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 from the outset. The priest must initially collect in the vessel enough blood for all the sprinklings, rather than adding blood to the vessel for each sprinkling. Finally, the term “and the priest shall immerse his finger in the blood” indicates that there must be enough blood in the vessel such that the priest can immerse his finger in it and not have to wipe the sides of the utensil to collect blood for sprinkling.

The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for the verse to state both these last two terms. It had to write “in the blood,” as had the Merciful One 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 outset, but only enough for a single sprinkling, provided that the priest then added more blood to the vessel for each sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “in the blood” to teach that from the outset there must be enough blood in the vessel for all the sprinklings.

And conversely, had the Merciful One 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. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “and the priest shall immerse.”

The Gemara 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 the Lord” (Leviticus 4:7). Why do I need the verse to mention the sweet incense? It would have been enough to identify the altar as being “before the Lord” and one would have understood that the reference is to the inner altar. Rather, this serves to teach that if the altar had not been inaugurated with sweet incense, the priest would not sprinkle blood on it.

The Gemara 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 three halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion, from the case of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is also alluded to in that verse. The baraita states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:20). What is the meaning when the verse states “with the bull”? This serves to include the bull of Yom Kippur for all that is stated in this matter, i.e., in the passage concerning the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, specifically the halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Rabbi Yishmael said: This inclusion is unnecessary, as these halakhot can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering of a different type of animal, the Torah equated the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering with the actions of the blood in the other offering, as will be explained, in a case in which the Torah equated one offering with another offering, i.e., the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and the bull of Yom Kippur, isn’t it logical that the Torah should equate the actions of sprinkling the blood in the one offering with the actions of the blood in the other offering? Therefore, the derivation by way of a special inclusion is not necessary.

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering”? 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. And the verse serves to teach that just as in the first case, if the priest omitted one of the sprinklings, he has done nothing, the same is true in the second case.

The Gemara clarifies the baraita. The Master said above: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering. What is the meaning of the expression: One offering is not equated with another offering? Which offerings are not brought from the same type of animal, but nevertheless the halakhot governing the sprinkling of their blood are the same?

If we say that Rabbi Yishmael is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur, and from them he derives by way of an a fortiori inference that the actions concerning the bull of Yom Kippur are the same as those concerning the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which are the same animal, this can be refuted as follows: What is notable about these offerings, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur? They are notable in that their blood enters the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies. This is not so of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the blood of which is sprinkled only in the outer area of the Sanctuary.

Rather, say that the reference here is to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. But once again this claim can be refuted: What is notable about these offerings? They are notable in that they both atone for the known transgressions of a mitzva, whereas the bull of Yom Kippur atones for unknown transgressions (see Shevuot 2a).

Rather, the reference here is to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goat of Yom Kippur, and this is what Rabbi Yishmael is saying: Just as in a case in which one offering is not equated with another offering, as this is a bull and that is a goat, nevertheless the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering are equated with the actions of the blood in the other offering with regard to that which is written concerning it, in a case in which one offering is equated with another offering, i.e., the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and the bull of Yom Kippur, as this is a bull and that is a bull, isn’t it logical