The 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. (1) ‘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? (2) — 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. (3) R. Judah said: It is unnecessary, [for] surely it says, [which] is in the tent of meeting, (4) [intimating,] upon all which is mentioned in the tent of meeting. (5) Now, how does R. Judah employ [the text], so shall he do? (6) 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, (7) whence [then] do we know it? From the text, So shall he do. (8) 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.’ (9) — It is necessary: You might think that it applies only to a service which is indispensable for atonement; (10) but as for a service which is not indispensable for atonement, I would agree that it is not so. (11) Hence he informs us [otherwise]. Now, how does R. Simeon employ this [phrase] ‘in the tent of meeting’? — He utilizes it [as teaching] that if the ceiling of the Hekal was broken, [the priest] did not sprinkle. (12) And the other? (13) — [He deduces it] from ‘which is’. (14) And the other? (15) — 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? (16) — 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; (17) but as for the rites performed in the white vestments without, if not performed in correct order, (18) what he has done is done. (19) 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? (20) Surely it was taught: And he shall make an end of atoning for the holy place, [and the tent of meeting, and the altar]: (21) if he atoned, (22) he made an end; (23) 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? (24) Rather said R. Papa: It (25) is required only in respect of [deductions from] the eth and [those relating to] the blood and the dipping. (26) ‘Eth’: R. Aha b. Jacob said: That is required only to teach that

---

(1). ↑ 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.
(2). ↑ Why is an additional text required to show 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.
(3). ↑ 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.
(4). ↑ Lev. IV, 7, 18.
(5). ↑ I.e., upon all the horns which Scripture prescribed for the altar in the tent of meeting.
(6). ↑ Why this repetition?
(7). ↑ 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.
(8). ↑ 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.
(9). ↑ 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’?
(10). ↑ Only those services are included, since Scripture adds, And the priest shall make atonement for them.
(11). ↑ 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.
(12). ↑ Because it is no longer the ‘tent’ (of meeting).
(13). ↑ R. Judah; whence does he know this?
(14). ↑ Which he regards as superfluous.
(15). ↑ R. Simeon: how does he interpret ‘which is’?
(16). ↑ Lev. XVI, 29: And it shall be a statute for ever unto you — which implies that all the prescribed rites are essential!
(17). ↑ His service is invalid.
(18). ↑ Lit., ‘one before the other.’
(19). ↑ It is valid; v. Yoma 60a.
(20). ↑ That R. Judah learns the indispensable character of the four sprinklings from the present text.
(21). ↑ Lev. XVI, 20.
(22). ↑ 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.
(23). ↑ 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.
(24). ↑ 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.
(25). ↑ The text ‘with the bullock’.
(26). ↑ 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.