Zevachim 99

מדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

[This follows] from what the school of R'Ishmael taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 41a.');">¹</span> That which is learnt through a hekkesh, can it teach through a binyan ab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Analogy. This differs from a hekkesh, in that in a hekkesh Scripture intimates that there is a certain similarity between two subjects, whereas in a binyan ab (q.v. Glos.) the analogy is drawn from an inherent similarity between two subjects.');">²</span>

דבר הלמד בהיקש מהו שילמד בבנין אב אמר רבי ירמיה לא לכתוב צפונה באשם ותיתי מבנין אב מחטאת למאי הלכתא כתביה לאו למימרא דדבר הלמד בהיקש אין חוזר ומלמד בבנין אב

- Said R'Jeremiah: Let 'northward' not be written in connection with a guilt-offering, and it could be inferred from a sin-offering by a binyan ab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For these are analogous, since both are brought on account of sin.');">³</span> For what purpose then is it written?

וליטעמיך תיתי מבנין אב מעולה מאי טעמא לא אתי משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לעולה שכן כליל חטאת נמי איכא למיפרך מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות

Surely to intimate that that which is learnt through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a binyan ab. Yet according to your reasoning, let it be inferred from a burnt-offering by a binyan ab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there it is explicitly stated, and the intermediate hekkesh is not required at all.');">⁴</span>

חדא מחדא לא אתיא תיתי חדא מתרתי

Why then is it not so inferred? Because you can refute it: as for a burnt-offering, [it requires the north] because it is altogether burnt.

מהי תיתי לא נכתוב רחמנא עולה ותיתי מחטאת ואשם מה להנך שכן מכפרין

So in the case of a sin-offering too, yo can refute it: as for a sin-offering, [it requires the north] because it makes atonement for those who are liabl to kareth! One cannot be learnt from one; [but] let one be learnt from [the other] two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let Scripture intimate that the north is required for two of these, and the third could then be deduced from it.');">⁵</span>

לא נכתוב רחמנא בחטאת ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן זכרים

- From which could it be derived? [Will you say,] Let the Divine Law not write it in the case of a burnt-offering, and it could be derived from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering; [then you can argue,] as for these, [they require the north] because they make atonement.

לא נכתוב באשם ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן ישנן בציבור כביחיד

Let not the Divine Law write it in respect of a sin-offering, and let it be derived from the others; [then you can argue,] as for those, the reason is because they are males.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas a sin-offering is a female.');">⁶</span> Let not the Divine Law write it in connection with a guilt-offering and let it be derived from the others; [then you can argue,] the reason is because they operate in the case of a community as in the case of an individual.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings might be brought on behalf of the whole community, as public sacrifices, just as by an individual. But a guilt-offering could only be brought by an individual. - This whole passage is a digression.');">⁷</span>

דבר הלמד בגז"ש מהו שילמד בהיקש אמר רב פפא (ויקרא ו, ז) וזאת תורת זבח השלמים [וגו'] אם על תודה למדנו לתודה שבא מן המעשר מדאשכחן שלמים דאתו ממעשר

That which is learnt by a gezerah shawah, can it in turn teach through a hekkesh? - Said R'Papa, It was taught: And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. if he offers it for a thanksgiving:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 11f.');">⁸</span>

שלמים גופייהו מנא לן דכתיב (דברים כז, ז) שם (דברים יד, כד) שם

[from this] we learn that a thanksgiving can be brought from tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man can vow a thanksgiving and stipulate that he will purchase it with the redemption money of second tithe (v. p. 246, n. 3) .');">⁹</span> since we find that a peace-offering can be brought from tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the thanksgiving is included therein by a hekkesh.');">¹⁰</span>

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא מעשר דגן חולין בעלמא הוא

And how do we know [this of] a peace-offering itself? - Because 'there' is written in each case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with both a peace-offering and second tithe. Peace-offering: And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there');">¹¹</span> Said Mar Zutra the son of R'Mari to Rabina: But corn tithe is merely hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Whereas the question is about cattle tithe, which is holy.');">¹²</span>

א"ל אמר אמרה למד קדש ומלמד קדש

- Said he to him: Who says<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The translation here is a paraphrase, and conveys the general sense.');">¹³</span> that which is learnt must be holy, and that which teaches must be holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is unnecessary for both to be holy, but only one. We wish to learn about a peace-offering, and that indeed is holy.');">¹⁴</span>

דבר הלמד בג"ש מהו שילמד בג"ש אמר רמי בר חמא תניא (ויקרא ז, יב) סלת מרבכת למדנו לרבוכה שבאה סולת

Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah teach by a gezerah shawah? - Said Rami B'Hama, It was taught: Of fine flour soaked [murbeketh]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 12.');">¹⁵</span> this teaches that the rebukah [soaked cake]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a cake made of flour that is first boiled. This is the Talmudic interpretation of murbeketh.');">¹⁶</span>

חלות מניין ת"ל חלות חלות רקיקין מניין ת"ל מצות מצות

must be of fine flour [soleth].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As opposed to kemah, a coarse meal.');">¹⁷</span> How do we know [the same of] halloth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are ordinary unleavened cakes.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבינא ממאי דמצות מצות מחלות גמר דלמא ממאפה תנור גמר

Because halloth is stated in both places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rebukah: and halloth (E.V. cakes) mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked; halloth (one of the three kinds of unleavened bread brought with a thanksgiving) : then he shall offer unleavened (mazzoth) cakes (halloth) mingled with oil (Ibid.) The word halloth in both places shews that both must be of fine meal.');">¹⁹</span> How do we know it of rekikin [thin wafers]?

אלא אמר רבא תניא (ויקרא ד, יא) וקרבו ופרשו והוציא מלמד שמוציאו שלם

Because mazzoth [unleavened bread] is written in connection with each.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For halloth v. preceding note; rekikin: and unleavened wafers (rekike - construct form of rekikin-mazzoth) . Thus we first learn by a gezerah shawah that halloth must be of fine flour, and then by a further gezerah shawah we learn from halloth that rekikin too must be of fine flour.');">²⁰</span> Said Rabina to him: How do you know that he learns [the gezerah shawah of] mazzoth, mazzoth, from halloth; perhaps he learns it from oven-baked [cakes]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 4: And when thou bringest a meal-offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened cakes (halloth mazzoth) of fine flour. Thus it can be learnt direct, without any intermediate gezerah shawah.');">²¹</span>

יכול ישרפנו שלם נאמר כאן (ויקרא ד, יא) ראשו וכרעיו ונאמר להלן (ויקרא א, יב) ראשו וכרעיו מה להלן ע"י ניתוח אף כאן על ידי ניתוח

Rather said Raba: It was taught: And its inwards, and its dung, [even the whole bullock] shall he carry forth [without the camp]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 11f.');">²²</span> this teaches that he carries it forth whole.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it were cut up, how could he carry them out at once, which the text implies?');">²³</span>

אי מה להלן בהפשט אף כאן נמי בהפשט תלמוד לומר וקרבו ופרשו מאי תלמודא א"ר פפא כשם שפרשו בקרבו כך בשרו בעורו

You might think that he burns it whole; [but] 'its head and its legs' is stated here, and 'its head and its legs' is stated elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 8-9, 12-13.');">²⁴</span> as there it means after cutting up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'the pieces' are mentioned.');">²⁵</span>

ותניא רבי אומר נאמר כאן עור ובשר [ופרש]

so here too it means after cutting up. If so, as there it is after the flaying [of the skin],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being explicitly ordered (I, 6) .');">²⁶</span> so here too it means after the flaying? Therefore it says, 'and its inwards and its dung'. How does this teach [the reverse]? - Said R'Papa: Just as its dung is within it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it would be repulsive to take it out and burn it separately.');">²⁷</span> so must its flesh be within its skin. And it was [further] taught, Rabbi said: Skin and flesh and dung are mentioned here,