Zevachim 97

והרי מעשר דהוא נפדה ואילו לקוח בכסף מעשר אינו נפדה דתנן הלקוח בכסף מעשר שנטמא יפדה ר' יהודה אומר יקבר (נטמא אין לא נטמא לא)

Yet there is the [second] tithe, which itself can be redeemed, and yet what is purchased with the [redemption] money of tithe cannot be redeemed.

התם לא אלימא קדושתיה למיתפס פדיוניה

For we learnt: If that which was purchased with the [redemption] money of the [second] tithe became defiled, it must be redeemed.

והרי תמורה דאילו קדשים לא חיילי על בעל מום קבוע ואילו איהי חיילא

R'Judah said: It must be buried!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Second tithe was a tithe of the produce which was to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner. If it was too burdensome, he could redeem it, take the redemption money to Jerusalem, and expend it there (Deut. XIV, 22-27) . - Thus according to R. Judah what was brought with the redemption money is stricter than the original tithe, for the original could be redeemed, whereas this cannot.');">¹</span>

תמורה מכח קדשים קא אתיא וקדשים מכח חולין קאתי

- There the sanctity is not strong enough to take hold of its redemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An object must possess a certain degree of sanctity before it can be transferred to something else, whereas the sanctity of this is too light to permit such transfer. Hence R. Judah's ruling, though strict, arises out of the lesser, not the greater, sanctity of what is brought.');">²</span>

הרי פסח דהוא אינו טעון סמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק ואילו מותר דידיה טעון סמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק

Yet there is the case of a substitute: whereas [sacrificial] sanctity does not fall upon an animal with a permanent blemish, it [substitution] does fall upon an animal with a permanent blemish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man dedicates a blemished animal for a sacrifice, it merely receives monetary sanctity, and can be redeemed, whereupon it becomes hullin');">³</span>

פסח בשאר ימות השנה שלמים הוא

- [The sanctity of] a substitute is derived from a consecrated animal, while [that of] a consecrated animal comes from hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A substitute receives sanctity because another animal has already been sanctified, whereas the originally consecrated animal receives it direct from hullin.');">⁴</span>

ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא העולה במקומה תהא

Yet there is a Passover-offering, which itself does not require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder; whereas its remainder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 37b, p. 190, n. 7.');">⁵</span>

אשם מנלן דבעי צפון דכתיב (ויקרא ז, ב) במקום אשר ישחטו את העולה ישחטו את האשם

does require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? - A Passover remainder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh. M.)');">⁶</span>

אשכחן שחיטה קבלה מנא לן ואת דמו יזרוק קבול דמו נמי בצפון

during the rest of the year is a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not a Passover-offering at all. Hence it is a different sacrifice and naturally governed by different laws.');">⁷</span>

מקבל עצמו מנא לן דמו ואת דמו

Alternatively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the question whence do we know that the north is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering.');">⁸</span>

אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנא לן קרא אחרינא כתיב (ויקרא יד, יג) ושחט את הכבש

Scripture says, the burnt-offering, [which intimates,] it must be in its [appointed] place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The north is not only prescribed, but is also essential.');">⁹</span>

והאי להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לידון בדבר החדש אי אתה רשאי להחזירו לכללו עד שיחזירנו הכתוב לכללו בפירוש

How do we know that a guilt-offering requires the north? - Because it is written, in the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall they kill the guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 1.');">¹⁰</span>

כיצד (ויקרא יד, יג) ושחט את הכבש במקום אשר ישחט את החטאת ואת העולה במקום הקדש כי כחטאת האשם הוא וגו' שאין ת"ל כחטאת האשם מה ת"ל כחטאת האשם

We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving? - [Because it is written,] And the blood thereof shall be dashed etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2.');">¹¹</span>

לפי שיצא אשם מצורע לידון בדבר החדש בבוהן יד ובוהן רגל ואזן ימנית יכול לא יהא טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח

[which teaches that] the receiving of its blood too must be in the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M.: The waw ('and') joins the sentence to the preceding verse, and so the regulation concerning the place of killing applies to the receiving of the blood too. This second verse must be applied to receiving and not to sprinkling, since the blood was not sprinkled at the north.');">¹²</span>

תלמוד לומר כחטאת האשם הוא מה חטאת טעונה מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח אף אשם מצורע טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח

How do we know [that] the receiver himself [must stand in the north]? - 'And its blood' [is written where] 'its blood' [alone] would suffice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: the deduction is made from the eth (sign of the accusative) before 'its blood', which could be omitted. This is therefore regarded as extending the law to the receiver.');">¹³</span>

אם כן נכתוב בהאי ולא נכתוב בהאי

We have thus found it as a recommendation: how do we know that it is indispensable? - Another text is written, And he shall kill the he-lamb [in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 13. This treats of a leper's guilt-offering. The repetition of place shews that it is indispensable.');">¹⁴</span>

הניחא אי סבירא לן יצא לידון בדבר החדש איהו הוא דלא גמר מכללו

Now, does that come for the present purpose? Surely it is required for what was taught: If anything was included in a general proposition, and was then singled out for a new law, you cannot restore it to [the terms of] its general proposition, unless the Writ explicitly restores it to [the terms of] its general proposition. How so? [Scripture saith,] And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in the place of the sanctuary; for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offe it is the priest's; it is most holy. Now, 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering' need not be said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is to teach that it is slaughtered in the north, that follows from the first half of the verse. While if it teaches that the sprinkling of it blood and its consumption are the same as those of the sin-offering, that too is superfluous, since it is already covered by the general regulations prescribed for all guilt-offerings in Lev. VII, 1-10.');">¹⁵</span> Why then is 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering' said? Because a leper's guilt-offering was singled out an made subject to a new law, viz. , that in respect of the thumb of the hand, the big toe of the foot, and the righ ear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. XIV, 14 seq. These rites are absent in the case of other guilt-offerings.');">¹⁶</span> you might think that it does not require the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar; therefore Scripture says, 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering': as the sin-offering requires the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar, so does a leper's guilt-offering require the presentation o blood and emurim at the 'altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the example: since a leper's guilt-offering was singled out for special treatment, the general laws of guilt-offerings could not apply to it without a text specifically intimating that they do. - Thus the text is utilised for this purpose, and not to teach that the north is indispensable.');">¹⁷</span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That that is its only purpose.');">¹⁸</span> let it be written in the latter [passage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the passage on leprosy.');">¹⁹</span> and not in the former. Now, that is well if we hold that when anything is made the subject of a new law, it cannot be learnt from its general law,