Yet there is the [second] tithe, which itself can be redeemed, and yet what is purchased with the [redemption] money of tithe cannot be redeemed. For we learnt: If that which was purchased with the [redemption] money of the [second] tithe became defiled, it must be redeemed. R. Judah said: It must be buried! (1) — There the sanctity is not strong enough to take hold of its redemption. (2) Yet there is the case of a substitute: whereas [sacrificial] sanctity does not fall upon an animal with a permanent blemish, it [substitution] does fall upon an animal with a permanent blemish? (3) — [The sanctity of] a substitute is derived from a consecrated animal, while [that of] a consecrated animal comes from hullin. (4) Yet there is a Passover-offering, which itself does not require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder; whereas its remainder (5) does require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? — A Passover remainder (6) during the rest of the year is a peace-offering.7 Alternatively, (8) Scripture says, the burnt-offering, [which intimates,] it must be in its [appointed] place. (9) How do we know that a guilt-offering requires the north? — Because it is written, in the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall they kill the guiltoffering. (10) We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving? — [Because it is written,] And the blood thereof shall be dashed, etc. (11) [which teaches that] the receiving of its blood too must be in the north. (12) How do we know [that] the receiver himself [must stand in the north]? — ‘And its blood’ [is written where] ‘its blood’ [alone] would suffice. (13) We have thus found it as a recommendation: how do we know that it is indispensable? — Another text is written, And he shall kill the he-lamb [in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering]. (14) Now, does that come for the present purpose? Surely it is required for what was taught: If anything was included in a general proposition, and was then singled out for a new law, you cannot restore it to [the terms of] its general proposition, unless the Writ explicitly restores it to [the terms of] its general proposition. How so? [Scripture saith,] And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in the place of the sanctuary; for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering: it is the priest's; it is most holy. Now, ‘as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’ need not be said. (15) Why then is ‘as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’ said? Because a leper's guilt-offering was singled out and made subject to a new law, viz., that in respect of the thumb of the hand, the big toe of the foot, and the right ear, (16) you might think that it does not require the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar; therefore Scripture says, ‘as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’: as the sin-offering requires the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar, so does a leper's guiltoffering require the presentation of blood and emurim at the ‘altar? (17) — If so, (18) let it be written in the latter [passage] (19) and not in the former. Now, that is well if we hold that when anything is made the subject of a new law, it cannot be learnt from its general law,

---

(1). ↑ Second tithe was a tithe of the produce which was to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner. If it was too burdensome, he could redeem it, take the redemption money to Jerusalem, and expend it there (Deut. XIV, 22-27). — Thus according to R. Judah what was brought with the redemption money is stricter than the original tithe, for the original could be redeemed, whereas this cannot.
(2). ↑ An object must possess a certain degree of sanctity before it can be transferred to something else, whereas the sanctity of this is too light to permit such transfer. Hence R. Judah's ruling, though strict, arises out of the lesser, not the greater, sanctity of what is brought.
(3). ↑ If a man dedicates a blemished animal for a sacrifice, it merely receives monetary sanctity, and can be redeemed, whereupon it becomes hullin (q.v. Glos.) entirely, and may be put to any use, including shearing and labor. But if a man declares a blemished animal a substitute for a consecrated animal, it becomes holy, and must be redeemed, but when redeemed it may not be kept for shearing or service, but must be eaten (this is also the law where an animal without a blemish is dedicated for a sacrifice and then receives a blemish). Thus the sanctity of the substitute is greater than that of the original.
(4). ↑ A substitute receives sanctity because another animal has already been sanctified, whereas the originally consecrated animal receives it direct from hullin.
(5). ↑ V. supra 37b, p. 190, n. 7.
(6). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.)
(7). ↑ And not a Passover-offering at all. Hence it is a different sacrifice and naturally governed by different laws.
(8). ↑ In reply to the question whence do we know that the north is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering.
(9). ↑ The north is not only prescribed, but is also essential.
(10). ↑ Lev. VII, 1.
(11). ↑ Ibid. 2.
(12). ↑ Sh. M.: The waw (‘and’) joins the sentence to the preceding verse, and so the regulation concerning the place of killing applies to the receiving of the blood too. This second verse must be applied to receiving and not to sprinkling, since the blood was not sprinkled at the north.
(13). ↑ Rashi: the deduction is made from the eth (sign of the accusative) before ‘its blood’, which could be omitted. This is therefore regarded as extending the law to the receiver.
(14). ↑ Lev. XIV, 13. This treats of a leper's guiltoffering. The repetition of place shows that it is indispensable.
(15). ↑ For if it is to teach that it is slaughtered in the north, that follows from the first half of the verse. While if it teaches that the sprinkling of its blood and its consumption are the same as those of the sin-offering, that too is superfluous, since it is already covered by the general regulations prescribed for all guilt-offerings in Lev. VII, 1-10.
(16). ↑ V. Ibid. XIV, 14 seq. These rites are absent in the case of other guilt-offerings.
(17). ↑ This is the example: since a leper's guiltoffering was singled out for special treatment, the general laws of guilt-offerings could not apply to it without a text specifically intimating that they do. — Thus the text is utilized for this purpose, and not to teach that the north is indispensable.
(18). ↑ That that is its only purpose.
(19). ↑ In the passage on leprosy.