Zevachim 15
אשכחן שנוי קדש שנוי בעלים מנלן אמר קרא עליו עליו ולא על חבירו
We have thus found [it of] slaughtering and receiving: How do we know it of sprinkling? - Because Scripture saith, And the priest shall make atonement for him through his sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 35. This is apparently the Talmudic rendering of the verse.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנלן כדאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חטאת חטאתו הכא נמי חטאת חטאתו
[which teaches] that atonement must be [made] for the sake of the sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Atonement consists in essence of the sprinkling. - Carrying the blood to the side of the Altar where it is sprinkled is included in receiving');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אשכחן מצוה בשנוי קדש וזריקה בשנוי בעלים בין למצוה בין לעכב לעכב בכל עבודות בשנוי קדש ובשאר עבודות בשנוי בעלים בין למצוה בין לעכב מנלן
We have thus found [the law relating to] change in respect of Sanctity; how do we know it of change in respect of owner? -Scripture saith: [And the priest shall make atonement]for him, implying for him, but not for his fellow.
אמר ר' יונה אתיא מחטאת נזיר דכתיב (במדבר ו, טז) והקריב הכהן לפני ה' ועשה את חטאתו ואת עולתו שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם חטאת
We have thus found it as a regulation: how do we know that it is indispensable? - As R'Huna the son of R'Joshua said [elsewhere; Scripture saith,] 'his sin-offering', [where] 'sin-offering' [alone would suffice]: so here too' [Scripture saith,] his sin-offering [where] sin-offering [alone would suffice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphasis implicit in 'his' intimates indispensability.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אשכחן שנוי קדש שנוי בעלים מנלן (אם אינו ענין לשנוי קדש תניהו ענין לשנוי בעלים אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנלן)
We have thus found the regulation relating to change in respect of sanctity, and [a prohibition of] change in respect of owner at the sprinkling, this being both a regulation and indispensable.
מתקיף לה רבינא אלא מעתה עולת עולתו מאי דרשת ביה
as far as change in respect of sanctity is concerned; and that [the prohibition of] change in respect of ownership at the other services is both a regulation and indispensable? - Said R'Jonah: It is inferred from a nazirite's sin-offering, for it is written, And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall prepare his sin-offering, and his burnt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 16.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ההוא מבעי ליה מנחתם ונסכיהם בלילה מנחתם ונסכיהם אפי' למחר אלא עולת עולתו מאי דרשת בהו
We have thus found it regarding change in respect of sanctity; how do we know change In respect of owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A passage follows here in the original which the commentaries delete.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ואשכחן שנוי קדש שנוי בעלים מנליה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, יט) וכפר על המטהר וגו' על המטהר זה ולא על המטהר חבירו
But according to Rabina, how does he interpret [the apparently superfluous] 'his meal-offering', 'his drink-offering', where 'meal-offering', 'drink-offering' [alone would suffice]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'His meal-offering' and 'his drink-offering' (or rather 'their') occur quite frequently; why does Rabina ask only about 'his burnt-offering' and not about these?');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ואכתי מי ילפא מהדדי חטאת חלב מחטאת מצורע לא ילפא שכן יש עמה דמים אחרים חטאת מצורע מחטאת חלב לא גמרה שכן כרת
- He requires those [for the following deduction]: Their meal-offering and their drink-offering [intimates] at night; their meal-offering and their drink-offering, even on the next day).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 84a.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
לא לכתוב רחמנא בחטאת מצורע ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן אין באין בדלות
The sin-offering of forbidden fat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the technical designation of all sin-offerings brought on account of actual sin, in contrast e.g., to a nazirite's sin-offering, which is not really brought through sin at all.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אלא אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה וגו' הקישו הכתוב לשלמים מה שלמים בין שנוי קדש בין שנוי בעלים בעינן לשמן למצוה אף חטאת בין שנוי קדש בין שנוי בעלים בעינן לשמן למצוה
cannot be learnt from a nazirite's sin-offering, since the latter is accompanied by another sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'other blood'.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
הילכך מצוה משלמים והנך קראי לעכב
[On the other hand] a nazirite's sin-offering cannot be learnt from the sin-offering of forbidden fat, since the latter case of kareth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering is brought for the unwitting transgression of an injunction which, if deliberately violated, entails kareth (v. Glos) .');"><sup>13</sup></span>
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>