וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש הימנו ודבר אחר הוא וכל הימנו ודבר אחר לא הוי היקש
become the basis for another inference to be made from it again by a hekkesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby it is sought to infer from the leavened cakes, by reason of the hekkesh implicit in vv. 12 and 13; that the unleavened cakes shall also consist of ten tenths. The rule is well established that in matters appertaining to sacrifice one may not draw an inference by a hekkesh from that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh. V. Zeb. 49b.');"><sup>4</sup></span> -[The original rule was derived] from itself and [from] something else,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original inference that the leavened cakes of the thank-offering shall consist of ten tenths, a tenth for every cake, was not entirely drawn from the case of the Two Loaves, inasmuch as the number of cakes, namely ten, is deemed to be expressly stated in connection with the leavened cakes of the thank-offering by virtue of the expression 'they shall be' (v. supra n. 3) . Accordingly the leavened cakes supplied the rule that there must be ten cakes (i.e., derived 'from itself') and the Two Loaves supplied the rule that there must be a tenth for each cake (i.e., derived 'from something else') ; the result obtained is therefore not regarded as one obtained entirely by a hekkesh.');"><sup>5</sup></span> and [any rule derived] from itself and [from] something
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 6:150 "And a basket of unleavened bread": general (any kind); "fine flour, cake mixed with oil": particular. general-particular (The rule is:) There obtains in the general only what is in the particular. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a thanksgiving offering requires bread and the Nazirite ram requires bread, then if I have learned that one thanksgiving offering requires four kinds, then the Nazirite ram should also require four kinds; it is, therefore, written "and a basket of unleavened bread": general; "fine flour, cakes mixed with oil": particular. general-particular (The rule is:) There obtains in the general only what is in the particular. "and their meal-offering and their peace-offerings": for the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings." — But perhaps also for the sin-offering and for the guilt-offering (of the Nazirite who has become tamei). And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: Since a leper shaves and brings an offering and a Nazirite shaves and brings an offering, then just as the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper require libations, so should those of a Nazirite require libations; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) "And the ram shall he offer as a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L-rd for the basket of unleavened bread, and the Cohein shall offer its (the ram's) meal-offering and its drink-offering." The ram was included in the general rule ("and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,") and it departed from the general rule (for special mention) to teach something about the rule itself, viz.: Just as the ram, which is distinct in being offered for vow and gift requires drink-offerings, so, all offerings for vow and gift require drink-offerings — to exclude the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which, not being offered for vow and gift, do not require drink-offerings. Variantly: Since it (the ram) was included in the general rule, and it departed (from that rule) to teach about the bread, Scripture returned it to its rule.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
