[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