Reference for Zevachim 113:21

אלא למ"ד הוי היקש מאי איכא למימר מקומות הוא דגמרי מהדדי

And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he know this?');">²³</span> - He learns it from 'their flesh', [which intimates,] whether it whole or blemished. And R'Ishmael?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he explain the plural 'their'? V. supra 37a, b for notes.');">²⁴</span> - It means, the flesh of these firstlings. Wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a definite rule that what is learnt through a hekkesh does not teach through a hekkesh. Why then does R. Akiba adopt this exegesis here?');">²⁵</span> - One master holds: [That which is inferred] from the subject itself and another does constitute a hekkesh; while the other master holds: It does not constitute a hekkesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, that a thanksoffering is eaten one day and one night is not inferred by a hekkesh but stated explicitly, Lev. VII, 15, while that its breast and thigh belong to the priest is inferred by a hekkesh. R. Ishmael holds that the fact that the priest may eat the breast and the thigh during one day and one night only must be regarded as an inference by a hekkesh, and therefore it cannot become the basis for another hekkesh (viz., as to the time permitted for the consumption of a firstling) . R. Akiba however maintains that since the time permitted for the thanksoffering is explicitly stated, we do not regard the time allowed for the breast and thigh as the result of a hekkesh; hence it can become the basis for another hekkesh.');">²⁶</span> On the view that it does not constitute a hekkesh, it is well: hence it is written, And so shall he do for the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 16.');">²⁷</span> which [intimates]: As he sprinkles the blood of the bullock in the Holy of Holies once upward and seven times downward, so must he sprinkle in the hekal; and as he sprinkles the blood of the he-goat in the Holy of Holies once upward and seven times downward, so must he sprinkle in the Hekal. But on the view that it does constitute a hekkesh, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage treats of the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Scripture writes, And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle with his finger upon the ark-cover on the east; and before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times (ibid. 14) . 'Upon' and 'before' are understood to mean upward and downward respectively: thus, while it is explicitly stated that it is sprinkled seven times downwards, the number of upward sprinklings is not stated, and this is learnt by analogy (hekkesh) from the he-goat, where it says, And sprinkle it (otho) upon the ark-cover, and before the ark-cover (v. 15) . There 'it' (otho) is held to indicate one sprinkling, while the number of downward sprinklings is not stated. The present text, and do with his (sc. the he-goat's) blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, teaches that both are sprinkled once upward and seven times downward, since an analogy is drawn between them. Now, each is written partly explicitly and partly inferred by a hekkesh, and then the same is applied to the hekal by means of a hekkesh. Now, if what is inferred partly from the subject itself and partly from another subject does not constitute a hekkesh, then the sprinklings in the hekal can rightly be inferred by a hekkesh from those in the Holy of Holies. But if it does, such inference is disallowed, since what is learnt by a hekkesh cannot teach by a hekkesh.');">²⁸</span> - The localities only are deduced from one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not a case of what is learnt by a hekkesh teaching through a hekkesh, since the first refers to the animals, whereas the second refers to the localities.');">²⁹</span>

Jastrow