Zevachim 195

איכא דנפקא ליה מהכא ואיכא דנפקא ליה מהכא

one infers it from this verse, and another infers it from the other.' Of a sin-offering': as a sin-offering sanctifies through absorption, so all [sacrifices] sanctify through absorption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the answer to the question, how do we know that all sacrifices sanctify through absorption? The rest of the discussion is really irrelevant here.');">¹</span>

חטאת מה חטאת מתקדשת בבלוע אף כל מתקדשת בבלוע

'Of a guilt-offering': as a guilt-offering, the foetus and after-birth inside it are not holy, so all [sacri the foetus and after-birth inside them are not holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A guilt-offering was a male, and so there could be no foetus or afterbirth inside it to be holy. From this we learn that the foetus and afterbirth in female sacrifices, e.g. peace-offerings and sin-offerings, are not holy. If then a foetus was found in a sacrifice after it was slaughtered, its heleb');">²</span> He holds that the young of sacrifices become holy when they come into existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when they are born, but not before.');">³</span>

אשם מה אשם אין שפיר ושליא קדוש בו אף כל אין שפיר ושליא קדוש בו קסבר וולדות קדשים בהווייתן הן קדושים ודנין אפשר משאי אפשר

and that we infer what is possible from what is not possible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., females from males, though in the latter case the foetus and after-birth are not holy because they do not exist.');">⁴</span> 'Of the consecration-offering': as the consecration-offering, the remainder thereof was burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VIII, 32, which refers to the consecration-offering.');">⁵</span>

מלואים מה מלואים מותריהן בשריפה ואין בעלי חיים במותריהן אף כל מותריהן בשריפה ואין בעלי חיים במותריהן

and there were no living animals among its remainder;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecration-offering was a public sacrifice, and we do not find that two animals were dedicated for the purpose (v. next note) , so that one should be a 'remainder'. Thus only flesh and bread were a remainder, and these alone were burnt.');">⁶</span> so all [sacrifices], their remainder is burnt, but living animal are not counted as remainder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever remains of a sacrifice after the time allowed for its consumption is burnt (as nothar) . This, however, does not apply to a living remainder. E.g. if a man dedicated an animal for a sacrifice, lost it, dedicated a second, found the first and sacrificed one of them; similarly, if he dedicated two animals in the first instance, so that if one were lost the second would be sacrificed. The other is technically called a remainder, but this remainder is not burnt.');">⁷</span>

שלמים מה שלמים מפגלין ומתפגלין אף כל מפגלין ומתפגלין

'Of the. peace-offering': as [parts of] a peace-offering render piggul, and [parts] are rendered piggul [in] all [sacrifices] [where there are parts which] render piggul and [parts which] are made piggul [the law of piggul applies].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 28b.');">⁸</span>

במתניתא תנא משמיה דר"ע מנחה מה מנחה מתקדשת בבלוע אף כל מתקדשת בבלוע

It was taught in a Baraitha in R'Akiba's name: 'Of the meal-offering': as a meal-offering sanctifies throug absorption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is written, whatsoever toucheth them (sc. the meal-offerings) shall be holy (Lev. VI, 11) .');">⁹</span> so all [sacrifices] sanctify through absorption.

ואיצטריך למכתב מנחה ואיצטריך למכתב חטאת דאי אשמעינן מנחה דאיידי דרכיכא מיבלעא אבל חטאת אימא לא ואי אשמעינן חטאת משום דקריר אבל מנחה אימא לא צריכא

Now, it is necessary for both 'meal-offering' and 'sin-offering' to be written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same is written of the sin-offering.');">¹⁰</span> For if we were informed [this about] a meal-offering, [I might say that was] because it is soft it absorbs; but [as for] a sin-offering, I would say [that it is] not [so].

חטאת מה חטאת אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית אף כל אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית וחטאת מנלן אמר רב חסדא אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, ו) והקריב אהרן את פר החטאת אשר לו משלו ולא משל ציבור ולא משל מעשר

And if we were informed about a sin-offering, [I might say] that is because it is solid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the flesh is thick, the grease penetrates deeply into it.');">¹¹</span> but a meal-offering I would say is not so.

ביום (ויקרא ז, לח) מביום צוותו נפקא כדי נסבה

Thus both are necessary.' Of the sin-offering': as a sin-offering comes of hullin only, and by day, and [its rites must be performed] with his [the priest's] right hand; so every [sacrifice] comes of hullin only, by day, and [its rites must be performed] with his right hand.

בידו הימנית מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר"ל כל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינו אלא ימין כדי נסבה

And how do we know it of a sin-offering [itself]? - Said R'Hisda, Scripture saith: And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is his:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 6. E.V. which is for himself.');">¹²</span> [that intimates that] it must be his,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Purchased at his own expense.');">¹³</span>

ואיבעית אימא סבר לה כר"ש דאמר אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונה בעיא אצבע

and not the congregation's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not bought with public funds.');">¹⁴</span> nor of tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must not be an animal of tithe, which is sacred in its own right. Hence it must be hullin.');">¹⁵</span>

אשם מה אשם עצמותיו מותרין אף כל עצמותיו מותרין

[That its rites must be performed] by day is inferred from: in the day that he commanded [etc.]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 38. This refers to all the sacrifices enumerated in the preceding verse; why then derive it from a sin-offering?');">¹⁶</span> That is stated unnecessarily.

אמר רבא פשיטא לי

[That its rites must be performed] with his right hand is inferred from Rabbah B'Bar Hanah's [exegesis]? For Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: Wherever 'finger' and 'priesthood' are stated, the right hand only [must be used]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And 'priesthood' is stated in connection with each of these sacrifices.');">¹⁷</span> That [too] is stated unnecessarily. Alternatively, he agrees with R'Simeon, who maintained: [Where] 'finger' [is stated], priesthood is not required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To shew that the right hand is meant.');">¹⁸</span> [but where] 'priesthood' [is stated], 'finger' is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are stated in connection with a sin-offering, but only priesthood is stated in connection with the others. Hence they must be inferred from a sin-offering.');">¹⁹</span> 'Of the guilt-offering': as the bones of a guilt-offering are permitted, so the bones of every [sacrifice] a permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 86a.');">²⁰</span> Raba said: It is clear to me