but its general law can be learnt from it: then it is correct. (1) But if we hold that neither can it be learnt from the general proposition, nor can the general proposition be learnt from it, then this [law] (2) is required for its own purpose? (3) — Since [Scripture] restored it, it restored it. (4) Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina: Yet say, When Scripture restored it [to the general proposition] [it was only] in respect of the presentation of the blood and emmurim, since this requires priesthood; (5) but slaughtering, which does not require priesthood, does not require the north [either]? (6) — If so, let Scripture say, ‘for it is as the sin-offering’: why [state], ‘for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering’? (7) [To teach:] Let it be like the other guiltofferings. (8) Why must it be likened to both a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? — Said Rabina, It is necessary: if it were likened to a sin-offering and were not likened to a guilt-offering I would say, Whence did we learn [that] a sin-offering [is slaughtered in the north]? from a burnt-offering: thus that which is learnt through a Hekkesh in turn teaches through a hekkesh. (9) Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina: Then let it be likened to a burnt-offering and not likened to a sin-offering? — Then I would say, [that elsewhere] that which is learnt through a Hekkesh in turn teaches through a hekkesh; (10) and if you object, Then let it be likened to a sin-offering, (11) [I could reply:] It [Scripture] prefers to liken it to the principal rather than to the secondary. (12) Therefore it likened it to a sin-offering and it likened it to a burnt-offering, thus intimating that that which is learnt through a Hekkesh does not in turn teach through a Hekkesh. Raba said: [It (13) is learnt] from the following, for it is written, As is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. (14) For what purpose [is this written]? if for the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, (15) [surely] that is written in the body of the text! (16) But because [Scripture] wishes to intimate that [the burning of] the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys of the he-goats [brought as sinofferings] for idolatry shall be learnt by analogy from the community's bullock [for a sin-offering on account] of [sinning in] unawareness, (17) whereas this law is not explicitly stated in the passage on the bullock of unawareness, but is learnt from the anointed priest's bullock: (18) therefore ‘as is taken off’ is required, so that it might count as written in that very passage (19) and not as something which is learnt through a Hekkesh and then in turn teaches through a hekkesh. (20) Said R. Papa to Raba: Then let [Scripture] write it in its own context, (21) and not assimilate [it to the anointed priest's bullock]? (22) — If [Scripture] wrote it in its own context, and did not teach it by assimilation, I would say, That which is learnt through a Hekkesh can in turn teach through a hekkesh; (23) and if you object, Then let Scripture assimilate it? (24) [I could answer that Scripture] prefers to write it [explicitly] in its own context rather than to teach it through a Hekkesh. Therefore [Scripture] wrote it (25) and assimilated it, in order to teach that that which is learnt through a Hekkesh does not in turn teach through a Hekkesh. (Mnemonic: Hekkesh and gezerah shawah; kal wa-homer.) (26) [It is agreed that] that which is learnt through a Hekkesh does not in turn teach through a Hekkesh, [this being learnt] either by Raba's or by Rabina's [exegesis]. Can that which is learnt through a Hekkesh teach through a gezerah shawah? (27) — Come and hear: R. Nathan b. Abtolemos said: Whence do we know that a spreading outbreak [of leprosy] in garments [covering the whole] is clean? Karahath [baldness of the back of the head] and gabbahath [baldness of the front] are mentioned in connection with garments, and also in connection with man: (28) just as in the latter, if [the plague] spread over the whole skin, he is clean; (29) so in the former too, if it spread over the whole [garment], it is clean. And how do we know it there? (30) Because it is written, [And if the leprosy... cover all the skin...] from his head even to his feet, (31) and [thereby] his head (32) is assimilated [through a Hekkesh] to his feet: (33) as there, when it is all turned white, having broken out all over him, he is clean; so here too, when it breaks out all over him,34 he is clean. (35) Said R. Johanan: (36) In the whole Torah we rule that whatever is learnt can teach, save in the case of sacrifices, where we do not rule that whatever is learnt can teach. For if it were so [that we did rule thus], let ‘northward’ not be said in connection with a guilt-offering, and it could be inferred from sin-offerings by the gezerah shawah of ‘it is most holy’. (37) Surely then its purpose is to teach that that which is learnt by a Hekkesh does not in turn teach through a gezerah shawah. (38) But perhaps [we do not learn it there] because one can refute it: as for a sinoffering, [it requires north] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth? — A superfluous ‘most holy’ is written. (39) That which is learnt through a Hekkesh teaches in turn by a kal wa-homer. (40)

---

(1). ↑ The general law is that stated in VII, 1-10, while a leper's guilt-offering is singled out for a new law not in harmony with the general law, for whereas the blood of an ordinary guilt-offering is sprinkled on the altar, the blood of this is applied to the right thumb, right ear, and the great toe of the right foot. Now, if it were not stated in the general regulations on the guilt-offerings that it must be slaughtered in the north, but were stated here, this would come not under the preceding but under the following rule: if anything is included in a general proposition and is then singled out to teach a special regulation, this applies not only to the case where it is stated, but to the whole. Thus a leper's guilt-offering is included in the general guilt-offerings dealt with in VII, 1-10; when it is singled out here for slaughtering in the north, that applies to all guilt-offerings, and not only to itself. (The other rule with which we are now dealing holds good only when the new law is not in harmony with the general one, as explained at the beginning of the note.) Hence on this view it need not be stated in VII, 1- (10) that it is killed in the north, as this would follow from XIV, (14) seq.; its repetition teaches that the north is indispensable.
(2). ↑ In VII, 1-10, that it is killed in the north.
(3). ↑ That it is killed in the north, for on the present view we could not learn all guilt-offerings from a leper's guilt-offering, even in respect of a law which is not in disharmony (sc. slaughtering in the north), since the latter is made the subject of one law which is in disharmony (sc. sprinkling on the right thumb, etc.).
(4). ↑ Scripture restored a leper's guilt-offering to the general rule by saying, for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering, whence we know that it must be slaughtered in the north. ‘And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering’ (sc. in the north), written in the same verse, is thus mere repetition, and so teaches that the north is indispensable.
(5). ↑ It must be done by a priest. Hence the restoration to the general proposition shows that its emurim and some of the blood must be presented at the altar, in addition to its being applied to the right thumb, etc.
(6). ↑ But for ‘and he shall kill’, etc. In that case it is not a repetition, and does not teach that it is indispensable.
(7). ↑ Why mention the guilt-offering, seeing that the whole passage deals with it?
(8). ↑ Sc. that it must be slaughtered in the north. Hence ‘and he shall kill’, etc. is a repetition.
(9). ↑ Therefore Scripture adds the burnt-offering, to show that that is not so.
(10). ↑ I.e., there would be nothing in this text to show the contrary.
(11). ↑ Which would positively prove it.
(12). ↑ The burnt-offering is the principal source of the law, since it is there that the north is specified, whereas the sin-offering is only a secondary source, since it is derived from the former.
(13). ↑ That a thing derived through a Hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a Hekkesh.
(14). ↑ Lev. IV, 10. This refers to the burning of the emurim of the anointed priest's bullock for a sinoffering.
(15). ↑ To intimate that these are burnt on the altar, as in the case of a peace-offering.
(16). ↑ It is explicitly stated in v. 9.
(17). ↑ As stated supra 41a.
(18). ↑ As stated supra 39b.
(19). ↑ Sc. dealing with the bullock of unawareness. It is so regarded because it is superfluous where it stands.
(20). ↑ Which therefore shows that such is inadmissible.
(21). ↑ Sc. in the section on the bullock of unawareness.
(22). ↑ Since an extra text is required in any case, let it be written explicitly in its own context.
(23). ↑ I.e., it would be possible to say so.
(24). ↑ Let Scripture teach it through a Hekkesh, without writing it explicitly.
(25). ↑ In the passage dealing with the anointed priest.
(26). ↑ V. p. 31, n. 6.
(27). ↑ Thus: The law, which is stated in A, is applied to B by a Hekkesh; can that then be applied to C, because there is a gezerah shawah between B and C? Similarly in the other cases that follow.
(28). ↑ Leprosy in man: Lev. XIII, 42f; in garments: ibid. 55. In connection with garments, karahath denotes leprosy on the inside (right) of the cloth; gabbahath on the front or outside thereof.
(29). ↑ Ibid. 12-13.
(30). ↑ That a karahath or gabbahath which spreads and covers the whole head is clean? For Lev. XIII, 12- (13) refers to leprosy of the skin, not of the head; moreover, they differ in their symptoms. For the symptom of leprosy of the skin is that the hair turns white (ibid. v, 3, 12), whereas that of a karahath or gabbahath is that the hair turns yellow or reddish-white (ibid. 30, 42).
(31). ↑ Ibid 12.
(32). ↑ I.e., the leprosy of his head, such as a scale, or karahath or gabbahath.
(33). ↑ I.e., to the rest of the body.
(34). ↑ I.e., over his whole head or beard. — Emended text (Sh. M).
(35). ↑ Thus we first learn by a Hekkesh that a karahath or gabbahath in human beings covering the whole head is clean, and then that same law is applied to garments by a gezerah shawah.
(36). ↑ In rebutting this proof.
(37). ↑ Which is stated of both the sin-offering (Lev. VI, 18) and the guilt-offering (VII, 1).
(38). ↑ For in fact the rule that what is learnt by a Hekkesh cannot in turn teach by a Hekkesh applies to sacrifices only, and it is now shown that it cannot teach in turn through a gezerah shawah either. Whereas the passage quoted referred to a different subject, viz., leprosy, and there what is learnt through a Hekkesh can teach in turn even through a Hekkesh.
(39). ↑ In Num. XVIII, 9. Since this is superfluous, a gezerah shawah could be learnt even through the guilt-offering is dissimilar from the sin-offering. The fact that we do not do so proves that what is learnt by a Hekkesh does not, in the case of sacrifices, teach in turn by a gezerah shawah.
(40). ↑ V. Glos.