Dip the Finger in the Blood and Do Not Wipe It

"And he shall dip"—and not wipe. And it was necessary to write "and he shall dip," and it was necessary to write "in the blood." For had the Merciful One written only "and he shall dip," I would have said it applies even when there is not the measure of a dipping from the outset; therefore the Merciful One wrote "in the blood." And had the Merciful One written only "in the blood," I would have said even by wiping; therefore the Merciful One wrote "and he shall dip." Why do I need "the altar of the incense of spices" (above, verse 7)? To teach that if the altar had not been dedicated with the incense of spices, one would not sprinkle. It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa: "And he shall do as he did"—what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? To include the bull of the Day of Atonement for all that is stated in the matter, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: it is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If in a place where one offering was not equated to another offering, the rites were nonetheless equated to the rites, then in a place where one offering was equated to another offering, is it not right that the rites be equated to the rites? Rather, what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? This is the bull of the matter of a forgotten ruling of the community. "As he did to the bull"—this is the bull of the anointed priest. What is meant by "one offering was not equated to another offering"? The bull of a forgotten ruling and the goats of the Day of Atonement; and this is what it says: just as in a place where one offering was not equated to another (this being a bull and that a goat) the rites were equated to the rites for what is written of them, so in a place where one offering was equated to another (this a bull and that a bull) is it not right that the rites be equated to the rites for what is written of them? And does a matter learned by analogy turn and teach by an argument from lesser to greater? Yes. "To the bull"—this is the bull of a forgotten ruling; but that is written in its own case! Rav Pappa said: because one needs to teach about the bull of a forgotten ruling of the community concerning the lobe and the two kidneys to the idolatry goats, and the bull of a forgotten ruling, of which it is not written, comes by analogy, "to the bull" was needed so that it should be as though written in its own case, so that a matter learned by analogy should not turn and teach by analogy. It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa: "And he shall do as he did"—what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? Since it is said (Numbers 15:25), "And they shall bring their offering, a fire-offering to the LORD, and their sin-offering," "their sin-offering" refers to the idolatry goats, "their error" is the bull of a forgotten ruling, and "their sin-offering for their error" means the Torah said: their sin-offering shall be to you like their error. And error, from where did you learn it? By analogy; and a matter learned by analogy turns and teaches by analogy. Rather, what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? This is the bull of a forgotten ruling; "to the bull," this is the bull of the anointed priest. The Master said: "their sin-offering" refers to the idolatry goats; derive it from the first verse, for the Master said "the sin-offering" refers to the idolatry goats. Rav Pappa said: it was necessary, for it might enter your mind to say these matters apply to the sprinklings written in its own case, but the lobe and the two kidneys, of which it is not written in its own case, say not; it teaches us otherwise. Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said to Rav Pappa: but this teacher says "to include the bull of the Day of Atonement for all that is stated in the matter"! It is a dispute among teachers: the teacher of the school of Rav includes in this way, and the teacher of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not include in this way.