[This follows] from what the school of R. Ishmael taught. (1) That which is learnt through a Hekkesh, can it teach through a Binyan ab? (2) — 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. (3) 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? (4) 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? (5) — 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 guiltoffering; [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. (6) 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. (7) 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: (8) [from this] we learn that a thanksgiving can be brought from tithe, (9) since we find that a peaceoffering can be brought from tithe. (10) And how do we know [this of] a peace-offering itself? — Because ‘there’ is written in each case. (11) Said Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari to Rabina: But corn tithe is merely hullin? (12) — Said he to him: Who says (13) that which is learnt must be holy, and that which teaches must be holy? (14) 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]: (15) this teaches that the rebukah [soaked cake] (16) must be of fine flour [soleth]. (17) How do we know [the same of] halloth? (18) Because halloth is stated in both places. (19) How do we know it of rekikin [thin wafers]? Because Mazzoth [unleavened bread] is written in connection with each. (20) 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]? (21) Rather said Raba: It was taught: And its inwards, and its dung, [even the whole bullock] shall he carry forth [without the camp]: (22) this teaches that he carries it forth whole. (23) 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: (24) as there it means after cutting up, (25) so here too it means after cutting up. If so, as there it is after the flaying [of the skin], (26) 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, (27) so must its flesh be within its skin. And it was [further] taught, Rabbi said: Skin and flesh and dung are mentioned here,

---

(1). ↑ V. supra 41a.
(2). ↑ Analogy. This differs from a Hekkesh, in that in a Hekkesh Scripture intimates that there is a certain similarity between two subjects, whereas in a Binyan ab (q.v. Glos.) the analogy is drawn from an inherent similarity between two subjects.
(3). ↑ For these are analogous, since both are brought on account of sin.
(4). ↑ For there it is explicitly stated, and the intermediate Hekkesh is not required at all.
(5). ↑ Let Scripture intimate that the north is required for two of these, and the third could then be deduced from it.
(6). ↑ Whereas a sin-offering is a female.
(7). ↑ Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings might be brought on behalf of the whole community, as public sacrifices, just as by an individual. But a guilt-offering could only be brought by an individual. — This whole passage is a digression.
(8). ↑ Lev. VII, 11f.
(9). ↑ A man can vow a thanksgiving and stipulate that he will purchase it with the redemption money of second tithe (v. p. 246, n. 3).
(10). ↑ And the thanksgiving is included therein by a Hekkesh.
(11). ↑ In connection with both a peace-offering and second tithe. Peace-offering: And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there (Deut. XXVII, 7); Tithe: And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of thy corn —, etc. Deut. XIV, 23. Thus the peaceoffering is learnt by a gezerah shawah, and that is transferred to the thanksgiving by a Hekkesh.
(12). ↑ V. Glos. Whereas the question is about cattle tithe, which is holy.
(13). ↑ The translation here is a paraphrase, and conveys the general sense.
(14). ↑ I.e., it is unnecessary for both to be holy, but only one. We wish to learn about a peace-offering, and that indeed is holy.
(15). ↑ Lev. VII, 12.
(16). ↑ I.e., a cake made of flour that is first boiled. This is the Talmudic interpretation of murbeketh.
(17). ↑ As opposed to Kemah, a coarse meal.
(18). ↑ These are ordinary unleavened cakes.
(19). ↑ Rebukah: and halloth (E.V. cakes) mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked; halloth (one of the three kinds of unleavened bread brought with a thanksgiving): then he shall offer unleavened (Mazzoth) cakes (halloth) mingled with oil (Ibid.) The word halloth in both places shows that both must be of fine meal.
(20). ↑ For halloth v. preceding note; rekikin: and unleavened wafers (Rekike — construct form of rekikin-Mazzoth). Thus we first learn by a gezerah shawah that halloth must be of fine flour, and then by a further gezerah shawah we learn from halloth that rekikin too must be of fine flour.
(21). ↑ Lev. II, 4: And when thou bringest a mealoffering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened cakes (halloth Mazzoth) of fine flour. Thus it can be learnt direct, without any intermediate gezerah shawah.
(22). ↑ Ibid. IV, 11f.
(23). ↑ For if it were cut up, how could he carry them out at once, which the text implies?
(24). ↑ Ibid. I, 8-9, 12-13.
(25). ↑ Since ‘the pieces’ are mentioned.
(26). ↑ This being explicitly ordered (I, 6).
(27). ↑ For it would be repulsive to take it out and burn it separately.