Zevachim 50b — the Talmud in English

And it is said below

in the bull of the anointed priest:

skin and flesh and dung,

to teach us by a gzera shava from “skin and flesh and dung”:

just as there

in the bull of the anointed priest they burn it

by means of dissection

into pieces—for we learned dissection by a gzera shava from the burnt-offering—but

not by flaying, so here too

in the bull and goat of the Day of Atonement they burn them

by means of dissection,

but

not by flaying.

And if so, it is proved that the dissection of the bull of the anointed priest, which is learned by a gzera shava from the burnt-offering, returns and teaches by a gzera shava concerning the dissection of the bull and goat of the Day of Atonement. And from here we learned that a matter learned by a gzera shava returns and teaches by a gzera shava.

Further, we raised a question:

A matter learned by a gzera shava—what is [the law]: can it teach by a kal va-homer?

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

kal va-homer.

And if an hekesh, which does not teach from an hekesh

as we said above,

either from Rav Dava or from Ravina,

nevertheless

teaches by a kal va-homer,

as we learned above

from the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael; a gzera shava, which teaches by an hekesh, according to Rav Pappa,

[who learns from “This is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offering” that a gzera shava returns and teaches by an hekesh]

is it not logical that it should teach by a kal va-homer?!

And we examine it:

This works well according to the one who holds Rav Pappa’s [principle]

[that we follow the subject taught, and it is properly learned from the peace-offerings, which are sacred and are learned by a gzera shava from the tithe, which is non-sacred; likewise, with regard to sacred matters we say that a matter learned by a gzera shava returns and teaches by an hekesh].

But according to the one who does not hold Rav Pappa’s [principle]

[who maintains that we follow the source teaching, and since the source teaching concerning the peace-offerings is the tithe, which is non-sacred, it is impossible to learn from it concerning sacred matters, and Rav Pappa’s teaching is absent],

what is there to say?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is how we learn it:

A kal va-homer

from an hekesh, that a gzera shava should return and teach by a kal va-homer:

And if an hekesh, which does not teach by an hekesh,

as we learned above,

either from Rav Dava or from Ravina,

nevertheless

teaches by a kal va-homer

as we learned

from the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

a gzera shava, which teaches by another gzera shava

which is like it, as we learned

from Rami bar Hama,

[from “meal-offering”—loaves], and in this it is superior to an hekesh, which does not return and teach by an hekesh like it,

is it not logical that it should teach by a kal va-homer?!

Further, we raised a question:

A matter learned by a gzera shava—

what is [the law]: can it teach by a binyan av?

And we did not resolve this question, rather—

teyku.

And with this the Gemara concludes the discussion of all the aspects of the measure of gzera shava. From now on it discusses the measure of kal va-homer:

We raised a question:

A matter learned by a kal va-homer—what is [the law]: can it teach by an hekesh?

And we resolve it: This is a

kal va-homer

:

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

as we learned

from Rabbi Yohanan,

nevertheless it

teaches by an hekesh

as we learned

from Rav Pappa,

then

a kal va-homer, learned from an hekesh

[that is: a matter learned by an hekesh, which returns and teaches by a kal va-homer], as we learned

from the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, is it not proper that it

return

and teach by an hekesh?!

This works well according to the one who holds Rav Pappa’s [principle]. But according to the one who does not hold Rav Pappa’s [principle], what is there to say?

And we conclude:

teyku.

Further, we raised a question:

A matter learned by a kal va-homer—what is [the law]: can it teach by a gzera shava?

And we resolve it:

A kal va-homer

it is:

And if a gzera shava, which is not learned

from a matter learned

by an hekesh,

as we learned

from Rabbi Yohanan,

nevertheless it

teaches

—

by a gzera shava,

as we learned

from Rami bar Hama. A kal va-homer, learned

from a matter learned

by an hekesh,

as we learned

from the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, is it not proper that it

return and

teach by a gzera shava?!

Further, we raised a question:

A matter learned by a kal va-homer—what is [the law]: can it teach by a kal va-homer?

And we resolve it:

A kal va-homer

it is:

And if a gzera shava, which is not learned

from a matter learned

by an hekesh,

as we learned

from Rabbi Yohanan,

nevertheless it returns and

teaches by a kal va-homer, as we said

above, then

a kal va-homer, learned

from a matter learned

from an hekesh,

as we learned

from the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, is it not proper that it

return and

teach by a kal va-homer?!

And we say:

And this is a kal va-homer derived from a kal va-homer!

That is: this which we have now learned by a kal va-homer from a gzera shava—that a matter learned by a kal va-homer can return and teach by a kal va-homer—this learning is considered a double kal va-homer, for the fact that the gzera shava itself returns and teaches by a kal va-homer we knew through a kal va-homer from an hekesh to a gzera shava.

And we examine it: If so, since the very teaching that a kal va-homer returns and teaches by a kal va-homer, which we learn by a kal va-homer from a gzera shava that returns and teaches by a kal va-homer from an hekesh, is considered a double kal va-homer, called “a kal va-homer derived from a kal va-homer,” then when we now learn a matter by a kal va-homer from a matter learned by a kal va-homer, this will not be merely a “son” of a kal va-homer, but rather a kal va-homer

“grandson” of a kal va-homer is.

And if so, the difficulty is: from where do we know that it is possible to extend and learn through such a learning of a kal va-homer, considered a “grandson” of a kal va-homer? Perhaps one may not expound by a kal va-homer to such an extent?

And we answer:

Rather,

do not say that we learn from a kal va-homer from a gzera shava that itself requires learning by a kal va-homer from an hekesh. Rather, we learn a

kal va-homer

from an hekesh, for the Gemara has it as a received teaching that it itself returns and teaches by a kal va-homer.

And this is how we learn that a kal va-homer returns and teaches by a kal va-homer:

And if an hekesh, which is not learned

from a matter learned

by an hekesh,

as we learned above,

either from Rav Dava or from Ravina,

nevertheless it returns

and teaches by a kal va-homer,

and this law

from the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

we know that it is a received teaching, then

a kal va-homer, learned

from a matter learned

from an hekesh,

just as we learned from the teaching of

the school of Rabbi Yishmael,

we learn,

is it not proper

that it return

and teach by a kal va-homer?!

And this is only a kal va-homer derived from a kal va-homer, for from now on, when we come to learn some matter by a kal va-homer from a matter learned by a kal va-homer, this learning will be based on a kal va-homer from an hekesh, while the hekesh itself is not learned by a kal va-homer.

Further, we raised a question:

A matter learned by a kal va-homer—what is

[the law]: may it return

and teach by a binyan av?

And we resolve it:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: ta shma,

from that which we learned below [69a]:

If one pinches

a consecrated bird

and it is found to be tereifa—

Rabbi Meir says:

Although its pinching did not render it permitted for eating, since it was found to be tereifa, its pinching is considered like slaughter for purifying it so that it should not be considered carrion. Therefore

it does not impart impurity

to the person who eats it

in the throat

[for one who eats the carrion of a kosher bird becomes impure through the swallowing of the carrion, but this is not carrion].

Rabbi Judah says:

The slaughter of a tereifa, or its pinching, does not purify it; therefore its carrion

imparts impurity

to the person who eats it

in the throat.

Rabbi Meir said:

The matter is a

kal va-homer

that it does not impart impurity like carrion:

And if the carrion of an animal,

whose impurity is severe,

which imparts impurity through contact and carrying,

nevertheless

its slaughter purifies

even

its tereifa from its impurity—the carrion of a kosher bird,

whose impurity is light,

which does not impart impurity through contact and carrying

but only through eating, when it reaches the throat,

is it not proper that its slaughter

of the bird

should purify

even

its tereifa from its impurity?

And now, after we have learned by a kal va-homer from an animal to a non-sacred bird that the slaughter of a tereifa purifies it, we learn by a binyan av concerning the pinching of consecrated birds: