## Zevachim Daf 49b

###### Zevachim 49b:1
[Zevachim 49b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:1)

אֲבָל כְּלָלוֹ גָּמַר מִינֵּיהּ (לְצָפוֹן) שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי סְבִירָא לַן דְּלָא הוּא גָּמַר מִכְּלָלוֹ וְלָא כְּלָלוֹ גָּמַר מִינֵּיהּ – הַאי לְגוּפֵיהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but** other matters in **its general** category **learn** *halakhot* **from it;** in this case **with regard to** the *halakha* of slaughtering a guilt offering in the **north,** it is **well.** Although some of the *halakhot* of the guilt offering of a leper do not apply to the category of guilt offerings in general, it can still serve as the source for the *halakha* that any guilt offering is disqualified if slaughtered not in the north. **But if we hold that** in the case of a matter that left its category to teach a new matter, **it,** the original matter, **does not learn** *halakhot* **from its general** category **and its general** category **does not learn** *halakhot* **from it,** then **this** verse **is necessary to** teach **its own** *halakha*.


###### Zevachim 49b:2
[Zevachim 49b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:2)

כֵּיוָן דְּאַהְדְּרֵיהּ, אַהְדְּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Once** the verse **returned** the *halakha* of the guilt offering of a leper to the general category by stating “as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering,” **it returned it** completely. Therefore, when the verse states that it requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard, the phrase is not needed to teach the *halakha* about the guilt offering of a leper, and it can be used to teach the *halakha* about guilt offerings in general.


###### Zevachim 49b:3
[Zevachim 49b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: אֵימָא כִּי אַהְדְּרֵיהּ קְרָא – לְגַבֵּי מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין, דְּבָעֵי כְּהוּנָּה; אֲבָל שְׁחִיטָה, דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה – לָא מִיבְּעֵי צָפוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Say** that **when the verse returned** the guilt offering of a leper to the class of standard guilt offerings, that is only **with regard to placement of blood** on the altar **and** burning the **sacrificial portions, which require priesthood,** i.e., only a priest may perform those rites. As the verse states: “For as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; to the priest” (Leviticus 14:13). **But** say that **slaughter, which does not require priesthood,** as even a non-priest may slaughter an offering, **does not require** that it be done in the **north** of the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 49b:4
[Zevachim 49b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:4)

אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״כִּי כְּחַטָּאת הוּא״; מַאי ״כְּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם״? כִּשְׁאָר אֲשָׁמוֹת יִהְיֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina answered him: **If so, let the verse state: For as the sin offering, so is it. What** is added by the expanded phrase: “For **as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”?** It teaches that the guilt offering of a leper **will be like the rest of** the **guilt offerings.**


###### Zevachim 49b:5
[Zevachim 49b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:5)

לְמָה לִי לְאַקְשׁוֹיֵי לְחַטָּאת, לְמָה לִי לְאַקְשׁוֹיֵי לְעוֹלָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **to juxtapose** the guilt offering of a leper **to a sin offering** to teach the *halakha* that it must be slaughtered in the north, and **why do I** need **to juxtapose** it **to a burnt offering** to teach the same *halakha*? The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the place of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 14:13).


###### Zevachim 49b:6
[Zevachim 49b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:6)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אִיצְטְרִיךְ; אִי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ לְחַטָּאת וְלָא אַקְּשֵׁיהּ לְעוֹלָה – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חַטָּאת מֵהֵיכָן לָמְדָה – מֵעוֹלָה; דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** It **was necessary** to juxtapose the guilt offering to both of them, as, **if** the verse **had juxtaposed it** only **to a sin offering but had not juxtaposed it to a burnt offering, I would say: From where** is the requirement to slaughter **a sin offering** in the north **derived?** It is **from** the *halakha* of **a burnt offering,** as explained on 48a. I would then assume that **a matter derived via a juxtaposition,** i.e., the *halakha* of a sin offering, which was derived via a juxtaposition to the *halakha* of a burnt offering, **then teaches** that *halakha* to another case **via a juxtaposition.** But there is a principle that with regard to matters of consecration the *halakha* may not be derived via a juxtaposition from another *halakha* that was itself derived via a juxtaposition. To prevent this incorrect assumption, the verse had to specifically teach the juxtaposition to a burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 49b:7
[Zevachim 49b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: וְנַיקְּשֵׁיה לְעוֹלָה, וְלָא נַיקְּשֵׁיה לְחַטָּאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: But let** the verse **juxtapose** the guilt offering of a leper only **to a burnt offering and not juxtapose it to a sin offering.** The juxtaposition to a sin offering appears superfluous.


###### Zevachim 49b:8
[Zevachim 49b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:8)

הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ – חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ; וְכִי תֵּימָא: (ניקשי) [נַיקְּשֵׁיהּ] אַקּוֹשֵׁי לְחַטָּאת, נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּמַקֵּישׁ לֵיהּ לְעִיקָּר וְלָא נַקֵּישׁ לֵיהּ לְטָפֵל; לְהָכִי אַקְּשֵׁיהּ לְחַטָּאת וְאַקְּשֵׁיהּ לְעוֹלָה – לְמֵימַר דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina answered: If that had been so, **I would** still **say** that **a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches** its *halakha* **via a juxtaposition. And if you would say** that if that were to be so, **let** the verse **juxtapose** the guilt offering of a leper only **to a sin offering,** one could answer that **it is preferable for** the Torah **that it juxtaposes** the guilt offering **to the primary** offering about which it states that it must be slaughtered in the north, i.e., the burnt offering, **and not juxtapose it to the secondary** offering, the sin offering. **For this** reason, i.e., to prevent the incorrect assumption that a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches its *halakha* via a juxtaposition, the verse **juxtaposed it to a sin offering and** also **juxtaposed it to a burnt offering, to say** that **a matter derived via a juxtaposition does not then teach** its *halakha* **via a juxtaposition.**


###### Zevachim 49b:9
[Zevachim 49b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:9)

רָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִי לְיוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד וּשְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת – בְּגוּפֵיהּ כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The principle that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach its *halakha* via a juxtaposition is derived **from here, as it is written** with regard to the sin offering brought by the High Priest: “And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the diaphragm with the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys. **As it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace offerings;** and the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:9–10). One can ask: **For what *halakha*** is this offering juxtaposed to that of a peace offering? **If** it is **to** teach that the priest must sacrifice **the diaphragm with the liver and the two kidneys** from the offering, that is **written with regard to** the offering **itself,** in the previous verse. This does not need to be derived via a juxtaposition.


###### Zevachim 49b:10
[Zevachim 49b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:10)

מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי אַגְמוֹרֵי יוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד וּשְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת מִפַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר לִשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; בְּגוּפֵיהּ לָא כְּתִיב, וּמִפַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ הוּא דְּגָמַר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is written **due to** the fact **that** the verse **wants to teach** the *halakha* of **the diaphragm with the liver and the two kidneys,** deriving it **from** the *halakha* of the offering of **the bull for an unwitting communal sin,** then teaching it **to** apply it to the *halakha* of the **goats** brought as sin offerings for communal **idol worship. It is not written** explicitly **in** the passage discussing the bull for an unwitting communal sin **itself, and it is derived from** the *halakha* of **the bull for** an unwitting sin of **an anointed priest,** i.e., the High Priest. The offering for an unwitting communal sin is juxtaposed to the sin offering brought by the High Priest in the verse: “So shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this” (Leviticus 4:20).


###### Zevachim 49b:11
[Zevachim 49b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:11)

לְהָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם״ – דְּנֶיהְוֵי כְּמַאן דִּכְתִב בְּגוּפֵיהּ, וְלָא נִיהְוֵי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**For this** reason it **was necessary** for the verse to state: **“As it is taken off** from the ox” (Leviticus 4:10), so **that it is as though it wrote** explicitly **in** the passage discussing the bull for an unwitting communal sin **itself.** One of the hermeneutical principles applied to understanding verses in the Torah is: If the *halakha* stated is not required for the matter in which it is written, apply it to another matter. When this principle is employed, the *halakha* written in one context is viewed as if it were written elsewhere. In this case, as it was not necessary for the verse to write the juxtaposition to a peace offering in the context of the sin offering brought by the High Priest, it is applied to the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin. **And** therefore it **will not be** a case of **a matter derived via a juxtaposition** that **then teaches** its *halakha* **via a juxtaposition.**


###### Zevachim 49b:12
[Zevachim 49b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וְלִיכְתְּבֵיהּ בְּגוּפֵיהּ, וְלָא נַקֵּישׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava: But** why not **let** the Torah **write** explicitly **in** the passage discussing the bull for an unwitting communal sin **itself** that the diaphragm with the liver and two kidneys must be removed from the ox, **and not juxtapose** it to a peace offering in this convoluted manner?


###### Zevachim 49b:13
[Zevachim 49b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:13)

אִי כְּתַב בְּגוּפֵיהּ וְלָא אַקֵּישׁ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ; וְכִי תֵּימָא (נקשי) [נַקְּשֵׁיהּ] אַקּוֹשֵׁי – נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּכַתְבֵיהּ בְּגוּפֵיהּ מִדְּאַקֵּישׁ לֵיהּ אַקּוֹשֵׁי; לְהָכִי כַּתְבֵיהּ וְאַקְּשֵׁיהּ, לְמֵימְרָא דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answered: **If** the Torah **had written** it **in** that passage **itself, and not juxtaposed** it, **I would say** that in general **a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches via a juxtaposition,** as one would not have this instance to serve as a counterexample to that principle. **And if you would say:** If so, why not simply **juxtapose** the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin to the case of the bull of the anointed priest, I would answer: **It is preferable for** the verse **that it writes it in** the passage **itself** rather **than to juxtapose it** alone. It is **for this** reason that **it wrote it and juxtaposed it, to say** that **a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach** its *halakha* **via a juxtaposition.**


###### Zevachim 49b:14
[Zevachim 49b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:14)

(הֶיקֵּשׁ, וּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר – סִימָן)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Before beginning a lengthy discussion concerning derivations via compounded methodologies of the hermeneutical principles, the Gemara presents **a mnemonic** for its forthcoming discussion: **Juxtaposition, verbal analogy, an *a fortiori*** inference.


###### Zevachim 49b:15
[Zevachim 49b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:15)

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד מֵהֶיקֵּשׁ – אִי מִדְּרָבָא, אִי מִדְּרָבִינָא. דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The principle that **a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach** its *halakha* **via a juxtaposition** is indicated **either from** the proof **of Rava or from** the proof **of Ravina,** both cited earlier. The Gemara asks: **What is** the *halakha* with regard to whether **a matter derived via a juxtaposition can** then **teach** its *halakha* to another matter **via a verbal analogy?**


###### Zevachim 49b:16
[Zevachim 49b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:16)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי נָתָן בֶּן אַבְטוּלְמוֹס אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לִפְרִיחָה בִּבְגָדִים שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה? נֶאֱמַר קָרַחַת וְגַבַּחַת בַּבְּגָדִים, וְנֶאֱמַר קָרַחַת וְגַבַּחַת בָּאָדָם;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Natan ben Avtolemos says: From where** is it derived **that** if leprosy **of garments spreads** throughout an entire garment **that it is pure?** It is derived via a verbal analogy: **A bareness within [*karaḥat*] and a bareness without [*gabbaḥat*]** are **stated with regard to** leprosy of **garments:** “And the priest shall look, after that the mark is washed; and behold, if the mark has not changed its color, and the mark has not spread, it is impure; you shall burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without” (Leviticus 13:55); **and a bald head [*karaḥat*] and a bald forehead [*gabbaḥat*]** are **stated with regard to** leprosy of **a person:** “But if there be in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead” (Leviticus 13:42).


###### Zevachim 49b:17
[Zevachim 49b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:17)

מָה לְהַלָּן – פָּרַח בְּכוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר, אַף כָּאן – פָּרַח בְּכוּלּוֹ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as there,** with regard to a person, if the leprosy **spread throughout him** entirely he is **pure,** as the verse states: “Then the priest shall look; and behold, if the leprosy has covered all of his flesh, he shall pronounce the one who has the mark pure; it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:13), **so too here** with regard to garments, if the leprosy **spread throughout the entire** garment it is **pure.**


###### Zevachim 49b:18
[Zevachim 49b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:18)

וְהָתָם מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו״ – וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ רֹאשׁוֹ (לרגל) [לְרַגְלָיו]; מָה לְהַלָּן, כּוּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן פֶּרַח בְּכוּלּוֹ – טָהוֹר; אַף כָּאן, כּוּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן פָּרַח בְּכוּלּוֹ – טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its proof: **But there,** with regard to the head, which serves as the source for this verbal analogy, **from where do we** derive that if the leprosy spreads throughout the head he is pure? **As it is written:** “And if the leprosy breaks out on the skin, and the leprosy covers all the skin of the one who has the mark, **from his head to his feet,** as far as it appears to the priest” (Leviticus 13:12). **And** the verse thereby **juxtaposes** leprosy on **his head to** leprosy on his **foot,** teaching the following *halakha*: **Just as there,** with regard to leprosy of the body and foot, if **its entirety turned white,** and it **spread all over him,** he is **pure, so too here,** in the case of leprosy of the head, if **its entirety turned white and it spread over all his** head, he is **pure.** Evidently, a matter derived via a juxtaposition can then teach its *halakha* to another matter via a verbal analogy.


###### Zevachim 49b:19
[Zevachim 49b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לְמֵידִין לָמֵד מִלָּמֵד, חוּץ מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים – שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין לָמֵד מִלָּמֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** This cannot serve as a proof with regard to the *halakhot* of consecrated matters. **With regard to the entire Torah,** one **derives** a *halakha* **derived** via a verbal analogy **from** a *halakha* **derived** via a juxtaposition, **apart from** with regard to **consecrated** matters, **where** one **does not derive** a *halakha* **derived** via a verbal analogy **from** a *halakha* **derived** via a juxtaposition.


###### Zevachim 49b:20
[Zevachim 49b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:20)

דְּאִם כֵּן – לֹא יֵאָמֵר צָפוֹנָה בְּאָשָׁם, וְתֵיתֵי בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה דְּ״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ מֵחַטָּאוֹת;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: **As if** it were to be **so** that one could derive a *halakha* in this manner even concerning consecrated matters, the verse **should not state** the requirement for slaughter in the **north with regard to a guilt offering,** as stated from the explicit juxtaposition of a burnt offering and a sin offering, **and** instead **derive it through a verbal analogy.** The verse describes a guilt offering **as an offering of the most sacred order** (see Leviticus 7:1), and its *halakha* can be derived via a verbal analogy **from** that of **a sin offering,** which is described in the same manner (see Leviticus 6:18).


###### Zevachim 49b:21
[Zevachim 49b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:21)

לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּדָבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan continues: Is this **not to say,** at least with regard to consecrated matters, **that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach** its *halakha* to another matter **via a verbal analogy?**


###### Zevachim 49b:22
[Zevachim 49b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:22)

וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Rabbi Yoḥanan’s proof: **But perhaps** the requirement to slaughter a guilt offering in the north must be written explicitly **because** the verbal analogy **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about a sin offering?** It is notable **in that it atones for** those sins **liable for** punishment by ***karet*,** which is not so with regard to a guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 49b:23
[Zevachim 49b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:23)

״קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים״ יַתִּירֵי כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: There are **additional** descriptions of a guilt offering and a sin offering as **offerings of the most sacred order written** in the verses: “This shall be yours of the most sacred items, reserved from the fire: Every offering of theirs, every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they may offer to Me, shall be most holy for you and for your sons” (Numbers 18:9). A verbal analogy derived from extra phrases in the verse cannot be refuted with a logical claim. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s claim stands, and, at least with regard to consecrated matters, a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach its *halakha* to another matter via a verbal analogy.


###### Zevachim 49b:24
[Zevachim 49b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49b:24)

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵהֶיקֵּשׁ, חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: That **a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teaches** its *halakha* **via an *a fortiori*** inference