Zevachim 92
אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לדברים שאינן נאכלין
<br> One to serve as a generalizations the second as a particularization, and the third [is required] in respect of things which are not eaten. And according to R. Simeon who maintained that the things which cannot be eaten do not involve liability on account of uncleanness, what does it include? - It includes the inner sin-offerings. You might think that since R. Simeon said, Whatever does not come on the outer altar, like peace-offerings, does not involve liability on account of piggul then it does not involve liability on account of uncleanness either. Hence [Scripture) informs us [that it is not so].
ולרבי שמעון דאמר דברים שאין נאכלין אין חייבין עליהם משום טומאה לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי חטאות הפנימיות
Said R. Simeon: That which is normally eaten etc. It was stated, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina [are the pairs concerned in the following discussion], one of the former pair and one of the latter pair: One maintained: The controversy [in the Mishnah] refers to uncleanness of the flesh; but in the case of personal uncleanness all agree that [the offender] is not flagellated. But the other maintained: As there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. [Raba said, Logic supports the view that as there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other.] What is the reason? - Since the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing is applicable to it, then the text having his uncleanness upon him is applicable to it too. That is how R. Tabyomi recited [this discussion]. R. Kahana recited [the views of] one of the former pair and one of the latter pair as referring to the final clause: One maintained: The controversy refers to personal uncleanness, but in the case of uncleanness of flesh all agree that he is flagellated. While the other maintained: As there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. Raba said, Logic supports the view that as there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. What is the reason? - Since the text, 'Having his uncleanness upon him', is not applicable to it, the text, 'And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing' is not applicable to it. But surely a master said: 'And the flesh' is to include the wood and the frankincense? - That is a mere disqualification. <br>
ס"ד אמינא הואיל ואמר רבי שמעון כל שאינו על מזבח החיצון כשלמים אין חייבין עליו משום פיגול משום טומאה נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל:
MISHNAH. THE SACRIFICE IS SLAUGHTERED FOR THE SAKE OF SIX THINGS: FOR THE SAKE OF THE SACRIFICE, FOR THE SAKE OF THE SACRIFICER, FOR THE SAKE OF THE [DIVINE] NAME, FOR THE SAKE OF FIRE-OFFERINGS, FOR THE SAKE OF A SAVOUR, FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASING, AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING FOR THE SAKE OF SIN. R. JOSE SAID: EVEN IF ONE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE PURPOSES IN HIS HEART, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE IT IS A REGULATION OF THE BETH DIN, SINCE THE INTENTION IS DETERMINED ONLY BY THE CELEBRANT. <br>
נומי ר' שמעון מחייב את שדרכו לאכול כו': איתמר רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש רבי אלעזר ורבי יוסי ברבי חנינא חד מהאי זוזא וחד מהאי זוזא
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: [Scripture says, It is a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of pleasing savour unto the Lord]. 'A burnt-offering' [intimates that it must be slaughtered] for the sake of a burnt-offering, excluding [where it is slaughtered] for the sake of a peace-offering, in which case it does not [acquit the owner of his obligation]. 'An offering made by fire' [intimates that] it must be for the sake of an offering made by fire, excluding the charring of the meat, which is not [valid]. 'Savour' [intimates that] it must be for the sake of a savour: this excludes the roasting of limbs [elsewhere] and bringing them up [on the altar], which is not [valid]. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one roasted limbs and took them up on to the altar, they do not fulfil the requirements of 'savour'. 'Pleasing' [intimates that] it must be for the sake of pleasing the Lord, for the sake of Him who spoke and called the world into existence.
חד אמר מחלוקת בטומאת בשר אבל בטומאת הגוף דברי הכל אינו לוקה
Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering under the designation of a burnt-offering, it is invalid; [if one slaughtered it] under the designation of hullin, it is valid. R. Eleazar said: What is Rab's reason? - And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel: 'holy things' profane 'holy things', but hullin does not profane holy things. <br>
וחד אמר כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו מאי טעמא כיון דקרינא ביה (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא קרינן ביה (ויקרא ז, כ) וטומאתו עליו
Rabbah raised an objection: R. JOSE SAID: EVEN IF ONE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE PURPOSES IN HIS HEART, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE IT IS A REGULATION OF THE BETH DIN. Thus it is only because he had no [purpose] in his heart at all; hence, if he intended it for the sake of hullin, it is invalid? - Said Abaye to him: Perhaps [this deduction is to be made]: if he had no intention at all, it is valid and propitiates while if he intended it for the sake of hullin it is valid but does not propitiate. <br>
רב טביומי מתני הכי רב כהנא מתני הכי חד מהאי זוזא וחד מהאי זוזא אסיפא חד אמר מחלוקת בטומאת הגוף אבל בטומאת בשר דברי הכל לוקה וחד אמר כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו
R. Eleazar said: If one slaughters a sin-offering for the sake of hullin it is valid; [if one slaughtered it] as hullin, it is invalid. This is as the question which Samuel asked R. Huna:<br>