Zevachim 98a (צח.) — the Talmud in English

Some derive it from here:

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

and some derive it from here:

from the fact that all the offerings were equated with the meal-offering.

And all the offerings were equated with the

sin-offering,

to teach:

Just as a sin-offering sanctifies through absorption

to become like it,

so too all

the offerings

are sanctified through absorption,

so that if a less stringent offering absorbed some of a more stringent one, it becomes sanctified to be eaten like the latter; and if a valid offering absorbed some of an invalid one, it becomes invalid like the latter.

And all the offerings were equated with the

guilt-offering,

to teach:

Just as a fetus and placenta do not become sacred in a guilt-offering,

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

so too all

the offerings that are brought as females

do not have a fetus and placenta that become sacred in them,

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

And we explain:

He holds that the offspring of consecrated animals become sacred at the time of their formation.

They become sacred only when they are born, and not while they are in their mother’s womb.

And can one derive what is possible

—the other female offerings—

from what is possible

—from the male guilt-offering?

All the offerings were equated with 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 live animals among their leftovers,

as they were communal offerings, and two were not designated for liability, nor was one of them lost and another designated in its place, after which the first was found,

so too all

the sacred offerings,

their leftovers,

what remains after the time allotted for eating,

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

For if there were live animals among their leftovers, as in the case of an individual who designated two offerings for liability for his obligation, so that if one were lost he could achieve atonement through the other, or if he designated an offering and it was lost, designated another in its place, and then the first was found, and he sacrificed one of them while the other became leftover, this leftover would not be burned, as is the law of the leftover of the inauguration offerings.

All the offerings were equated with the

peace-offerings,

to teach:

Just as peace-offerings render

the libations subject to piggul, if one had a disqualifying intention with regard to the peace-offerings, the libations become subject to piggul,

and become subject to piggul

the peace-offerings themselves.

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

All the sacred offerings were equated

with 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 among them.

And we explain:

It was necessary to write both “meal-offering” and “sin-offering,”

as a verse is needed in both cases to establish that the piece absorbed from it becomes sanctified to become like it.

If you had been taught only the case of a meal-offering,

I might have said:

Because it is soft,

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

But with regard to a sin-offering,

which is not soft,

say that it does not

become sanctified through absorption.

And if you had been taught only the case of a sin-offering,

I might have said:

Because it is thick,

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

But with regard to a meal-offering,

which is not thick,

say that it does not

become sanctified through absorption. Therefore,

it is necessary

to write both cases, establishing that it becomes sanctified through absorption.

And all the offerings were equated with the

sin-offering,

to teach:

Just as a sin-offering comes only from non-consecrated property, and by day, and with his right hand, so too all

the offerings

come only from non-consecrated property,

and not from second tithe;

and by day,

as offerings may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled only by day, and likewise the other rites are performed only by day, such as burning, receiving, sprinkling, taking the handful, and pinching;

and with his right hand,

as no sacrificial rite is performed except with the right hand.

We raise a question:

And with regard to the sin-offering

itself,

from where do we derive

that it comes only from non-consecrated property?

And we explain:

Rav Hisda said: The verse states,

with regard to the bull of the sin-offering on Yom Kippur:

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

and we expound:

“That is his own,” and not that of the community,

from the chamber donation,

and not from second tithe.

And we challenge this:

“By day” is derived from “on the day of his command”!

Why does it need to be learned from a sin-offering? For the phrase “on the day of his command to offer them” is written with regard to all the offerings, indicating that they are offered by day and not at night.

And we answer:

It was mentioned incidentally!

Indeed, it can be learned from “on the day of his command,” and the statement that it is learned from the sin-offering that it comes only by day—[as it is written, “For

on this day

you shall be forgiven”]—was stated unnecessarily, incidentally to the other matters learned from the sin-offering.

And we challenge this: Why does it need to learn from the sin-offering that the sacrificial rite is performed

with his right hand?

After all,

it can be derived from Rabba bar bar Ḥana!

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

As it is stated with regard to a sin-offering: “The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger,” and this is learned from the poor leper, with regard to whom it is written: “And he shall dip his right finger.” From there we learn that everywhere that “priest” or “finger” is written, the rite is performed with the right hand.

And we answer:

It was mentioned incidentally!

Indeed, it can be learned from the derivation of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and the statement that it is learned 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 give another answer:

And if you wish, say: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said:

Wherever

“finger” is written, “priesthood” is not required

to derive that the rite is performed with the right hand. But

“priesthood” requires “finger.”

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

And all the offerings were equated with the

guilt-offering,

to teach:

Just as its bones are permitted,

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

so too all

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

have bones that are permitted.

And since the Gemara is discussing sacred offerings that become sanctified through absorption, it discusses the spraying of sin-offering blood that is absorbed into a garment.