Parallel
זבחים 92:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but not a burning piece of wood. Now if you think that he agrees with R. Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]? — In respect to what is unintentional he holds with R. Simeon; but in the matter of work which is not needed per se, he agrees with R. Judah. R. Huna said: If a drink-offering [of wine] was defiled, one must make a separate fire for it and burn it, for it is said, And every [sin-offering] . . . in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire. It was taught likewise: If blood, oil, meal-offerings or drink-offerings were defiled, a separate fire is made for them, and they are burnt. Samuel said to R. Hana of Baghdad: Bring me ten people and I will teach you in their presence: if drink-offerings were defiled, one makes a separate fire for them and burns them. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED ON TO A GARMENT, IT MUST BE WASHED. THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS ONLY OF [SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN, FOR IT IS SAID, IN A HOLY PLACE SHALL IT BE EATEN, YET BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SACRIFICES] NECESSITATE WASHING, FOR IT IS SAID, [THIS IS] THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING: THERE IS ONE LAW FOR ALL SIN-OFFERINGS. THE BLOOD OF A DISQUALIFIED SIN-OFFERING DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING, WHETHER IT HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS OR DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS. WHICH HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS? ONE [WHOSE BLOOD] WAS KEPT OVERNIGHT, OR WAS DEFILED, OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. WHICH DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS? ONE WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING IT] AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR WHOSE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED BY UNFIT PERSONS. GEMARA. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED etc. If there is one law for all sin-offerings, even a bird sin-offering too [should be included]. Why then was it taught: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering requires washing; therefore it states, This is [the law of the sin-offering]? — Said Resh Lakish on Bar Kappara's authority. Scripture saith, shall [the sin-offering] be slaughtered: thus the Writ speaks [only] of those which are slaughtered. Yet say rather that the Writ speaks [only] of those which are eaten, as it is written, ‘in a holy place shall it be eaten’, but not inner [sin-offerings]? — The Divine Law included [them by writing] ‘the law of’. If so, even a bird sin-offering too [is included]? — The Divine Law expressed a limitation in ‘this is’. And why do you prefer it thus? — It is logical to include animal inner sin-offerings, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north; [its blood is] received in a vessel;
—