Zevachim 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

And it is stated below

in the bull of the anointed priest:

“skin, flesh, and refuse,”

to teach us, through the gzera shava of “skin, flesh, and refuse,”

that just as below,

in the bull of the anointed priest, it is burned

by means of dissection

into sections—as we learned the requirement of dissection through a gzera shava from the burnt-offering—but

without flaying, so too here,

in the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, they are burned

by means of dissection,

but

without flaying.

And if so, it is proven that the dissection of the bull of the anointed priest, which is learned through a gzera shava from the burnt-offering, can in turn teach, through a gzera shava, the dissection of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur. From here we learn that a matter learned through a gzera shava can in turn teach through a gzera shava.

Now a question was raised before us:

Can a matter learned through a gzera shava teach through a kal va-homer?

And we resolve it: This matter can be learned through a

kal va-homer.

And if a hekesh, which does not teach from another hekesh,

as we said above,

according either to Rava or to Ravina,

nevertheless

teaches through a kal va-homer,

as we learned above

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael; a gzera shava, which teaches through a hekesh, according to Rav Pappa, who derives from “This is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings” that a gzera shava can in turn teach through a hekesh ]

[who learns from the verse “This is the law of the peace-offering” that an identical expression can in turn teach through a verbal analogy,]

should it not follow that it can teach through a kal va-homer?

We analyze this:

This works according to the one who accepts Rav Pappa’s principle that we follow the matter learned, and thus we properly derive from peace-offerings, which are sacred and are learned through a gzera shava from tithe, which is non-sacred, that even with regard to sacred matters a matter learned through a gzera shava can in turn teach through a hekesh ].

[that we follow the matter that was learned, and thus we properly learn from the peace-offerings—which are sacred and are learned through an identical expression from the tithe, which is ordinary—that even with regard to sacred matters, a matter learned through an identical expression can in turn teach through a verbal analogy].

But according to the one who does not accept Rav Pappa’s principle who holds that we follow the teaching source, and since the source teaching about peace-offerings is tithe, which is non-sacred, it is impossible to derive from it with regard to sacred matters, and Rav Pappa’s derivation is therefore unavailable ],

[who holds that we follow the source that teaches, and since the source teaching about the peace-offerings is the tithe, which is ordinary, it is impossible to learn from it with regard to sacred matters, and Rav Pappa’s teaching is therefore unavailable],

what can be said?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is how we derive it:

A kal va-homer

from a hekesh, that a gzera shava can in turn teach through a kal va-homer:

And if a hekesh, which does not teach through a hekesh,

as we learned above,

according either to Rava or to Ravina,

nevertheless

teaches through a kal va-homer,

as we learned

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

a gzera shava, which teaches through another gzera shava

that is analogous to it, as we learned

from Rami bar Hama, from “flour” and “loaves” ] and in this respect it is superior to a hekesh, which does not in turn teach through another analogous hekesh,

[from “fine flour”—loaves,] and in this respect it is superior to a verbal analogy, which cannot in turn teach through a verbal analogy comparable to it,

should it not follow that it can teach through a kal va-homer?

A further question was raised before us:

Can a matter learned through a gzera shava—

teach through a binyan av?

We did not resolve this question. Rather—

teyku.

With this, the Gemara concludes its discussion of all aspects of the rule of gzera shava. From here it proceeds to discuss the rule of kal va-homer:

A question was raised before us:

Can a matter learned through a kal va-homer teach through a hekesh?

And we resolve it: This is a

kal va-homer

itself:

And if a gzera shava, which is not learned from a hekesh,

as we learned

from Rabbi Yoḥanan,

nevertheless

teaches through a hekesh,

as we learned

from Rav Pappa,

then

a kal va-homer, learned from a hekesh that is, a matter learned through a hekesh that in turn teaches through a kal va-homer ], as we learned

[that is, a matter learned through a verbal analogy, which in turn teaches through an a-fortiori inference,] as we learned

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, should it not follow that it

in turn

teach through a hekesh?

This works according to the one who accepts Rav Pappa’s principle. But according to the one who does not accept Rav Pappa’s principle, what can be said?

And we conclude:

teyku.

A further question was raised before us:

Can a matter learned through a kal va-homer teach through a gzera shava?

And we resolve it:

A kal va-homer

itself

is involved: And if a gzera shava, which is not learned

from a matter learned

through a hekesh,

as we learned

from Rabbi Yoḥanan,

nevertheless

teaches

it

through a gzera shava,

as we learned

from Rami bar Hama, then a kal va-homer, learned

from a matter learned

through a hekesh,

as we learned

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, should it not follow that it

in turn

teach through a gzera shava?

A further question was raised before us:

Can a matter learned through a kal va-homer teach through a kal va-homer?

And we resolve it:

A kal va-homer

itself

is involved: And if a gzera shava, which is not learned

from a matter learned

through a hekesh,

as we learned

from Rabbi Yoḥanan,

nevertheless can in turn

teach through a kal va-homer, as we said

above, then

a kal va-homer, learned

from a matter learned

through a hekesh,

as we learned

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, should it not follow that it

in turn

teach through a kal va-homer?

And we say:

This is a kal va-homer that is the son of a kal va-homer!

That is, what we have now learned through a kal va-homer from a gzera shava—that a matter learned through a kal va-homer can in turn teach through a kal va-homer—is considered a doubled kal va-homer. For we knew that the gzera shava itself can in turn teach through a kal va-homer by means of a kal va-homer from a hekesh to a gzera shava.

We analyze this: If so, since the very teaching that a kal va-homer can in turn teach through a kal va-homer is derived through a kal va-homer from a gzera shava that in turn teaches through a kal va-homer from a hekesh, it is considered a doubled kal va-homer, called a “kal va-homer that is the son of a kal va-homer”—then when we now learn a matter through a kal va-homer from a matter learned through a kal va-homer, this will not be merely the “son” of a kal va-homer, but a kal va-homer

“that is the grandson of a kal va-homer.”

And if so, this presents a difficulty: From where do we know that one may extend the derivation and learn through such a kal va-homer, which is considered the “grandson” of a kal va-homer? Perhaps one may not derive through a kal va-homer to such an extent?

And we answer:

Rather,

do not say that we derive it through a kal va-homer from a gzera shava that itself requires a kal va-homer from a hekesh; rather, we derive a

kal va-homer

from a hekesh, for it is a received teaching of the Gemara that the hekesh itself in turn teaches through a kal va-homer.

And this is how we derive that a kal va-homer can in turn teach through a kal va-homer:

And if a hekesh, which is not learned

from a matter learned

through a hekesh,

as we learned above,

according either to Rava or to Ravina,

nevertheless in turn

teaches through a kal va-homer,

and this principle

from the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

we know to be a received teaching of the Gemara, then

a kal va-homer, learned

from a matter learned

through a hekesh,

as we learned from the

tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

we derive,

should it not follow

that it in turn

teach through a kal va-homer?

And this is merely a kal va-homer that is the son of a kal va-homer, for when we now come to derive some matter through a kal va-homer from a matter learned through a kal va-homer, this derivation will be based on a kal va-homer from a hekesh, while the hekesh itself was not learned through a kal va-homer.

A further question was raised before us:

Can a matter learned through a kal va-homer in turn

return and

teach through a binyan av?

And we resolve it:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Come and hear

from that which we learned below [69a]:

If one performs melika

on a consecrated bird

and it is found to be a tereifa,—

Rabbi Meir says:

Although its melika did not render it permitted for consumption, since it was found to be a tereifa, its melika is nevertheless considered like slaughter for the purpose of purifying it, so that it is not considered an animal carcass. Therefore,

it does not impart ritual impurity

to the person who eats it

in the throat for one who eats the carcass of a kosher bird becomes impure when the carcass is swallowed, whereas this is not a carcass ].

[for one who eats the carcass of a kosher bird becomes impure when the carcass enters his throat, whereas this is not a carcass].

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The slaughter or melika of a tereifa does not purify it; therefore, its carcass

imparts impurity

to the person who eats it

in the throat.

Rabbi Meir said:

The matter follows by

a kal va-homer:

It does not impart impurity like a carcass:

If the carcass of an animal,

whose impurity is severe,

imparts impurity through contact and carrying,

nevertheless

its slaughter purifies

even

its tereifa from its impurity, then the carcass of a kosher bird,

whose impurity is less severe,

as it does not impart impurity through contact or carrying

but only through eating, when it reaches the throat,

should it not follow that its slaughter

of the bird

purifies

even

its tereifa from its impurity?

And now, after we have learned through a kal va-homer from an animal with regard to a non-sacred bird that the slaughter of a tereifa purifies it, we derive through a binyan av with regard to the melika of consecrated birds: