Zevachim 97b — the Talmud in English

And we derive:

“until it is absorbed into its flesh.”

For example, he melted the fat of a sin-offering and smeared with it a roasted piece of a peace-offering, and it was absorbed into it.

One might have said: if

the flesh of a sin-offering

touched part of a piece

of another flesh,

would

the entire piece

be entirely disqualified,

and become sanctified like it?

The verse says: “touches.”

It could have written “that which touches,” but it wrote “which touches”; this implies that only the place of the touching becomes sanctified! And they derive:

“that which touches is disqualified!”

Only the place of the touching becomes sanctified.

How

are these two matters to be fulfilled: that through absorption it becomes sanctified, while, on the other hand, only the place of the touching, and no more, becomes disqualified?

He cuts away the place where it absorbed,

for every place in which there is absorption is called “touching,” and it becomes sanctified; but the remainder of the piece, to which the absorption did not spread, does not become sanctified.

And the beraita continues to expound the words of the verse: “

In its flesh

”—but not in sinews, nor in bones, nor in horns, nor in hooves.

For with regard to becoming sanctified through what is absorbed, actual flesh is required, whereas these are not flesh. “

It shall become sanctified

”—to become like it,

so that the piece that absorbs from it becomes like the matter absorbed into it.

How

does it become like it?

If it is disqualified,

the absorbed matter—for example, pigul, notar, or another disqualification—

it becomes disqualified,

the matter that absorbs from it.

And if it is fit,

it causes the piece that absorbs from it not to be permitted to eat it according to its original status, but

it shall be eaten according to the more stringent one.

For example, if the flesh of a peace-offering touched the flesh of a sin-offering and absorbed some of its fat, the flesh of the peace-offering is eaten according to the stringency of the law of the flesh of the sin-offering that was absorbed into it.

And we challenge this:

Why

should the fit piece become disqualified because a little of the disqualified matter was absorbed into it?

Let the positive commandment come,

“and they shall eat them,” which is written with regard to the fit matter,

and override the prohibition

“you shall not eat,” which is written with regard to the disqualified matter.

And we answer:

Rava said: A positive commandment does not override a prohibition that is in the Temple.

For it was taught:

it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering:

“And you shall not break a bone in it.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Whether a bone contains marrow, or whether a bone does not contain marrow,

in both cases breaking a bone during Pesach is prohibited!

And Rava infers:

Why

is it prohibited to break a bone that contains marrow?

Let the positive commandment come

of eating the flesh of the Paschal offering, as it is written, “and they shall eat the flesh on this night,”

and override the prohibition

of breaking?

Rather, infer from this: a positive commandment does not override a prohibition that is in the Temple,

because a prohibition that is in the Temple is as stringent as a positive commandment, and no other positive commandment overrides it.

And we answer further:

Rav Ashi said: “It shall become sanctified,”

which is stated with regard to a sin-offering,

is a positive commandment. And it turns out that

a sin-offering is

subject to a positive commandment and a prohibition, and a positive commandment

of eating a fit offering

does not override the prohibition

of a disqualified sin-offering

and the positive commandment

of “it shall become sanctified.”

And we inquire about it:

We have found that a sin-offering becomes sanctified through absorbed matter; as for other sacred offerings

that become sanctified through absorbed matter,

from where do we know it?

And we explain:

Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

It is stated: “

This is the law of the burnt-offering, and of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the ordination-offerings, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.”

The entire verse is superfluous, for with regard to each of the offerings individually it is written, “This is the law of the burnt-offering,” “This is the law of the sin-offering,” and so forth. Rather, this verse comes to juxtapose all of them to one another, and to learn one from the other. And they derive that all of them were juxtaposed

to the burnt-offering

—just as a burnt-offering requires a vessel, so too every

offering

requires a vessel.

And we inquire about it:

What vessel

does the burnt-offering teach?

If you say

that one requires a

basin

for receiving the blood, behold,

with regard to communal peace-offerings it is also written

at Mount Sinai: “

And Moses took half the blood and placed it in basins,”

and it is written there, “and they sacrificed peace-offerings.” Since it again juxtaposes all the offerings to peace-offerings, this law as well—that receiving the blood requires a basin—is learned from the peace-offerings.

And we explain:

Rather,

it teaches concerning a

knife

for slaughtering, excluding flint, a fingernail, and a reed, for which a service vessel is required.

And with regard to the burnt-offering itself, from where do we know

that a knife is required for slaughtering?

For it is written, “And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the slaughtering knife,”

and it does not say “the cutting instrument”; this implies that specifically a vessel is required.

And there

at the binding of Isaac,

it is a burnt-offering, for it is written,

“And he brought it up as a burnt-offering instead of his son.”

And from the burnt-offering we learn with regard to all the offerings that they require slaughtering with a knife.

And all the offerings were juxtaposed to the

meal-offering

—

just as a meal-offering is eaten only by male members of the priesthood,

so too every

offering

is eaten only by male members of the priesthood.

And we inquire about it:

What is it,

which offerings are learned from the meal-offering to be eaten only by male members of the priesthood?

If it is sin-offerings and guilt-offerings

that are learned from the meal-offering, behold,

it is explicitly written with regard to them, “Every male among the priests shall eat it,”

and they do not need to be learned from the meal-offering.

And if it is communal peace-offerings

that are learned from the meal-offering—for the sheep of the festival of Weeks are eaten by male members of the priesthood—behold,

it comes from an amplification of the verse,

as it is written:

“In the most holy place you shall eat it; every male shall eat it.”

And although communal peace-offerings are not written there, nevertheless, from this superfluous expression

it teaches about communal peace-offerings that they are eaten only by male members of the priesthood.

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

for there is a dispute between tannaim from where we learn concerning communal peace-offerings that they are eaten by male members of the priesthood.