and skin and flesh and dung are mentioned elsewhere: (1) 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. (2) Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah teach in turn by a kal wahomer? — [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. (3) Surely this is a secondary derivation from a kal wa-homer? (4) — 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; (5) 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. (6) Said R. Meir: It is a kal wa-homer: if the shechitah of an animal cleanses it, even when Terefah, from its uncleanness, (7) 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,

---

(1). ↑ In reference to the anointed priest's bullock. By ‘here’ he means in connection with the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement.
(2). ↑ Thus the result of one gezerah shawah is transferred by another gezerah shawah.
(3). ↑ Lit., ‘a kal wa-homer the son of a kal wahomer’. Thus a kal wa-homer is based on the fact that a gezerah shawah teaches through a kal wahomer, and that itself is learnt only through a kal wa-homer.
(4). ↑ Lit., ‘the grandson of a kal wa-homer’. Thus: A, which is learnt through a kal wa-homer, teaches B by means of a kal wa-homer; that it does so is learnt from the fact C. Now, even if C were directly stated, B would still be the derivative (lit., ‘son’) of the first kal wa-homer. Since however C itself is known only through a kal wa-homer, B becomes the secondary derivative (lit., ‘grandson’). That is so in the present case. Possibly, however, this is straining the powers of a kal wa-homer too far, and is inadmissible, in which case the problem remains unanswered.
(5). ↑ This itself is not the result of a kal wa-homer, but a tradition.
(6). ↑ A bird sin-offering was not slaughtered by the usual ritual method (shechitah), but had its neck wrung. If an ordinary bird of hullin, or any animal, is killed by any method other than shechitah, it becomes nebelah (carrion). The term Terefah is applied to a bird or an animal which was ritually slaughtered, but which was found to be suffering from a disease or other physical defect which renders it forbidden as food. Now when a clean animal, i.e., one permitted for food, becomes nebelah, it defiles any person who touches it or even carries it without actually touching it. A clean bird which becomes nebelah does not defile thus, but only the person who eats it, i.e., when it enters his gullet. In the present instance the bird's neck was wrung; had it been hullin, it would have become nebelah, and defiled accordingly. When it is found to be Terefah the sacrifice cannot be proceeded with, as the bird is unfit. R. Judah holds that it is the same, therefore, as hullin, and defiles as such. R. Meir, however, holds that since it was intended for a sacrifice when its neck was wrung, this was its correct method of slaughter, and so it does not defile,
(7). ↑ As is shown in Hul. 128b — Through the shechitah it is freed from the uncleanness of nebelah.