Parallel
זבחים 57:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? — Because it is written, At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering: this proves that the statutory burnt-offering requires [sprinkling at] the base. If so, just as there two applications which constitute four [are required], so here too, two applications which constitute four [are required]? — Said Abaye: Why must ‘round about’ be written in connection with both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering? That there might be two verses with the same teaching, and two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [other cases]. That is well on the view that they do not illumine; but on the view that they do illumine, what can be said? — The guilt-offering is a third, and three certainly do not illumine. THE FIRSTLING IS EATEN BY PRIESTS. Our Rabbis taught, How do we know that a firstling is eaten during two days and one night? Because it is said, And the flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and as the right thigh: the Writ assimilated it to the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering: as a peace-offering might be eaten during two days and one night, so may the firstling be eaten during two days and one night. And this question was asked of the Sages in the vineyard of Yabneh: For how long may a firstling be eaten? Whereupon R. Tarfon replied: During two days and one night. Now a certain disciple was present, who had come to the Beth Hamidrash for the first time, by the name of R. Jose the Galilean. Master, said he to him, whence do you know this? My son, replied he, a peace-offering is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity, and a firstling is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity: as a peace-offering is eaten during two days and one night, so a firstling is eaten during two days and one night. Master, he objected, a firstling is the priest's due, and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are the priest's dues; [then let us argue,] as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering [may be eaten] during one day and one night, so a firstling [may be eaten] one day and one night? Said he to him: Let us compare the two objects, and then deduce one from the other: as a peace-offering does not come on account of sin, so a firstling does not come on account of sin; [hence,] as a peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, so is a firstling eaten two days and one night. Master, he objected, Let us compare the two objects, and then deduce one from the other: a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are priestly dues, and a firstling is a priestly due; as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering cannot be brought as a vow or a freewill-offering, so a firstling cannot be a vow or a freewill-offering: [hence,] as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are eaten one day and one night, so may a firstling be eaten one day and one night? R. Akiba then leaped [into the debate], and R. Tarfon withdrew. Said he [R. Akiba] to him, Behold, it says, ‘And the flesh of them shall be thine [etc.]’: the Writ assimilated them to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering: as a peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, so a firstling is eaten two days and one night. Said he to him: You have likened it to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, but I might liken it to the breast and thigh of a thanks-offering: as a thanks-offering is eaten one day and one night, so a firstling is eaten one day and one night. Lo, he replied, it says, it shall be thine. Now, ‘it shall be thine’ need not be stated; why then is it said? The Writ thereby prolonged the existence of a firstling. When this discussion was reported to R. Ishmael, he said to them [those who reported it]: Go forth and say to Akiba, You have erred. Whence do we learn this of the thanksoffering? From a peace-offering. Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh? Hence you must determine it not by the second version but by the first version. Now, how does R. Ishmael employ this phrase, ‘it shall be thine’? — It teaches that a blemished firstling is given to the priest, for which teaching we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah. And R. Akiba? — He learns it from ‘their flesh’, [which intimates,] whether it whole or blemished. And R. Ishmael? — It means, the flesh of these firstlings. Wherein do they differ? — 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. 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, 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? — The localities only are deduced from one another.29
—