thus intimating that a blemished firstling is given to a priest, for which [teaching] we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah. (1) And R. Ishmael? (2) — He deduces it from ‘it shall be thine’, [written] at the end [of the verse]. (3) It is well according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too: hence it is written, Thou shalt not redeem; they are holy, (4) [which intimates] ‘they’ are offered, but their substitutes are not offered. (5) And we learnt [even so]. The substitutes of a firstling or tithe — they themselves, their young, and the young of their young ad infinitum are as the firstling or tithe [respectively], and are eaten, when blemished, by their owners. (6) And we [also] learnt: R. Joshua said: I have heard [from my teachers] that the substitute of a Passover-offering is offered, (7) and that the substitute of a Passover-offering is not offered, (8) and I cannot explain it. (9) But according to R. Ishmael who makes the whole of it refer to a firstling, whence does he know that the substitute of tithe and the Passoveroffering are not offered? — As for tithe, he learns similarity of law with a firstling from the fact that ‘passing’ is written in both cases. (10) As for the Passover-offering, [consider:] ‘lamb’ is explicitly written in connection with it; why then does Scripture write, If he bring a lamb for his offering? (11) To include the substitute of a Passoveroffering after Passover, [intimating] that it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. You might think that it is likewise so before Passover, therefore Scripture writes, It [is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover]. (12) Now, all these Tannaim who utilize this [text], ‘the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out’, for a different exegesis, how do they know this [law of the Mishnah that] WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT? — They hold as Beth Hillel who maintained: WITH REGARD TO THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT; and we learn all the others from the sin-offering. (13) BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]. R. Huna said, What is Beth Shammai's reason? — The plural form Karnoth [horns] is written three times, denoting six [applications], [thus intimating that] four are prescribed while two [at least] are essential. But Beth Hillel [argue]: [The written forms are] Karnath [singular] twice, and Karnoth [plural] once, (14) which denotes four, implying that three [applications] are prescribed, while [only] one is essential. Yet say, that all are [only] prescribed? (15) We find no atonement without rite. Alternatively, this is Beth Hillel's reason: Both Mikra [the version as read] and Masoreth [the version as traditionally written] are effective: the Mikra is effective in adding one [application], while the Masoreth is effective in subtracting one. (16) If so, [when Scripture writes] letotafath, letotafath, letotafoth1, (7) which denotes four [compartments], [you can likewise argue that] both the Mikra and the Masoreth are effective: then five compartments should be necessary? — He (18) holds as R. Akiba, who said: Tot means two in Katpi, (19) and foth means two in Afriki. (20) [Again] if so [when Scripture writes], ba-sukkath, ba-sukkath, ba-sukkoth, (21) [you may argue that] both the Mikra and the Masoreth are effective: then one should have five walls [for the tabernacle booth]?

---

(1). ↑ The point of the question and answer is this: ‘Them’ obviously cannot mean the tithe and the Passover-offering, as R. Jose explains the plural in v. 17, since these belong to the owner. Nor can the plural here refer, in his view, to the ox, sheep, and goat, for in that case he could explain ‘their blood’ and ‘their fat’ similarly. Hence the difficulty, why is the plural used? The answer is, to intimate two categories of firstlings, whole and blemished.
(2). ↑ Whence does he know this?
(3). ↑ This repetition is to include the blemished firstling.
(4). ↑ Ibid.
(5). ↑ If one declares another animal a substitute for them, they are not offered, contrary to the general rule that the substitute is offered (together with the original) in exactly the same way as the original.
(6). ↑ But not sacrificed while they are whole.
(7). ↑ As a peace-offering, after Passover. — This is where the original is available for Passover.
(8). ↑ As a peace-offering, but must graze until it is blemished, when it is redeemed.
(9). ↑ For the explanation v. Pes. 96b.
(10). ↑ V. supra 9a.
(11). ↑ Lev. III, 7. — Scripture prescribes a lamb for a Passover-offering (Ex. XII, 5) which was in the nature of a peace-offering. Why then must Scripture also inform us that a lamb might be brought for a peace-offering? (The Talmud does not quote the exact wording, as Keseb is not written in connection with the Passover-offering, but a lamb is prescribed, though a slightly different word (kebes) is used.)
(12). ↑ Ex. XII, 27. — ‘It’ (Heb. Hu) is emphatic, and teaches that only the original animal dedicated for a Passover-offering is to be sacrificed, but not its substitute which is kept until after Passover. An animal would be proposed as a substitute if the first one was lost, and is subject to the laws stated here if the first one is refound in time to be sacrificed for its original purpose. If the first is not found until after the second has been offered, it becomes a Passover remainder’, and is sacrificed as a peace-offering after the festival.
(13). ↑ The case of the sin-offering itself is learnt infra.
(14). ↑ The reference is to Lev. IV, 25, 30, 34 q. v. The traditional reading in all cases is Karnoth horns, but it is actually written Karnath ( קרנת singular) twice. Beth Shammai make the reading decisive, while Beth Hillel follow the written forms.
(15). ↑ In the first place, but are not essential, since Scripture does not repeat any of them to intimate that they are indispensable.
(16). ↑ Since the Mikra implies six while the Masoreth implies four, the implication of both is five; but as there are only four horns on the altar, the fifth must be regarded as a reiteration of one application, and hence it (i.e., one application) becomes indispensable; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 4b. q.v. notes.
(17). ↑ Frontlets. V. Ex. XIII, 16; Deut. VI, 8, XI, 18: — and it shall be... for frontlets between thine eyes. This is the law of tefillin (v. Glos.); the word is written twice defectively and once plene (in our version it is written only once defectively), but read plene in every case. From the two defective and one plene forms the Rabbis learnt that the tefillin of the head must consist of four compartments.
(18). ↑ The author of this interpretation of Karnoth.
(19). ↑ Perhaps the Coptic language.
(20). ↑ The language of N. Africa or Phrygia in Asia Minor. Hence the word Totafoth itself implies four, without recourse to its repetition.
(21). ↑ ‘In booths’: Ye shall dwell in booths seven days, etc. (Lev. XXIII, 42-43). Here too it is written twice defectively and once plene, and the Rabbis learn that the number of walls required by a booth is four, in the same way that they learn that the tefillin must have four compartments.