Zevachim 98

אבל כללו גמר מיניה (לצפון) שפיר אלא אי סבירא לן דלא הוא גמר מכללו ולא כללו גמר מיניה האי לגופיה איצטריך

but its general law can be learnt from it: then it is correct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general law is that stated in VII, 1-10, while a leper's guilt-offering is singled out for a new law not in harmony with the general law, for whereas the blood of an ordinary guilt-offering is sprinkled on the altar, the blood of this is applied to the right thumb, right ear, and the great toe of the right foot. Now, if it were not stated in the general regulations on the guilt-offerings that it must be slaughtered in the north, but were stated here, this would come not under the preceding but under the following rule: if anything is included in a general proposition and is then singled out to teach a special regulation, this applies not only to the case where it is stated, but to the whole. Thus a leper's guilt-offering is included in the general guilt-offerings dealt with in VII, 1-10; when it is singled out here for slaughtering in the north, that applies to all guilt-offerings, and not only to itself. (The other rule with which we are now dealing holds good only when the new law is not in harmony with the general one, as explained at the beginning of the note.) Hence on this view it need not be stated in VII, 1-10 that it is killed in the north, as this would follow from XIV, 14 seq.; its repetition teaches that the north is indispensable.');">¹</span> But if we hold that neither can it be learnt from th general proposition, nor can the general proposition be learnt from it, then this [law]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In VII, 1-10, that it is killed in the north.');">²</span>

כיון דאהדריה אהדריה

is required for its own purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is killed in the north, for on the present view we could not learn all guilt-offerings from a leper's guilt-offering, even in respect of a law which is not in disharmony (sc. slaughtering in the north) , since the latter is made the subject of one law which is in disharmony (sc. sprinkling on the right thumb etc.) .');">³</span> - Since [Scripture] restored it, it restored it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture restored a leper's guilt-offering to the general rule by saying, for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering, whence we know that it must be slaughtered in the north. 'And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering' (sc. in the north) , written in the same verse, is thus mere repetition, and so teaches that the north is indispensable.');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא אימא כי אהדריה קרא לגבי מתן דמים ואימורין דבעי כהונה אבל שחיטה דלא בעיא כהונה לא מיבעי צפון

Mar Zutra son of R'Mari said to Rabina: Yet say, When Scripture restored it [to the general proposition] [it was only] in respect of the presentation of the blood and emmurim, since this requires priesthood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be done by a priest. Hence the restoration to the general proposition shews that its emurim and some of the blood must be presented at the altar, in addition to its being applied to the right thumb etc.');">⁵</span> but slaughtering, which does not require priesthood, does not require the north [either]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But for 'and he shall kill' etc. In that case it is not a repetition, and does not teach that it is indispensable.');">⁶</span>

א"כ נימא קרא כי כחטאת הוא מאי כחטאת האשם כשאר אשמות יהיה

- If so, let Scripture say, 'for it is as the sin-offering': why [state], 'for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why mention the guilt-offering, seeing that the whole passage deals with it?');">⁷</span> [To teach:] Let i be like the other guilt-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that it must be slaughtered in the north. Hence 'and he shall kill' etc. is a repetition.');">⁸</span>

למה לי לאקשויי לחטאת למה לי לאקשויי לעולה

Why must it be likened to both a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? - Said Rabina, It is necessary: if it we likened to a sin-offering and were not likened to a guilt-offering I would say, Whence did we learn [that] a sin-offering [is slaughtered in the north]? from a burnt-offering: thus that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teaches through a hekkesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore Scripture adds the burnt-offering, to shew that that is not so.');">⁹</span>

אמר רבינא איצטריך אי אקשיה לחטאת ולא אקשיה לעולה הוה אמינא חטאת מהיכן למדה מעולה דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש

Mar Zutra the son of R'Mari said to Rabina: Then let it be likened to a burnt-offering and not likened to a sin-offering? - Then I would say, [that elsewhere] that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teaches through a hekkesh;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there would be nothing in this text to shew the contrary.');">¹⁰</span> and if you object, Then let it be likened to a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would positively prove it.');">¹¹</span>

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא וניקשיה לעולה ולא ניקשיה לחטאת

[I could reply:] It [Scripture] prefers to liken it to the principal rather than to the secondary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The burnt-offering is the principal source of the law, since it is there that the north is specified, whereas the sin-offering is only a secondary source, since it is derived from the former.');">¹²</span> Therefore it likened it to a sin-offering and it likened it to a burnt-offering, thus intimating that that which learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh.

הוה אמינא דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש וכי תימא ניקשי אקושי לחטאת ניחא ליה דמקיש ליה לעיקר ולא נקיש ליה לטפל להכי אקשיה לחטאת ואקשיה לעולה למימר דבר הלמד בהיקש שאינו חוזר ומלמד בהיקש

Raba said: [It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a thing derived through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a hekkesh.');">¹³</span> is learnt] from the following, for it is written, As is taken off from the ox of the sacrific peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 10. This refers to the burning of the emurim of the anointed priest's bullock for a sin-offering.');">¹⁴</span>

רבא אמר מהכא דכתיב (ויקרא ד, י) כאשר יורם משור זבח השלמים למאי הלכתא אי ליותרת הכבד ושתי הכליות בגופיה כתיב

For what purpose [is this written]? if for the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To intimate that these are burnt on the altar, as in the case of a peace-offering.');">¹⁵</span>

(אמר רב פפא) משום דבעי אגמורי יותרת הכבד ושתי הכליות מפר העלם דבר של צבור לשעירי עבודת כוכבים בגופיה לא כתיב ומפר כהן משיח הוא דגמר

[surely] that is written in the body of the text!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is explicitly stated in v. 9.');">¹⁶</span> But because [Scripture] wishes to intimate that [the burning of] the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys of the he-goats [brought as sin-offerings] for idolatry shall be learnt by analogy from the community's bullock [for a sin-offering on account] of [sinning in] unawareness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 41a.');">¹⁷</span>

להכי איצטריך כאשר יורם דניהוי כמאן דכתב בגופיה ולא ניהוי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש

whereas this law is not explicitly stated in the passage on the bullock of unawareness, but is learnt from the anointed priest's bullock:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 39b.');">¹⁸</span> therefore 'as is taken off' is required, so that it might count as written in that very passage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. dealing with the bullock of unawareness. It is so regarded because it is superfluous where it stands.');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא וליכתביה בגופיה ולא נקיש

and not as something which is learnt through a hekkesh and then in turn teaches through a hekkesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which therefore shews that such is inadmissible.');">²⁰</span> Said R'Papa to Raba: Then let [Scripture] write it in its own context,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in the section on the bullock of unawareness.');">²¹</span>

אי כתב בגופיה ולא אקיש הוה אמינא דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש וכי תימא נקשי אקושי ניחא ליה דכתביה בגופיה מדאקיש ליה אקושי להכי כתביה ואקשיה למימרא דבר הלמד בהיקש אין חוזר ומלמד בהיקש:

and not assimilate [it to the anointed priest's bullock]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since an extra text is required in any case, let it be written explicitly in its own context.');">²²</span> - If [Scripture] wrote it in its own context, and did not teach it by assimilation, I would say, That which is learnt through a hekkesh can in turn teach through a hekkesh;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it would be possible to say so.');">²³</span>

(היק"ש וגזיר"ה שו"ה ק"ל וחומ"ר סימן):

and if you object, Then let Scripture assimilate it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let Scripture teach it through a hekkesh, without writing it explicitly.');">²⁴</span> [I could answer that Scripture] prefers to write it [explicitly] in its own context rather than to teach it through a hekkesh.

דבר הלמד בהיקש אין חוזר ומלמד מהיקש אי מדרבא אי מדרבינא דבר הלמד בהיקש מהו שילמד בגזירה שוה

Therefore [Scripture] wrote it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the passage dealing with the anointed priest.');">²⁵</span> and assimilated it, in order to teach that that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh.

תא שמע רבי נתן בן אבטולמוס אומר מנין לפריחה בבגדים שהיא טהורה נאמר קרחת וגבחת בבגדים ונאמר קרחת וגבחת באדם

<br>(Mnemonic: Hekkesh and gezerah shawah; kal wa-homer).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 31, n. 6.');">²⁶</span> [It is agreed that] that which is learnt throug a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh, [this being learnt] either by Raba's or by Rabina's [exegesis].

מה להלן פרח בכולו טהור אף כאן פרח בכולו טהור

Can that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach through a gezerah shawah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: The law, which is stated in A, is applied to B by a hekkesh; can that then be applied to C, because there is a gezerah shawah between B and C? Similarly in the other cases that follow.');">²⁷</span> - Come and hear: R'Nathan B'Abtolemos said: Whence do we know that a spreading outbreak [of leprosy] in garments [covering the whole] is clean?

והתם מנא לן דכתיב (ויקרא יג, יב) מראשו ועד רגליו ואיתקש ראשו לרגל מה להלן כולו הפך לבן פרח בכולו טהור אף כאן כולו הפך לבן פרח בכולו טהור

Karahath [baldness of the back of the head] and gabbahath [baldness of the front] are mentioned in connection with garments, and also in connection with man:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leprosy in man: Lev. XIII, 42f; in garments: ibid. 55. In connection with garments, karahath denotes leprosy on the inside (right) of the cloth; gabbahath on the front or outside thereof.');">²⁸</span> just as in the latter, [the plague] spread over the whole skin, he is clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12-13.');">²⁹</span>

אמר ר' יוחנן בכל התורה כולה למידין למד מלמד חוץ מן הקדשים שאין דנין למד מלמד

so in the former too, if it spread over the whole [garment], it is clean. And how do we know it there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a karahath or gabbahath which spreads and covers the whole head is clean? For Lev. XIII, 12-13 refers to leprosy of the skin, not of the head; moreover, they differ in their symptoms. For the symptom of leprosy of the skin is that the hair turns white (ibid. v, 3, 12) , whereas that of a karahath or gabbahath is that the hair turns yellow or reddish-white (ibid. 30, 42) .');">³⁰</span>

דאם כן לא יאמר צפונה באשם ותיתי בג"ש דקדשי קדשים מחטאות

Because it is written, [And if the leprosy. cover the skin.] from his head even to his feet,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 12.');">³¹</span>

לאו למימרא דדבר הלמד בהיקש אין חוזר ומלמד בגזירה שוה

and [thereby] his head<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the leprosy of his head, such as a scale, or karahath or gabbahath.');">³²</span> is assimilated [through a hekkesh] to his feet:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the rest of the body.');">³³</span>

ודלמא משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות

as there, when it is all turned white, having broken out all over him, he is clean; so here too, when it breaks out all over him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., over his whole head or beard. - Emended text (Sh. M) .');">³⁴</span> he is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we first learn by a hekkesh that a karahath or gabbahath in human beings covering the whole head is clean, and then that same law is applied to garments by a gezerah shawah.');">³⁵</span>

קדשי קדשים יתירי כתיבי:

Said R'Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In rebutting this proof.');">³⁶</span> In the whole Torah we rule that whatever is learnt can teach, save in the case of sacrifices, where we do not rule that whatever is learnt can teach.

דבר הלמד מהיקש חוזר ומלמד בקל וחומר

For if were so [that we did rule thus], let 'northward' not be said in connection with a guilt-offering, and it could be inferred from sin-offerings by the gezerah shawah of 'it is most holy'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is stated of both the sin-offering (Lev. VI, 18) and the guilt-offering (VII, 1) .');">³⁷</span> Surely then its purpose is to teach that that which is learnt by a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a gezerah shawah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in fact the rule that what is learnt by a hekkesh cannot in turn teach by a hekkesh applies to sacrifices only, and it is now shewn that it cannot teach in turn through a gezerah shawah either. Whereas the passage quoted referred to a different subject, viz., leprosy, and there what is learnt through a hekkesh can teach in turn even through a hekkesh.');">³⁸</span> But perhaps [we do not learn it there] because one can refute it: as for a sin-offering, [it requires north] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth? - A superfluous 'most holy' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XVIII, 9. Since this is superfluous, a gezerah shawah could be learnt even through the guilt-offering is dissimilar from the sin-offering. The fact that we do not do so proves that what is learnt by a hekkesh does not, in the case of sacrifices, teach in turn by a gezerah shawah.');">³⁹</span> That which is learnt through a hekkesh teaches in turn by a kal wa-homer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁴⁰</span>