin of the **anointed priest, with regard to** the *halakhot* summarized by the words ***et*, in the blood, and immersion,** as they are both bulls. **And** likewise, the case of **the goat of Yom Kippur is derived from** the case of **the goats for** an unwitting communal sin of **idol worship,** with regard to the *halakhot* of *et*, in the blood, and immersion, **via** this ***a fortiori* inference,** as they are both goats.


###### Zevachim 41a:3
[Zevachim 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:3)

וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר?! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קָסָבַר תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can the *halakhot* of the goat of Yom Kippur be derived from the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship? **But does a matter derived by juxtaposition,** i.e., a *halakha* that is not written explicitly in the Torah but that is learned by means of a comparison, **again teach by *a fortiori*** inference? There is a principle that a *halakha* derived by juxtaposition with regard to consecrated matters cannot subsequently teach another *halakha* via an *a fortiori* inference. The *halakhot* alluded to by the words *et*, in the blood, and immersion, are not explicitly stated with regard to the goats of an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. Rather, they are derived from the comparison found in the verse: “And he shall do…as he did” (Leviticus 4:20), which alludes to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship and the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. **Rav Pappa said: The school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains** that **a matter derived by juxtaposition does again teach by *a fortiori*** inference, even with regard to consecrated matters.


###### Zevachim 41a:4
[Zevachim 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:4)

״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר. הָא בְּצִיבּוּר גּוּפֵיהּ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי אַגְמוֹרֵי פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר בְּיוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת, לִשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to analyze the statement of Rabbi Yishmael in the *baraita*: **“With the bull”; this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin.** The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this case by way of an exposition? **This** verse **itself is written in reference to** the bull for an unwitting **communal** sin. **Rav Pappa said:** The derivation is necessary **because** Rabbi Yishmael **wants** the case of the **bull for an unwitting communal sin to teach with regard to** the burning on the altar of the sacrificial portions, including the **diaphragm and** the **two kidneys,** that this obligation applies also **to the goats for** an unwitting communal sin of **idol worship,** despite the fact that this requirement is not stated with regard to them.


###### Zevachim 41a:5
[Zevachim 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:5)

וּפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר – בְּגוּפֵיהּ לָא כְּתִיב, בְּהֶיקֵּשָׁא אָתֵי; אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״לַפָּר״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa continues: **And** as the obligation to burn the diaphragm and the two kidneys on the altar is **not written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself,** but rather it is **derived by juxtaposition** from the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, in which this requirement is explictly stated (see Leviticus 4:8–9), it **was necessary** to include the bull for an unwitting communal sin once again with the term **“with the bull.”**


###### Zevachim 41a:6
[Zevachim 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:6)

לְמִיהְוֵי כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּגוּפֵיהּ, וְלָא לֶיהֱוֵי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: This derivation is required in order **that it should be as though** this *halakha* of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys **was written with regard to** the bull for an unwitting communal sin **itself. And** in this manner the derivation from this case, teaching the *halakha* in the case of the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, **should not be a matter derived by juxtaposition** that **again teaches by juxtaposition,** as such a derivation is not done with regard to consecrated matters.


###### Zevachim 41a:7
[Zevachim 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:7)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: ״וְעָשָׂה כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַפָּר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Pappa: “And he shall do** with the bull, **as he did”** (Leviticus 4:20); **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “With the bull”?** It is clear that this verse is referring to the bull.


###### Zevachim 41a:8
[Zevachim 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:8)

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵם הֵבִיאוּ אֶת קׇרְבָּנָם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳ וְגוֹ׳״; ״חַטָּאתָם״ – אֵלּוּ שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, ״שִׁגְגָתָם״ – זֶה פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר, ״חַטָּאתָם עַל שִׁגְגָתָם״ – אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: חַטָּאתָם הֲרֵי הִיא לָךְ כְּשִׁגְגָתָם;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: **Because it is stated** with regard to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship: **“And they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord,** and their sin offering before the Lord for their error” (Numbers 15:25), and this verse is interpreted as follows: **“Their sin offering”; these are the goats for** an unwitting communal sin of **idol worship,** alluded to in that passage. **“Their error”; this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin,** which is brought for an inadvertent transgression of the community. The juxtaposition of these offerings in the verse: **“Their sin offering…for their error,”** indicates that the **Torah** means to **say: Their sin offering is for you like their error,** i.e., all the portions consumed on the altar in the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin are also burned on the altar in the case of the goats for an unwitting sin of idol worship.


###### Zevachim 41a:9
[Zevachim 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:9)

שִׁגְגָתָם מֵהֵיכָן לָמַדְתָּ – לֹא בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ? וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the offering brought for **their error,** i.e., the bull for an unwitting communal sin, **from where did you learn** this *halakha*? Was it **not via juxtaposition** from the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, as the diaphragm and the two kidneys are not explicitly mentioned with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin? **But** this is difficult, as **does a matter derived via juxtaposition again teach via juxtaposition?**


###### Zevachim 41a:10
[Zevachim 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:10)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר, ״לְפַר״ – זֶה פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states:** “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:20). With regard to the first instance of **“with the bull,” this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin.** And with regard to the second instance of **“with the bull,” this is the bull for** an unwitting sin of the **anointed priest.** Due to this juxtaposition, it is as though the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys was explicitly written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and therefore the *halakha* can be taught by juxtaposition with regard to the goats for an unwitting sin of idol worship, as stated by Rav Pappa.


###### Zevachim 41a:11
[Zevachim 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/41a:11)

אָמַר מָר: ״חַטָּאתָם״ – אֵלּוּ שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִקְּרָא קַמָּא, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״הַחַטָּאת״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הַזָּאוֹת – דִּכְתִיבָן בְּגוּפֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the previous *baraita*. **The Master said** above: **“Their sin offering,” these are** the **goats for** an unwitting communal sin of **idol worship,** which are juxtaposed in this verse to the bull for an unwitting communal sin. The Gemara asks: But **let** the *tanna* **derive this from the earlier verse** stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, **as the Master said** in the *baraita* cited earlier (39b): **“A sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:20), this serves **to include the goats for** an unwitting communal sin of **idol worship. Rav Pappa said:** This derivation **was necessary,** as if there were only the juxtaposition from Leviticus 4:20, it would **enter your mind to say: This matter** applies only to the acts of **sprinkling, which are written with regard to** the bull for an unwitting communal sin **itself.**