Zevachim 50a — the Talmud in English

We learned this

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael

[above, 41a], and there we established this according to his view.

However, it is necessary to inquire:

what is the status of a matter learned through a hekesh: can it teach through a binyan av,

that is, through “what do we find”?

Rabbi Yirmeya said

let us examine it: If you say that it returns and teaches,

the northern side should not have been written with regard to an asham, and it should be derived through a binyan av from a chatat.

Rather,

for what halakhic purpose did it write it

the northern side with regard to an asham?

Is it not to say that a matter learned through a hekesh does not return and teach through a binyan av?

And the chatat was learned through a superior hekesh with regard to the northern side, and therefore it does not return and teach with regard to an asham through a binyan av.

And we raised an objection to Rabbi Yirmeya:

But according to your reasoning,

that it would have been possible to learn the asham from the chatat had it not been for the reason that “it does not return and teach,” still

let it come

the northern side with regard to an asham

through a superior binyan av,

as the northern side is written with regard to it itself?

Rather, necessarily,

what is the reason it does not come

from the ola,

because there is room to refute it: what is special about the ola

that it requires the northern side,

for it is

an ola

entirely

for the altar, which is not so with an asham. And if so,

from a chatat as well

it is impossible to learn the northern side with regard to an asham through a binyan av, because

there is room to refute it: what is special about the chatat, for it atones for those liable for karet,

and not because it does not return and teach. And you cannot resolve our question from here.

And the problem remained without being resolved: whether a matter learned through a hekesh returns and teaches through a binyan av. With this, all the aspects of the principle of hekesh have been completed.

The Gemara further discusses the matter of the northern side: Why was the law of the northern side written with regard to the ola as well as with regard to the chatat and with regard to the asham?

It is understandable that

one cannot be derived from one,

as was explained; but why can one not

be derived from two,

and why were we required to write three verses?

And we answer: Because there is room to refute it:

from what

could one derive one from two? If you say,

let the Merciful One not write

the law of the northern side

with regard to the ola

but only with regard to the chatat and the asham,

and let the ola come

from the

chatat and asham,

there is room to refute it:

what is special about these, for they atone;

can you say this with regard to an ola, which does not atone [and although an ola atones for failure to fulfill a positive commandment, its atonement is not considered significant in comparison with the atonement of a chatat and an asham]?

And if you say,

let the Merciful One not write

the law of the northern side

with regard to the chatat, and let it come from these,

from the ola and the asham, there is room to refute it:

what is special about these, for they are males;

can you say this with regard to a chatat, which comes only as a female, either a ewe or a she-goat?

And if you say,

let it not be written with regard to the asham, and let it come from these

from the ola and the chatat, there is room to refute it:

what is special about these, for they exist both in the community and in the individual;

can you say this with regard to an asham, which the community does not bring as an offering?

Therefore, it was necessary to write the law of the northern side with regard to all three offerings.

And now we return to explain those principles of “returning and teaching.”

A matter learned through a gzera shava —

what is the status of its teaching through a hekesh?

Rav Pappa said: It is taught:

It is stated,

“And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings; if he offers it for a thanksgiving-offering,” we learned

from here, from the hekesh of the thanksgiving-offering to the peace-offerings,

that a

sacrifice of

thanksgiving

that comes from

money of

second tithe

[is permitted]. That is, if he specified at the time of his vow that he would bring the thanksgiving-offering from money of second tithe, he is permitted to do so. And this is

because we find that peace-offerings come from

money of

second

tithe, and the thanksgiving-offering was juxtaposed to the peace-offerings. And Rav Pappa deduces:

As for the peace-offerings themselves, from where do we know

that they come from money of second tithe? Because we learned the peace-offerings through a gzera shava from second tithe,

as it is written

with regard to peace-offerings, “And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings and eat

there,”

and it is also written with regard to second tithe, “And you shall eat before the Lord your God in the place that He will choose to rest His Name

there, the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil.” And it is demonstrated that a matter learned through a gzera shava returns and teaches through a hekesh.

the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil.” This proves that a matter learned through a gzera shava can in turn teach through a hekesh.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina:

It is the matter of consecrated property about which we have a question, whereas

the grain tithe —

is ordinary unconsecrated property.

And since the consecrated matter that was learned was learned from unconsecrated property, its law is like the law of unconsecrated property, and it does return and teach through a hekesh with regard to another consecrated matter, because the beginning of the learning is from unconsecrated property. Therefore, it is impossible to resolve the problem whether a matter of consecrated property learned through a gzera shava from consecrated property returns and teaches through a hekesh with regard to another consecrated matter!

He said to him

Ravina to Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari: And did

he say what he said [that is, did the one who said this say] that the matter

that is

learned

must be

consecrated

and that the matter

teaching

must also be

consecrated

in order to inquire what its law is if it returns and teaches through a hekesh? But his problem was: What is the status of a consecrated matter learned through a gzera shava—can it return and teach through a hekesh, whether the first matter teaching was consecrated or whether it was unconsecrated? And if so, Rav Pappa properly proved from the fact that we derive the thanksgiving-offering from the peace-offerings through a hekesh, after we learned the peace-offerings from second tithe through a gzera shava, that even with regard to consecrated property we say that a matter learned through a gzera shava returns and teaches through a hekesh.

And again we inquire concerning these principles:

A

consecrated matter

learned through a gzera shava—what is the status of its teaching through a gzera shava?

Rami bar Hama said: It is taught: The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are made from four kinds. Three kinds are unleavened, and one is leavened. The three kinds of unleavened loaves are: loaves, wafers, and boiled loaves [which are a loaf first boiled in water and afterward baked]. And it is stated with regard to the boiled loaves that they are to be made

It was taught in a baraita: The loaves of the thanksgiving offering consist of four types: three types of unleavened bread and one type of leavened bread. The three types of unleavened bread are loaves, wafers, and boiled loaves [which are first cooked in water and then baked]. And it is stated that the boiled loaves must be made as

“boiled fine flour,”

and from here

we learned with regard to the boiled loaves that they come from fine flour

and not from ordinary wheat flour.

With regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, from where

do we know that they too must come from the superior fine flour and not from flour?

The verse states a gzera shava:

“loaves” —

“loaves,”

as “loaves” is stated both with regard to the boiled loaves and with regard to the loaves.

Wafers

of the thanksgiving-offering,

from where

do we know that they too come from fine flour?

The verse states a gzera shava:

“unleavened” —

“unleavened,”

as “unleavened” is stated both with regard to the wafers and with regard to the loaves. And if so, it is demonstrated that the loaves, which are a matter learned through a gzera shava from the boiled loaves [which come from fine flour], return and teach through a gzera shava with regard to the wafers, that they too are required to come from fine flour.

Ravina said to him: From where

is it established that the fact that the wafers come from fine flour is because

“unleavened” —

“unleavened”

is a gzera shava

derived from the loaves? Perhaps

it is derived from the “unleavened” written with regard to the wafers of the

oven-baked meal-offering,

where fine flour is explicitly written, and they are not learned through a gzera shava from another place. And if so, you have no proof that a matter learned through a gzera shava returns and teaches through a gzera shava.

Rather, Rava said: It is taught: It is stated with regard to the bull of the anointed priest, “And the hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs

It was taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the bull offered by the anointed koen, the koen who served in the Temple in that capacity: “And the hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs,

and its innards and its refuse. And he shall take out

all the bull outside the camp.”

This teaches that he takes it out

the bull when it is

whole,

and not when it has been cut into pieces, because “and he shall take out” indicates one act of taking out, and if it is cut into pieces it is impossible to take it out all at once.

One might

burn it outside the camp when it is

whole? It is stated here,

with regard to the bull of the anointed priest, “its head and its legs,”

and it is stated there

[above], with regard to the ola,

“its head and its legs,”

and we derive through a gzera shava:

Just as there

the burning of the ola is performed

through dissection,

as is stated with regard to the ola, “and he shall dissect it into its pieces,”

so here

the burning of the bull of the anointed priest is performed

through dissection,

for after he takes it out while it is whole, he dissects it and burns it while dissected.

If so, just as there,

with regard to the ola,

through flaying,

where he flays the hide of the ola and burns it without the hide,

so here, through flaying,

that he should flay the hide of the bull and burn it while flayed —

the verse states: “and its innards and its refuse.”

And we are puzzled:

What is the teaching?

How does “and its innards and its refuse” teach that the hide is not flayed?

And we explain:

Rav Pappa said: Just as its refuse

of the bull at the time of burning is

in its innards,

for they do not take the refuse outside to burn it separately, because it is disgraceful to take it out and burn it in full view,

so its flesh

shall be

in its hide

at the time of burning, for the burning of its hide and flesh is juxtaposed to the burning of its innards and refuse, as it is written in this verse: “And the hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs, and its innards and its refuse.”

And it is taught: Rabbi says: It is stated here

with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

“hide and flesh and refuse” [“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to atone within the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their refuse”].

[“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their waste.”]