AS FOR THE BULLOCK AND THE HEGOAT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, etc. Consider: the north [side of the altar] is written in connection with the burnt-offering, then let him teach [about] the burnt-offering first? (1) — Because this is deduced about the sin-offering by exegesis, he cherishes it more. (2) Then let him teach the outer sinofferings [first]? (3) — Because the blood of these [which he does enumerate] enters the inner sanctuary, he cherishes it more. (4) Now, where is the north written in connection with the burnt-offering? — And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward. (5) We have thus found [it of] the flocks; (6) how do we know [it of] the herd? — Scripture saith, And [we] if his offering be of the flock: (7) the waw [and] continues (8) the preceding section, so that the [subject] above may be deduced from [that] below. (9) That is well on the view that you can learn (10) [the subject above from that below]; but on the view that you cannot learn [it thus], what can be said? For it was taught: And if any one sin, etc.; (11) this teaches that one is liable to a guilt-offering of suspense on account of doubtful trespass: (12) that is R. Akiba's ruling. But the Sages exempt [him]. Surely then they disagree in this: one master holds that we learn [the subject above from that below], (13) while the other master holds that we do not learn it? — Said R. Papa: All agree that we do learn [thus], but this is the Rabbis’ reason: (14) mizwoth (15) is employed here, and Mizwoth is employed in connection with the sin-offering of forbidden fat: (16) as there it means a law whose deliberate infringement entails kareth and its unwitting infringement entails a sinoffering, so here too (17) [it is entailed only by] that whose deliberate infringement entails kareth, while its unwitting infringement involves a sin-offering. (18) And R. Akiba? (19) — As there it is fixed, so here it is fixed, thus excluding the sin-offering for the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects [sacrifices], which is variable. (20) And the Rabbis? (21) — There is no semi gezerah shawah. (22) But R. Akiba too [surely admits that] there is no semi gezerah shawah? — That indeed is so; here, however, they differ in this: R. Akiba holds: ‘And if a soul’ is written, and the waw indicates conjunction with the preceding subject. (23) But [according to] the Rabbis too, surely it is written, And if a soul? (24) Shall we say that they differ in this: one master holds that a Hekkesh is stronger; while the other master holds that a gezerah shawah is stronger? (25) — No: all agree that the gezerah shawah is stronger, but the Rabbis can answer you: the subject below is learnt from that above, that the guilt-offering must be [two] silver shekels in value, (26) so that you should not say: Surely the doubt cannot be more stringent than the certainty: as the certainty [of sin] requires a sin-offering [even] a sixth [of a zuz in value], so [for] the doubt a guilt-offering of a sixth [of a zuz] is sufficient. (27) Now, how does R. Akiba know this? — He deduces it from [the text,] And this is the law of the guiltoffering, (28) [which intimates that] there is one law for all guilt-offerings. That is well on the view that ‘law’ can be [so] interpreted; but on the view that ‘law’ cannot be so interpreted, whence does he derive [it]? — He derives [it] from the repetition of ‘according to thy valuation.’ (29) [But] what can be said of the guilt-offering of a maidservant promised in marriage, (30) where according to thy valuation’ is not written? — He derives [it from] the repetition of ‘with the ram.’ (31) How do we know that a sin-offering requires the north? — Because it is written, And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering. (32) We have found [it of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] receiving? Because it is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sinoffering. (33) How do we know that the receiver himself [must stand in the north]? (34) The text says, ‘And he shall take’, [which intimates,] he shall [be]take himself [to the place where the blood is received]. (35) We have thus found [it as] a regulation; how do we know that it is indispensable? (36) — Another text is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering in the place where they kill the burnt-offering; (37) and it was taught: Where is the burntoffering slaughtered? in the north: so this too (38) is [slaughtered] in the north.

---

(1). ↑ V. infra 53b.
(2). ↑ I.e., the Tanna is more desirous of teaching the results of exegesis than what Scripture states explicitly, and therefore he gives them preference.
(3). ↑ V. infra 52b.
(4). ↑ It is more important in his eyes, and hence he teaches it first.
(5). ↑ Lev. I, 11.
(6). ↑ To which the text refers.
(7). ↑ Ibid. 10; and is expressed by the letter waw in Heb., punctuated we.
(8). ↑ Lit., ‘adds to’.
(9). ↑ When a passage commences with ‘and’, this conjunction links it with the previous portion, and a law stated in one applies to the other too. Here the subject above is the burnt-offering of the herd, and the subject below is that of the flock.
(10). ↑ By means of a conjunction waw.
(11). ↑ Lev. V, 17.
(12). ↑ V. Mishnah infra 54b. Now, the subject immediately preceding deals with the guiltoffering for putting sacred things to secular use (vv. 14-16), when the offender learns that he has definitely sinned. If one is in doubt whether he has offended, this text teaches that he must bring a guilt-offering of suspense (i.e., doubt). The doubt arises thus: Two things lie before a man, one of which he puts to secular use. Subsequently he learns that one of these was sacred, and he does not know which.
(13). ↑ And if any one sin introduces the law of the guilt-offering of suspense for doubtful sin. By learning the subject above from it, it follows that this is entailed by doubtful trespass too.
(14). ↑ For not doing so here.
(15). ↑ Lit. ‘commandments’: and if any one sin, and do any of the Mizwoth (E.V. things) which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, etc.
(16). ↑ Lev. IV, 27. Forbidden fat is not mentioned there, but ‘a sin-offering of forbidden fat’ is the usual designation in the Talmud for an ordinary sin-offering. The reason is because Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. III, 17) is followed by Ch. IV, which deals with sin-offerings (Rashi in Sot. 15a). Asheri (in Ned. 4a) explains the reason because the most usual form of sinning thus is eating forbidden fat through having it in the house.
(17). ↑ Sc. the guilt-offering of suspense.
(18). ↑ I.e., a guilt-offering of suspense is brought only when one is in doubt whether he has committed an offence, which, if certainly committed, entails kareth or a sin-offering. But the secular misuse of sacred property does not involve a sin-offering, consequently one is not liable to a guilt-offering for doubtful trespass.
(19). ↑ How does he interpret this gezerah shawah?
(20). ↑ Lit., ‘ascends (in value) and descends’. — The ordinary sin-offering is fixed and the same for rich and poor alike. This gezerah shawah then teaches that a guilt-offering of suspense is incurred only for the doubtful violation of a law which, if definitely violated, involves a fixed sin-offering. But if one is doubtful whether he entered the Temple whilst unclean, he does not bring a guiltoffering of suspense, because if he were certain he would only be liable to a variable sacrifice (v. Lev. V, 1-10).
(21). ↑ What is their view on this?
(22). ↑ A gezerah shawah shows similarity in all respects, not in some only.
(23). ↑ As above.
(24). ↑ And it was stated above that all agree that the subject above is learnt from that below.
(25). ↑ The Hekkesh or analogy arises from the waw, which couples both subjects. Thus apparently the Rabbis give preference to the gezerah shawah, while R. Akiba gives preference to the Hekkesh (only one can be employed here, since they yield apparently contradictory results).
(26). ↑ The earlier passage reads: then he shall bring... according to thy valuations in silver by shekels... a guilt-offering (v. 15), which the Rabbis interpret as meaning not less than two shekels. The analogy therefore teaches that the guiltoffering of suspense in v. (18) must also have that value.
(27). ↑ Hence the Hekkesh teaches otherwise.
(28). ↑ Lev. VII, 1.
(29). ↑ Heb. בערכך .It is repeated in Lev. V, 15 and Lev. V, 18, and this furnishes a gezerah shawah, which teaches that they must be of equal value in both cases.
(30). ↑ Ibid. XIX, 20-22.
(31). ↑ Ibid. V, 16 and XIX, 22.
(32). ↑ Ibid. IV, 24.
(33). ↑ Ibid 25. This is connected with the immediately preceding words, ‘in the place where they kill the burnt-offering.’ — ‘Take’ means to receive the blood.
(34). ↑ And not in the south and stretch out his hand to the north. (A line — imaginary — demarcated the north and the south, and so it would be possible to stand on one side of the line — south — and receive the blood on the other — the north.)
(35). ↑ I.e., the north.
(36). ↑ That the sacrifice is invalid otherwise.
(37). ↑ Ibid. 33. This treats of a lamb brought by a prince (ruler) as a sin-offering.
(38). ↑ Sc. the sin-offering.