Zevachim 50a (נ.) — the Talmud in English

We learned this

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

[above, 41a], and there we established that this was indeed his view.

However, it is uncertain:

Can a matter learned through a hekesh be used to teach through a binyan av,

that is, through a bameh matzinu?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Let us see: If you say that it can be used to teach further,

the Torah should not have written “northward” with regard to an asham; rather, let it be derived through a binyan av from a sin-offering.

Rather,

for what halakhic purpose did it write it

—the requirement of the north side—with regard to an asham?

Is it not to say that a matter learned through a hekesh cannot be used to teach through a binyan av?

And a sin-offering is learned through a superior hekesh with regard to the north side, and therefore it cannot in turn teach the requirement of the north side for an asham through a binyan av.

We challenge Rabbi Yirmeya:

According to your reasoning,

that it would have been possible to derive the law of an asham from a sin-offering were it not for the principle that it “cannot be used to teach further,” still,

let it be derived

that the asham requires the north side

through a superior binyan av,

as the requirement of the north side is written explicitly with regard to the burnt-offering?

Rather, necessarily,

why does it not come

from the burnt-offering, which is superior?

Because there is grounds to refute the derivation: What is special about a burnt-offering,

that it requires the north side,

namely,

that it is a burnt-offering

entirely

consumed on the altar, unlike an asham. And if so,

from a sin-offering as well

it is impossible to derive the requirement of the north side for an asham through a binyan av, because

there is grounds to refute the derivation: What is special about a sin-offering? It atones for those liable to karet,

whereas an asham does not; and not because it cannot be used to teach further. Therefore, one cannot resolve our question from here.

The problem thus remains unresolved: Can a matter learned through a hekesh be used to teach through a binyan av? With this, all the aspects of the principle of the hekesh have been completed.

The Gemara further discusses the matter of the north side: Why was the requirement of the north side written with regard to the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, and the asham?

Granted,

one cannot be derived from one

, as was explained; but why can

one not be derived from two,

and why was it necessary to write three verses?

And we answer: Because there is grounds for a refutation—

from where would you derive

one from two? If you say,

the Merciful One should not have written

the requirement of the north side

with regard to the burnt-offering

, but only with regard to the sin-offering and the asham,

and let the burnt-offering be derived

from the sin-offering and the asham,

there is grounds to refute the derivation:

What is special about these,

that they provide atonement;

would you say the same with regard to a burnt-offering, which does not provide atonement? [Although a burnt-offering atones for failure to fulfill a positive mitzva, its atonement is not considered significant in comparison with the atonement of a sin-offering and an asham.]

And if you say,

the Merciful One should not have written

the requirement of the north side

with regard to the sin-offering, and let it be derived from these,

from the burnt-offering and the asham, there is grounds to refute the derivation:

What is special about these, that they are males;

would you say the same with regard to a sin-offering, which is brought only as a female, either a ewe or a she-goat?

And if you say,

the requirement should not have been written with regard to the asham, and let it be derived from these

—from the burnt-offering and the sin-offering—there is grounds to refute the derivation:

What is special about these, that they are found both as communal offerings and as individual offerings;

would you say the same with regard to an asham, which the community does not bring?

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

And now we return to explain those principles concerning whether a matter “can be used to teach further.”

A matter learned through a gzera shava—

can it be used to teach through a hekesh?

Rav Pappa said: It was taught:

It is stated,

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

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

that a

offering

of thanksgiving

that comes from

second-

tithe

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

because we find that peace-offerings come from

second-

tithe

money, and the thanksgiving-offering was equated with the peace-offerings. Rav Pappa analyzes this:

The peace-offerings themselves—from where do we know

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

as it is written

with regard to peace-offerings, “And you shall slaughter 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 cause His Name to dwell

there,

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:

We are asking about this with regard to consecrated offerings, whereas

grain tithe—

is ordinary unconsecrated property.

Since the consecrated matter that was learned was derived from unconsecrated property, its status is like that of unconsecrated property, and it can in turn teach through a hekesh with regard to another consecrated matter. Therefore, this does not resolve the question of whether a matter learned through a gzera shava from one consecrated matter can in turn teach through a hekesh with regard to another consecrated matter!?

He said to him

Ravina said to Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari: Is it the case that

the one who stated this said

[that is, is it the case that the one who raised the question said] that both the matter being

learned

must be

consecrated

and the matter that

teaches

must be

consecrated

in order for us to raise the question of its status when it in turn teaches through a hekesh? But his question was: A consecrated matter learned through a gzera shava—can it in turn teach through a hekesh, whether the first matter that taught it was consecrated or whether it was unconsecrated? If so, Rav Pappa properly proved from the fact that we derive the thanksgiving-offering from the peace-offerings through a hekesh, after we had learned the law of peace-offerings from second tithe through a gzera shava, that even with regard to consecrated offerings we say that a matter learned through a gzera shava can in turn teach through a hekesh.

We further consider these principles:

A

consecrated matter

learned through a gzera shava—can it teach through a gzera shava?

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

“of scalded fine flour,”

and from here

we learned that the boiled loaves 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 superior fine flour and not from ordinary flour?

The verse states a gzera shava:

“loaves”—

“loaves,”

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

The 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 the word “unleavened” is stated both with regard to the wafers and with regard to the loaves. If so, it is proven that the loaves, which are a matter learned through a gzera shava from the boiled loaves [which come from fine flour], in turn teach through a gzera shava with regard to the wafers, that they too must come from fine flour.

Ravina said to him: From where

do you know that the wafers come from fine flour because of the gzera shava

“unleavened”—

“unleavened”

from the loaves?

Perhaps

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

oven-baked meal-offering that it is derived, as fine flour is explicitly mentioned there, and they are not learned through a gzera shava from another passage at all. If so, there is no proof that a matter learned through a gzera shava can in turn teach through a gzera shava.

because fine flour is explicitly mentioned there, and they are not learned through a derivation based on an identical expression from another passage at all. If so, there is no proof that a matter learned through a derivation based on an identical expression can then teach another matter through a derivation based on an identical expression.

Rather, Rava said: It was 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 waste. And he shall take out

the entire bull to outside the camp.”

This teaches that he takes it out

when the bull is

whole,

and not when it has been cut into pieces, because “and he shall take out” indicates one act of taking out; if it has been cut into pieces, it cannot be taken out all at once.

One might have thought that he burns 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 elsewhere

[above], with regard to the burnt-offering,

“its head and its legs,”

and we derive through a gzera shava:

Just as there

the burning of the burnt-offering is performed

by means of cutting it into pieces,

as is stated with regard to the burnt-offering, “And he shall cut it into its pieces,”

so too here

the burning of the bull of the anointed priest is performed

by means of cutting it into pieces,

for after he takes it out whole, he cuts it into pieces and burns it in that state.

If, just as there

with regard to the burnt-offering, it is

after flaying,

as he removes the hide of the burnt-offering and burns it without the hide,

so too here, after flaying,

he must remove the hide of the bull and burn it while flayed—

the verse states: “And its innards and its waste.”

And we ask:

What is the proof?

How does “and its innards and its waste” teach that the hide is not removed?

And we explain:

Rav Pappa said: Just as its waste

—the waste of the bull at the time of its burning—

is in its innards,

as they do not remove the waste outside to burn it separately, because it is disgraceful to remove it and burn it openly,

so its flesh

will be

in its hide

at the time of the burning, for the burning of its hide and flesh is equated with the burning of its innards and waste, 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 waste.”

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

with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

“hide and flesh and waste,”

[“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.”]