Parallel
זבחים 37:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
thus intimating that a blemished firstling is given to a priest, for which [teaching] we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah. And R. Ishmael? — He deduces it from ‘it shall be thine’, [written] at the end [of the verse]. It is well according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too: hence it is written, Thou shalt not redeem; they are holy, [which intimates] ‘they’ are offered, but their substitutes are not offered. And we learnt [even so]. The substitutes of a firstling or tithe — they themselves, their young, and the young of their young ad infinitum are as the firstling or tithe [respectively], and are eaten, when blemished, by their owners. And we [also] learnt: R. Joshua said: I have heard [from my teachers] that the substitute of a Passover-offering is offered, and that the substitute of a Passover-offering is not offered, and I cannot explain it. But according to R. Ishmael who makes the whole of it refer to a firstling, whence does he know that the substitute of tithe and the Passover-offering are not offered? — As for tithe, he learns similarity of law with a firstling from the fact that ‘passing’ is written in both cases. As for the Passover-offering, [consider:] ‘lamb’ is explicitly written in connection with it; why then does Scripture write, If he bring a lamb for his offering? To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [intimating] that it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. You might think that it is likewise so before Passover, therefore Scripture writes, It [is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover]. Now, all these Tannaim who utilise this [text], ‘the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out’, for a different exegesis, how do they know this [law of the Mishnah that] WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT? — They hold as Beth Hillel who maintained: WITH REGARD TO THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT; and we learn all the others from the sin-offering. BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]. R. Huna said, What is Beth Shammai's reason? — The plural form karnoth [horns] is written three times, denoting six [applications], [thus intimating that] four are prescribed while two [at least] are essential. But Beth Hillel [argue]: [The written forms are] karnath [singular] twice, and karnoth [plural] once, which denotes four, implying that three [applications] are prescribed, while [only] one is essential. Yet say, that all are [only] prescribed? We find no atonement without rite. Alternatively, this is Beth Hillel's reason: Both mikra [the version as read] and masoreth [the version as traditionally written] are effective: the mikra is effective in adding one [application], while the masoreth is effective in subtracting one. If so, [when Scripture writes] letotafath, letotafath, letotafoth, which denotes four [compartments], [you can likewise argue that] both the mikra and the masoreth are effective: then five compartments should be necessary? — He holds as R. Akiba, who said: Tot means two in Katpi, and foth means two in Afriki. [Again] if so [when Scripture writes], ba-sukkath, ba-sukkath, ba-sukkoth, [you may argue that] both the mikra and the masoreth are effective: then one should have five walls [for the tabernacle booth]?
—