זבחים 49 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Yet there is the [second] tithe, which itself can be redeemed, and yet what is purchased with the [redemption] money of tithe cannot be redeemed. For we learnt: If that which was purchased with the [redemption] money of the [second] tithe became defiled, it must be redeemed. R. Judah said: It must be buried! — There the sanctity is not strong enough to take hold of its redemption. 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? — [The sanctity of] a substitute is derived from a consecrated animal, while [that of] a consecrated animal comes from hullin. 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 does require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? — A Passover remainder during the rest of the year is a peace-offering. Alternatively, Scripture says, the burnt-offering, [which intimates,] it must be in its [appointed] place. 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. 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. [which teaches that] the receiving of its blood too must be in the north. How do we know [that] the receiver himself [must stand in the north]? — ‘And its blood’ [is written where] ‘its blood’ [alone] would suffice. 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]. 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-offering: it is the priest's; it is most holy. Now, ‘as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’ need not be said. Why then is ‘as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’ said? Because a leper's guilt-offering was singled out and made subject to a new law, viz., that in respect of the thumb of the hand, the big toe of the foot, and the right ear, 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 of blood and emurim at the ‘altar? — If so, let it be written in the latter [passage] 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,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote: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.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:If a man dedicates a blemished animal for a sacrifice, it merely receives monetary sanctity, and can be redeemed, whereupon it becomes hullin (q.v. Glos.) entirely, and may be put to any use, including shearing and labour. But if a man declares a blemished animal a substitute for a consecrated animal, it becomes holy, and must be redeemed, but when redeemed it may not be kept for shearing or service, but must be eaten (this is also the law where an animal without a blemish is dedicated for a sacrifice and then receives a blemish). Thus the sanctity of the substitute is greater than that of the original.
^ᵈnote:A substitute receives sanctity because another animal has already been sanctified, whereas the originally consecrated animal receives it direct from hullin.
^ᵉnote:V. supra 37b, p. 190, n. 7.
^ᶠnote:Emended text (Sh. M.)
^ᵍnote:And not a Passover-offering at all. Hence it is a different sacrifice and naturally governed by different laws.
^ʰnote:In reply to the question whence do we know that the north is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering.
^ⁱnote:The north is not only prescribed, but is also essential.
^ʲnote:Lev. VII, 1.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. 2.
^ˡnote: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.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XIV, 13. This treats of a leper's guilt-offering. The repetition of place shews that it is indispensable.
^ᵒnote: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 its 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.
^ᵖnote:V. Ibid. XIV, 14 seq. These rites are absent in the case of other guilt-offerings.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote:That that is its only purpose.
^ˢnote:In the passage on leprosy.

²but its general law can be learnt from it: then it is correct. But if we hold that neither can it be learnt from the general proposition, nor can the general proposition be learnt from it, then this [law] is required for its own purpose? — Since [Scripture] restored it, it restored it. 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; but slaughtering, which does not require priesthood, does not require the north [either]? — If so, let Scripture say, ‘for it is as the sin-offering’: why [state], ‘for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’? [To teach:] Let it be like the other guilt-offerings. Why must it be likened to both a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? — Said Rabina, It is necessary: if it were 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. 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; and if you object, Then let it be likened to a sin-offering, [I could reply:] It [Scripture] prefers to liken it to the principal rather than to the secondary. Therefore it likened it to a sin-offering and it likened it to a burnt-offering, thus intimating that that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh. Raba said: [It is learnt] from the following, for it is written, As is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. For what purpose [is this written]? if for the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, [surely] that is written in the body of the text! 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, whereas this law is not explicitly stated in the passage on the bullock of unawareness, but is learnt from the anointed priest's bullock: therefore ‘as is taken off’ is required, so that it might count as written in that very passage and not as something which is learnt through a hekkesh and then in turn teaches through a hekkesh. Said R. Papa to Raba: Then let [Scripture] write it in its own context, and not assimilate [it to the anointed priest's bullock]? — 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; and if you object, Then let Scripture assimilate it? [I could answer that Scripture] prefers to write it [explicitly] in its own context rather than to teach it through a hekkesh. Therefore [Scripture] wrote it and assimilated it, in order to teach that that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh. (Mnemonic: Hekkesh and gezerah shawah; kal wa-homer.) [It is agreed that] that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh, [this being learnt] either by Raba's or by Rabina's [exegesis]. Can that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach through a gezerah shawah? — 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? 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: just as in the latter, if [the plague] spread over the whole skin, he is clean; so in the former too, if it spread over the whole [garment], it is clean. And how do we know it there? Because it is written, [And if the leprosy . . . cover all the skin . . .] from his head even to his feet, and [thereby] his head is assimilated [through a hekkesh] to his feet: 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, he is clean. Said R. Johanan: 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. For if it 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’. Surely then its purpose is to teach that that which is learnt by a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a gezerah shawah. 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. That which is learnt through a hekkesh teaches in turn by a kal wa-homer. 40^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ

^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote:In VII, 1-10, that it is killed in the north.
^ᵛnote: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.).
^ʷnote: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.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote:But for ‘and he shall kill’ etc. In that case it is not a repetition, and does not teach that it is indispensable.
^ᶻnote:Why mention the guilt-offering, seeing that the whole passage deals with it?
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. that it must be slaughtered in the north. Hence ‘and he shall kill’ etc. is a repetition.
^ᵃᵇnote:Therefore Scripture adds the burnt-offering, to shew that that is not so.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., there would be nothing in this text to shew the contrary.
^ᵃᵈnote:Which would positively prove it.
^ᵃᵉnote: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.
^ᵃᶠnote:That a thing derived through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a hekkesh.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. IV, 10. This refers to the burning of the emurim of the anointed priest's bullock for a sin-offering.
^ᵃʰnote:To intimate that these are burnt on the altar, as in the case of a peace-offering.
^ᵃⁱnote:It is explicitly stated in v. 9.
^ᵃʲnote:As stated supra 41a.
^ᵃᵏnote:As stated supra 39b.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. dealing with the bullock of unawareness. It is so regarded because it is superfluous where it stands.
^ᵃᵐnote:Which therefore shews that such is inadmissible.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sc. in the section on the bullock of unawareness.
^ᵃᵒnote:Since an extra text is required in any case, let it be written explicitly in its own context.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., it would be possible to say so.
^ᵃᵠnote:Let Scripture teach it through a hekkesh, without writing it explicitly.
^ᵃʳnote:In the passage dealing with the anointed priest.
^ᵃˢnote:V. p. 31, n. 6.
^ᵃᵗnote: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.
^ᵃᵘnote: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.
^ᵃᵛnote:Ibid. 12-13.
^ᵃʷnote: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).
^ᵃˣnote:Ibid 12.
^ᵃʸnote:I.e., the leprosy of his head, such as a scale, or karahath or gabbahath.
^ᵃᶻnote:I.e., to the rest of the body.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., over his whole head or beard. — Emended text (Sh. M).
^ᵇᵇnote: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.
^ᵇᶜnote:In rebutting this proof.
^ᵇᵈnote:Which is stated of both the sin-offering (Lev. VI, 18) and the guilt-offering (VII, 1).
^ᵇᵉnote: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.
^ᵇᶠnote: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.
^ᵇᵍnote:V. Glos.