The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the halakha that a burnt offering itself has its blood presented on the altar in a place where there is a base? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, as it is written: ''And he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt offering'' (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that the blood of an obligatory burnt offering requires presentation at the base of the altar, as the verse specifically describes the base of the altar as connected to the burnt offering.

The Gemara asks: If it is derived from a burnt offering via a ver-bal analogy, one might think that just as there, a burnt offering requires two placements that are four, so too here, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering should also require two placements that are four, and not just a single placement.

Abaye says: Why do I need the Torah to write: ''And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood around against the altar'' (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to a burnt offering, to teach that the blood must be placed on all four sides of the altar, in addition to writing: ''And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the corners of the altar around with his finger'' (Leviticus 8:15), with regard to a sin offering? They are two verses that come as one, i.e., they teach the same matter; and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. Therefore, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering do not require two placements that are four.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect with regard to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Together with the verse stated with regard to a guilt offering, there are three verses, as it is written: ''And its blood shall be sprinkled around the altar'' (Leviticus 7:2), and three verses which come as one certainly do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases.

§ The mishna teaches: The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn offering that it is eaten for two days and the intervening night? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: ''And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh'' (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes the firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

The baraita relates: And this question was asked before the Sages in the vineyard, i.e., the academy, in Yavne: For how many days and nights is a firstborn offering eaten? Rabbi Tarfon responded and said: For two days and one night.

There was one student there who came to the study hall before the Sages for the first time, and his name was Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. He said to Rabbi Tarfon: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: My son, peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity, and a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, there is a different comparison that can be made: A firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest, and a sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.

Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity, as are peace offerings, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: Just as peace offerings do not come as atonement for a sin, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as atonement for a sin. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, I can answer you in a similar way. Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is more similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: A sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest, and a firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering do not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering, i.e., they are brought only by one obligated to bring them, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.

Rabbi Akiva jumped into the discussion, and Rabbi Tarfon left. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: ''And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh'' (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes firstborn offerings with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to Rabbi Akiva: You juxtaposed it with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. But since the Torah does not specify with which offering the firstborn is juxtaposed, I juxtapose it with a breast and thigh of a thanks offering, which are also given to a priest. Just as a thanks offering is eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: I concede that it is possible to juxtapose a firstborn offering with a thanks offering, but the verse states: ''And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours'' (Numbers 18:18). Since there is no need for the verse to state a second time: ''It shall be yours,'' what is the meaning when the verse states a second time: ''It shall be yours''? The verse adds another day on which it is permitted for a firstborn offering to be eaten, i.e., a second day.

The Gemara relates: And when these matters were said before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to his students: Go out and tell Rabbi Akiva: You were mistaken when you conceded to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that the allotted time for eating a firstborn offering could have been derived from the allotted time for eating a thanks offering. Why? From where is it derived that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten by priests? It is derived from a juxtaposition with a peace offering. Nowhere is it stated explicitly that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten only by priests. And in the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrated that it cannot. Consequently, you should not infer from the latter formulation of the verse, from the words ''It shall be yours,'' but rather, from the first formulation of the verse, as you claimed that the Torah juxtaposes a firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of a peace offering.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael do with this extra phrase: ''It shall be yours''? This teaches about a blemished firstborn offering, that it is also given as a gift to the priest, as we have not found it written explicitly anywhere in the entire Torah what should be done with a blemished firstborn.

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive that a blemished firstborn offering is also given as a gift to the priest? He derives it from the term ''their flesh,'' which is written in the plural. This teaches that both an unblemished firstborn offering and a blemished firstborn offering are given as gifts to the priest. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael understand the plural term? The Gemara answers that he understands it to be saying that the priest receives gifts from the flesh of all these firstborn offerings mentioned in the verse, i.e., the firstborn of cattle, sheep, and goats.

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael both agree that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition, with regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that a halakha derived both from that juxtaposition and from another principle is considered a juxtaposition. In this case, the specific detail that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are given to a priest is derived from a juxtaposition with peace offerings. The length of time in which it may be eaten, one day and one night, is written explicitly. Since it is nevertheless considered a juxtaposition, it cannot be used to teach the halakha with regard to a firstborn offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that such a case is not considered to be a juxtaposition, and therefore it can be used to teach another halakha via a juxtaposition.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not considered a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: ''And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity'' (Leviticus 16:16).

The High Priest sprinkles the blood of two offerings, the bull and the goat. He sprinkles their blood between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. In each location he sprinkles their blood once above and seven times below. The verse does not write all of the details of these sprinklings with regard to each offering, and the details of each are derived from what is written explicitly in the other, as follows: Just as the High Priest sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, between the staves of the Ark, once above and seven times below, with the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary.

And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once above and seven times below, with the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary. This is an instance of a halakha derived both from a juxtaposition and from another principle, and the stringency that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot also teach its halakha via a juxtaposition is not applied in this case.

But according to the one who says that this too is considered a juxtaposition, what can be said? How can these halakhot be derived? The Gemara answers: It is the locations where the blood is sprinkled that are derived from one another in the second juxtaposition. The first juxtaposition teaches one halakha, namely, that the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are to be compared to one another. The second juxtaposition does not teach a halakha with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat per se; rather it teaches a comparison between the sprinkling performed in the Holy of Holies and the sprinkling performed in the Sanctuary. These are two unconnected juxtapositions.