Yet 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,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢ