Study Zevachim folio 40B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
service performed by a priest who has a wart or blister on his finger. These are not considered an interposition between his finger and the blood. With regard to the term “in the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), this teaches that the blood in the service vessel must be of a sufficient measure for immersion
The Talmud explains: And it was necessary for the verse to state both these last two terms. It had to write “in the blood,” as had God written only “and the priest shall immerse,” I would say that the sprinklings are valid even if there was not a sufficient measure of blood for immersion from the ou
And conversely, had God written only “in the blood,” I would say that even if there was enough blood in the vessel at the outset it is not necessary that there be enough blood for immersion for the last sprinklings, as the priest can wipe the sides of the utensil to collect blood for sprinkling. The
The Talmud addresses another apparently superfluous phrase in the same chapter: “And the priest shall put some of the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before YHWH” (Leviticus 4:7). Why do I need the verse to mention the sweet incense? It would have been enough to identify the alt
The Talmud comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa that the superfluous phrase in the passage discussing the bull for an unwitting communal sin alludes to the bull of Yom Kippur in order to teach the 3 halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion, from the case