Talmud for Zevachim 15:22
ואשכחן חטאת חלב דכתיב בה לחטאת
- Rather, said Raba: We infer it from a leper's sin-offering, for it is written, And the pries shall prepare<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'offer'.');"><sup>14</sup></span> the sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 19.');"><sup>15</sup></span> which teaches that all its preparations [services] must be for the sake of a sin-offering. Thus we have found [the law relating to] change in respect of sanctity; how does he know it of change in respect of owner? - Scripture saith, And [he shall] make atonement for him that is to be cleansed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 19.');"><sup>15</sup></span> [this intimates,] for this [man] who is to be cleansed, but not for his fellow who is to be cleanse Yet [the question] still [remains]: Can they be learnt from each other? The sin-offering of forbidden fat cannot be learnt from the leper's sin-offering, since the latter is accompanied by another sacrifice. [On the other hand] a leper's sin-offering cannot be learnt from the sin-offering of forbidden fat, since the latter is case of kareth! - One cannot be learnt from one, but one can be learnt from two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture need not have intimated the teaching in the case of all those. - This answer implies that one intimation at least is superfluous.');"><sup>16</sup></span> But in the case of which should it not be written? [Shall we say,] Let the Divine law not write it in the case of the sin-offering of forbidden fat, and let it be deduced from these others? [Then I can argue that] the reason in the case of these others is that another sacrifice accompanies them! [If we say,] Let the Divine law not write it in the case of t nazirite's sin-offering and let it be deduced from these others: [I can argue that] the reason in the case of these others is that no absolution [revocation] is possible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A nazirite can be absolved of his vow altogether, and then his sacrificial obligations automatically expire. But in no circumstances can the other two be freed of their obligations.');"><sup>17</sup></span> [If I say,] Let the Divine law not write it in th case of the leper's sin-offering, and let it be deduced from these others: [then I can argue that] the reason in the case of these others is that they do not come in poverty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a leper is too poor he can bring a bird instead of an animal for a sin-offering (V. Lev. XIV, 21-22) . But this leniency is not permitted in the case of the other two.');"><sup>18</sup></span> - Rather, Scripture saith, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering [and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 37.');"><sup>19</sup></span> thus the Writ assimilated it [the sin-offering] to the peace-offering. As in the case of peace-offerings both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of name [are prohibited, for] we require [that the services be performed] for their own [sc. that of the peace-offerings'] sake, this being a regulation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not, however, indispensable to the extent that a peace-offering is invalid if offered as a different sacrifice,');"><sup>20</sup></span> so in the case of the sin-offering both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of name [are prohibited, for] we require [that the services be performed] for their own sake, this being a regulation. Therefore the regulation is deduced from a peace-offering, while these other verses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Quoted above, teaching that change of name and of sanctity are forbidden, which are now superfluous.');"><sup>21</sup></span> teach that it is indispensable. Again, we have found [this of] the sin-offering of forbidden fat, where 'for a sin-offering' is written;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. IV, 33. The passage deals with an offering brought for sins other than those which the Talmud proceeds to enumerate.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
From here through Chapter 7 there exists a series of Genizah fragments from the Kaufmann collection in Budapest, published by S. Loewinger in the Hebrew part of the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volumes (New York 1950), indicated here by K.. Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts50Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation52Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid., this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.