Zevachim 49b

זבחים מ״ט ע״ב

Learn Zevachim 49b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Zevachim 49b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

How far a law learned through a היקש can be passed on in קדשים, by another היקש, a גזירה שוה, or a קל וחומר

Overview

The גמרא first finishes showing that the פסוק about the אשם מצורע can teach that every אשם is slaughtered in the צפון, because the words 'כי כחטאת האשם' fully return it to its group. Next it asks why the same פסוק compares the אשם מצורע to both the חטאת and the עולה. רבינא answers that naming both teaches a rule: a law learned through a היקש cannot be passed on through another היקש. רבא proves the same rule from 'כאשר יורם' and the bull brought for a communal mistake. The גמרא then asks whether a law learned by היקש can teach through a גזירה שוה. A ברייתא about צרעת spreading over a garment suggests it can. רבי יוחנן limits this: it works everywhere except קדשים, and he proves it from the fact that the תורה writes 'north' by the אשם. The amud ends as the גמרא begins to discuss whether a law learned by היקש can teach through a קל וחומר, and that discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (30)

1. ChallengeThe north verse may only be needed for the leper's guilt offering itself
2. ResolutionOnce the verse returned it to its group, it returned it fully
3. ChallengeMaybe the return covers only the priestly jobs, not slaughter
4. ResolutionThe extra word 'the guilt offering' means it is like all guilt offerings
5. QuestionWhy compare the אשם מצורע to both the חטאת and the עולה?
6. Resolutionרבינא: mentioning only the חטאת would lead to a wrong conclusion
7. Challengeמר זוטרא: then mention only the עולה
8. ResolutionMentioning only the עולה would also not teach the rule
9. ConclusionBoth are mentioned to teach that a law learned by היקש does not teach by היקש
10. Statementרבא brings a different source for the rule
11. QuestionWhy is the comparison to the peace offering needed?
12. ResolutionThe comparison is really for the communal bull
13. ConclusionIt counts as written directly, which proves the rule
14. Challengeרב פפא asks why not just write it plainly
15. ResolutionIf the תורה only wrote it, we would learn the wrong rule
16. ResolutionWhy not only compare it? Writing it directly is preferred
17. ConclusionThe תורה wrote it and compared it to teach the rule
18. StatementA memory aid for the coming discussion
19. ConclusionThe rule about היקש is settled from רבא or רבינא
20. QuestionCan a law learned by היקש teach by גזירה שוה?
21. ProofA proof begins: spreading צרעת in garments
22. ProofFinishing the comparison: a fully covered garment is pure
23. QuestionWhere do we know the rule for the head?
24. ResponseThe head learns from the feet by היקש
25. StatementLearned from learned works everywhere except קדשים
26. ProofProof from the north side of the אשם
27. ProofWhat the extra verse about the אשם proves
28. RejectionMaybe the גזירה שוה fails for a different reason
29. ResolutionThe extra words make the גזירה שוה unbreakable
30. StatementA rule learned by היקש can teach through a קל וחומר