Zevachim 194

עד שיבלע בבשרה

[this intimates] that it must absorb [thereof] in its flesh. You might think that if it touched a part of a piec flesh, the whole of it is unfit. Therefore it says, '[Whatever] shall touch': only that which touches is unfit.

יכול נגע במקצת חתיכה יהא כולו פסול ת"ל יגע הנוגע פסול הא כיצד חותך את מקום שבלע בבשרה ולא בגידין ולא בעצמות ולא בקרנים ולא בטלפים

How so? The part which absorbed is cut away.' [In] the flesh thereof': but not the tendons, bones, horns or hoofs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These do not render the flesh that touches them 'holy'.');">¹</span>

יקדש להיות כמוה הא כיצד אם פסולה היא תפסל [ואם] כשרה היא תאכל כחמור שבה

'Shall be holy', to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] be unfit; while if it is fit, it may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies. Yet why so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does the flesh of the fit sacrifice become unfit through absorbing of the unfit?');">²</span> let the positive command<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 33: and they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made (sc. the flesh of the sacrifices) .');">³</span>

אמאי וניתי עשה ולידחי את לא תעשה אמר רבא אין עושה דוחה את לא תעשה שבמקדש

come and override the negative injunction!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding the unfit to be eaten, e.g. in Lev. VI, 23 q.v. It is a general principle that a positive injunction overrides a negative injunction when the two are in conflict.');">⁴</span> - Said Raba, A positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. For it was taught: Neither shall ye break a bone thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. Xli, 46. This refers to the Passover-offering.');">⁵</span>

שנאמר (שמות יב, מו) ועצם לא תשברו בו ר"ש בן מנסיא אומר אחד עצם שיש בו מוח ואחד עצם שאין בו מוח אמאי ניתי עשה ולידחי את לא תעשה אלא אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שבמקדש

R'Simeon B'Menassia said: [This refers to] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow. Yet why so? let the positive injunction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To eat the flesh (which includes marrow) , sc. and they shall eat the flesh in that night (Ex. Xli, 8) .');">⁶</span>

רב אשי אמר יקדש עשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

come and override the negative injunction? Hence you can infer that a positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. R'Ashi said: 'Shall be holy' is a positive injunction: thus there are a positive and a negative injunction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding the flesh which absorbed the taste of the disqualified sacrifice.');">⁷</span>

אשכחן חטאת דמתקדש בבלוע שאר קדשים מנלן אמר שמואל משום ר"א (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה ולחטאת ולאשם ולמילואים ולזבח השלמים

and a positive injunction cannot override a positive and a negative injunction [combined]. We have thus found that a sin-offering sanctifies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense stated above.');">⁸</span> [whatever touches it] through absorption; whence do we know it of other sacrifices? - Said Samuel on R'Eleazar's authority: [Scripture saith,] This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 37. The enumeration of all these together with the single superscription 'this is the law' teaches that they are all assimilated to one another, and the Talmud proceeds to explain in which respect they are so assimilated.');">⁹</span>

[לעולה] כי עולה מה עולה טעונה כלי אף כל טעונה כלי מאי כלי אילימא מזרק בשלמי ציבור נמי כתיב בהו (שמות כד, ו) ויקח משה חצי הדם וישם באגנות

'Of a burnt-offering': as a burnt-offering requires a utensil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. keli denotes a vessel or a utensil.');">¹⁰</span> so all require a utensil. What utensil is meant?

אלא דסכין ועולה גופה מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כב, י) וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת והתם עולה הוא דכתיב (בראשית כב, יג) ויעלהו לעולה תחת בנו

If we say, a basin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For receiving the blood; and this teaches that a peace-offering too needs a basin. That a burnt.offering requires a basin is inferred from Ex. XXIV, 5f, q.v.');">¹¹</span> in respect of public peace-offerings too it is written, And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 6. The blood was that of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Hence peace-offerings need not be inferred from burnt-offerings.');">¹²</span> Rather, it means a knife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A burnt-offering must be killed with a knife (a utensil) and not e.g. with a sharp piece of stone (unfashioned into a utensil) , and the text intimates that the same applies to the others.');">¹³</span>

מנחה מה מנחה אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה אף כל אינם נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה מאי היא אי חטאת ואשם בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא ז, ו) כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנו

And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? - Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife [to slay his son],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXII, 10.');">¹⁴</span> and there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 13.');">¹⁵</span> 'Of a meal-offering': as a meal-offering may be eaten by male priests [only], so all may be eaten by male priests only.

ואי שלמי ציבור מריבוייא דקרא אתי (במדבר יח, י) בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו כל זכר יאכל אותו לימד על שלמי ציבור שאינן נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה

Which [are thus inferred]? If the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? [surely] it is explicitly written in connection with them, Every male among the priests may eat thereof!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 6.');">¹⁶</span>

תנאי היא

If public peace-offerings? that is deduced from a Scriptural extension, [viz.] In a most holy place shalt thou<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Aaron.');">¹⁷</span> eat thereof; every male may eat thereof:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 10.');">¹⁸</span> this teaches that public peace-offerings may be eaten by male priests only! - It is a controversy of Tannaim: