1 [This follows] from what the school of R. Ishmael taught. That which is learnt through a hekkesh, can it teach through a binyan ab? — 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. For what purpose then is it written? 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? 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. So in the case of a sin-offering too, you can refute it: as for a sin-offering, [it requires the north] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! One cannot be learnt from one; [but] let one be learnt from [the other] two? — 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. 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. 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. 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: [from this] we learn that a thanksgiving can be brought from tithe, since we find that a peace-offering can be brought from tithe. And how do we know [this of] a peace-offering itself? — Because ‘there’ is written in each case. Said Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari to Rabina: But corn tithe is merely hullin? — Said he to him: Who says that which is learnt must be holy, and that which teaches must be holy? 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]: this teaches that the rebukah [soaked cake] must be of fine flour [soleth]. How do we know [the same of] halloth? Because halloth is stated in both places. How do we know it of rekikin [thin wafers]? Because mazzoth [unleavened bread] is written in connection with each. 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]? Rather said Raba: It was taught: And its inwards, and its dung, [even the whole bullock] shall he carry forth [without the camp]: this teaches that he carries it forth whole. 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: as there it means after cutting up, so here too it means after cutting up. If so, as there it is after the flaying [of the skin], 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, so must its flesh be within its skin. And it was [further] taught, Rabbi said: Skin and flesh and dung are mentioned here,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃ
2 and skin and flesh and dung are mentioned elsewhere: as there [it was burnt after] being cut up, but without flaying, so here too [it is burnt after being] cut up, but without flaying. Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah teach in turn by a kal wa-homer? — [It can, and we learn this by a] kal wa-homer: If [that which is learnt by] a hekkesh, which cannot teach by a hekkesh, as follows from either Raba's or Rabina's [proof], can teach by a kal wa-homer, which follows from what the school of R. Ishmael taught; then [what is learnt through] a gezerah shawah, which can [in turn] teach by a hekkesh, as follows from R. Papa, can surely teach [in turn] by a kal wa-homer! That is well according to him who accepts R. Papa's teaching; but what can be said on the view that rejects R. Papa's teaching? — Rather [this is the] kal wa-homer: if [what is learnt by] a hekkesh, which cannot [in turn] teach by a hekkesh, as follows either from Raba or from Rabina, can teach [in turn] by a kal wa-homer, which follows from what the school of R. Ishmael taught; then a gezerah shawah, which does teach by a gezerah shawah like itself, which follows from Rami b. Hama, can surely teach through a kal wa-homer. Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah subsequently teach by a binyan ab? — The question stands. Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn by a hekkesh? — [Yes, and we learn this by a] kal wa-homer: if a gezerah shawah, which cannot be learnt from a hekkesh, as follows from R. Johanan's [dictum], can nevertheless teach by a hekkesh, in accordance with R. Papa; then a kal wa-homer, which can be learnt from a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, can surely teach by a hekkesh! That is well on the view that accepts R. Papa's [dictum], but what can be said on the view that rejects R. Papa's [dictum]? Then the question stands. Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn by a gezerah shawah? — [Yes, for this follows by a] kal wa-homer: if a gezerah shawah, which cannot be learnt from a hekkesh, in accordance with R. Johanan, can teach by a gezerah shawah, in accordance with Rami b. Hama; then is it not logical that a kal wa-homer, which can be learnt by a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, can teach by a gezerah shawah? Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn by a kal wa-homer? [Yes, for this follows from a] kal wa-homer: if a gezerah shawah, which cannot be learnt by a hekkesh, in accordance with R. Johanan, can teach by a kal wa-homer, as we have [just] said; then a kal wa-homer which can be learnt from a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, is it not logical that it can teach by a kal wa-homer? And this is a kal wa-homer derived from a kal wa-homer. Surely this is a secondary derivation from a kal wa-homer? — Rather, [argue thus: Yes, and this follows from a] kal wa-homer: if a hekkesh which cannot be learnt through a hekkesh, in accordance with either Raba or Rabina, can teach by a kal wa-homer, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael; then a kal wa-homer, which is learnt through a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, can surely teach through a kal wa-homer! And this is a kal wa-homer derived from a kal wa-homer. Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn through a binyan ab? — Said R. Jeremiah, Come and hear: If one wrung the neck [of a bird sacrifice] and it was found to be a terefah, R. Meir said: It does not defile in the gullet; R. Judah said: It does defile in the gullet. Said R. Meir: It is a kal wa-homer: if the shechitah of an animal cleanses it, even when terefah, from its uncleanness, yet when it is nebelah it defiles through contact or carriage; is it not logical that shechitah cleanses a bird, when terefah, from its uncleanness, seeing that when it is nebelah it does not defile through touch or carriage? Now, as we have found that shechitah which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating,ᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰ