Zevachim 98a — the Talmud in English

There is one who derives it from here,

from the amplification in the verse, “In the Holy of Holies you shall eat it,”

and there is one who derives it from here,

from the fact that all the offerings were likened to the meal-offering.

And all the offerings were likened to the

sin-offering,

to teach:

just as a sin-offering sanctifies through absorption

to become like it,

so too all

the offerings

sanctify through absorption,

for if a less stringent offering absorbed from the more stringent one, it becomes sanctified to be eaten like it; and if a valid offering absorbed from an invalid one, it becomes invalid like it.

And all the offerings were likened to the

guilt-offering,

to teach:

just as a fetus and afterbirth are not sanctified in a guilt-offering,

for a fetus and afterbirth will never be found in a guilt-offering, since all guilt-offerings are males,

so too all

the offerings that are females

do not have a fetus and afterbirth sanctified in them,

and the fat and the two kidneys of a fetus in their wombs are not offered.

And we explain:

He holds: the offspring of consecrated animals are sanctified at their coming into being.

Only when they are born are they sanctified, and not in the womb of their mother.

And they derive the possible,

the other offerings that are females,

from what is possible,

from the male guilt-offering.

All the offerings were likened to the

inauguration offerings,

to teach:

just as the leftovers of the inauguration offerings,

the flesh that remained from them,

are burned, and there are no living animals among their leftovers,

for they were communal offerings, and two were not set aside for liability, nor did one of them become lost and another was set aside in its place and then the first was found,

so too all

the consecrated offerings,

their leftovers,

that remained after the time of eating,

are burned, and there are no living animals among their leftovers.

For if there were living animals among their leftovers—for example, an individual who set aside two offerings for the liability of his obligation, so that if one were lost he would attain atonement through the other, or if he set aside an offering and it became lost, and he set aside another in its place, and the first was found, and he offered one of them while the second became leftover—this leftover is not burned like the leftover of the inauguration offerings.

All the offerings were likened to the

peace-offerings,

to teach:

just as peace-offerings render

the libations subject to pigul, if he had the thought with regard to the peace-offerings, the libations become subject to pigul,

and become subject to pigul

the peace-offerings themselves.

In a baraita it was taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva:

all the consecrated offerings were likened

to the meal-offering

to teach:

just as a meal-offering is sanctified through absorption

to become like it,

so too all

the offerings

are sanctified through absorption

to become like it, to be eaten according to the law of the more stringent element in them.

And we explain:

And it was necessary to write “meal-offering,” and it was necessary to write “sin-offering,”

for in both of them a verse is needed that the piece absorbed from it becomes sanctified to become like it.

For if he had taught us only a meal-offering,

I would say

that since it is soft

because it is fine flour, it is absorbed, since it is soft and a soft thing is absorbed easily.

But a sin-offering,

which is not soft,

I might say, no,

it does not sanctify through absorption.

And if he had taught us only a sin-offering,

I would say

because it is thick,

since the flesh is thick and fatty, the fat enters and is absorbed deeply within it.

But a meal-offering,

which is not thick,

I might say, no,

it is not sanctified through absorption. Therefore

it is necessary

to write concerning both that it becomes sanctified through absorption.

And all the offerings were likened to the

sin-offering,

to teach:

just as a sin-offering comes only from non-sacred funds, and during the day, and with his right hand, so too all

the offerings

come only from non-sacred funds,

and not from second tithe,

and during the day,

for the offerings are slaughtered and their blood is sprinkled only during the day, and likewise the other services are performed only during the day, such as burning, receiving, sprinkling, taking the handful, and pinching,

and with his right hand,

for there is no service except with the right hand.

And we raise a question concerning it:

And the sin-offering

itself,

from where do we know

that it comes only from non-sacred funds?

And we explain:

Rav Hisda said: The verse states

concerning the bull of the sin-offering of Yom Kippur:

“And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin-offering that is his,”

and they expound:

from his own, and not from that of the community,

from the chamber donation,

and not from second tithe.

And we refute:

“During the day”—is it not derived from “on the day of his commandment”?!

And why does he need to learn it from the sin-offering, since concerning all the offerings it is written, “on the day of his commandment to offer it,” which implies during the day and not at night?

And we answer:

It was stated incidentally!

Indeed, it could be learned from “on the day of his commandment,” and what is written, that we learn from the sin-offering that it comes only during the day [as it is written, “for

on the day

this shall atone for you”], was stated unnecessarily, incidentally to the other matters learned from the sin-offering.

And we refute: Why does he need to learn from the sin-offering that the service is performed

with his right hand?

Is it not

derived from Rabba bar bar Hana?!

For Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Reish Lakish: Wherever “finger” and “priesthood” are stated, it refers only to the right hand.

For it is stated concerning the sin-offering: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger,” and it is learned from the poor leper, concerning whom it is written, “and he shall dip his right finger,” and from it it is learned for every place where “priest” or “finger” is written, that the service is to be performed with the right hand.

And we answer:

It was stated incidentally!

Indeed, it could be learned from the exposition of Rabba bar bar Hana, and what is written, that we learn from the sin-offering that it is performed only with the right hand, was stated unnecessarily, incidentally to the other matters learned from the sin-offering.

And we answer further:

And if you wish, say: He agrees with Rabbi Shimon, who says:

where

“finger” is written, priesthood is not required

to learn that it is performed with the right hand. But

priesthood requires a finger.

For even though “priesthood” is written, if “finger” is not written, we do not learn that the right hand is required. Therefore we learn from the sin-offering, since both are written in it: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger.”

And all the offerings were likened to the

guilt-offering,

to teach:

just as its bones are permitted

to make utensils from them, for its flesh is eaten by priests, and the law of leftover in the bones applies only to something that is eaten,

so too all

the offerings, even a burnt-offering, although it is entirely burned,

its bones are permitted.

And incidentally, as the Gemara is occupied with consecrated offerings that become sanctified through absorption, it discusses the sprinkling of the blood of a sin-offering that is absorbed into a garment.