Zevachim — Daf 98a

איכא דנפקא ליה מהכא ואיכא דנפקא ליה מהכא

חטאת מה חטאת מתקדשת בבלוע אף כל מתקדשת בבלוע

אשם מה אשם אין שפיר ושליא קדוש בו אף כל אין שפיר ושליא קדוש בו קסבר וולדות קדשים בהווייתן הן קדושים ודנין אפשר משאי אפשר

מלואים מה מלואים מותריהן בשריפה ואין בעלי חיים במותריהן אף כל מותריהן בשריפה ואין בעלי חיים במותריהן

שלמים מה שלמים מפגלין ומתפגלין אף כל מפגלין ומתפגלין

במתניתא תנא משמיה דר"ע מנחה מה מנחה מתקדשת בבלוע אף כל מתקדשת בבלוע

ואיצטריך למכתב מנחה ואיצטריך למכתב חטאת דאי אשמעינן מנחה דאיידי דרכיכא מיבלעא אבל חטאת אימא לא ואי אשמעינן חטאת משום דקריר אבל מנחה אימא לא צריכא

חטאת מה חטאת אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית אף כל אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית וחטאת מנלן אמר רב חסדא אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, ו) והקריב אהרן את פר החטאת אשר לו משלו ולא משל ציבור ולא משל מעשר

ביום (ויקרא ז, לח) מביום צוותו נפקא כדי נסבה

בידו הימנית מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר"ל כל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינו אלא ימין כדי נסבה

ואיבעית אימא סבר לה כר"ש דאמר אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונה בעיא אצבע

אשם מה אשם עצמותיו מותרין אף כל עצמותיו מותרין

אמר רבא פשיטא לי

one infers it from this verse, and another infers it from the other. ‘Of a sin-offering’: as a sin-offering sanctifies through absorption, so all [sacrifices] sanctify through absorption.1 ‘Of a guilt-offering’: as a guilt-offering, the foetus and after-birth inside it are not holy, so all [sacrifices], the foetus and after-birth inside them are not holy.2 He holds that the young of sacrifices become holy when they come into existence,3 and that we infer what is possible from what is not possible.4 ‘Of the consecration-offering’: as the consecration-offering, the remainder thereof was burnt,5 and there were no living animals among its remainder;6 so all [sacrifices], their remainder is burnt, but living animals are not counted as remainder.7 ‘Of the . . . peace-offering’: as [parts of] a peace-offering render piggul, and [parts] are rendered piggul, so [in] all [sacrifices] [where there are parts which] render piggul and [parts which] are made piggul [the law of piggul applies].8 It was taught in a Baraitha in R. Akiba's name: ‘Of the meal-offering’: as a meal-offering sanctifies through absorption,9 so all [sacrifices] sanctify through absorption. Now, it is necessary for both ‘meal-offering’ and ‘sin-offering’ to be written.10 For if we were informed [this about] a meal-offering, [I might say that was] because it is soft it absorbs; but [as for] a sin-offering, I would say [that it is] not [so]. And if we were informed about a sin-offering, [I might say] that is because it is solid;11 but a meal-offering I would say is not so. Thus both are necessary. ‘Of the sin-offering’: as a sin-offering comes of hullin only, and by day, and [its rites must be performed] with his [the priest's] right hand; so every [sacrifice] comes of hullin only, by day, and [its rites must be performed] with his right hand. And how do we know it of a sin-offering [itself]? — Said R. Hisda, Scripture saith: And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is his:12 [that intimates that] it must be his,13 and not the congregation's,14 nor of tithe.15 [That its rites must be performed] by day is inferred from: in the day that he commanded [etc.]?16 That is stated unnecessarily. [That its rites must be performed] with his right hand is inferred from Rabbah b. Bar Hanah's [exegesis]? For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: Wherever ‘finger’ and ‘priesthood’ are stated, the right hand only [must be used]?17 That [too] is stated unnecessarily. Alternatively, he agrees with R. Simeon, who maintained: [Where] ‘finger’ [is stated], priesthood is not required;18 [but where] ‘priesthood’ [is stated], ‘finger’ is required. 19 ‘Of the guilt-offering’: as the bones of a guilt-offering are permitted, so the bones of every [sacrifice] are permitted.20 Raba said: It is clear to me discussion is really irrelevant here. the foetus and afterbirth in female sacrifices, e.g. peace-offerings and sin-offerings, are not holy. If then a foetus was found in a sacrifice after it was slaughtered, its heleb (fat) and kidneys are not burnt on the altar as emurim, as in the case of the sacrifice itself. (v. next note), so that one should be a ‘remainder’. Thus only flesh and bread were a remainder, and these alone were burnt. not apply to a living remainder. E.g. if a man dedicated an animal for a sacrifice, lost it, dedicated a second, found the first and sacrificed one of them; similarly, if he dedicated two animals in the first instance, so that if one were lost the second would be sacrificed. The other is technically called a remainder, but this remainder is not burnt. sin-offering? they must be inferred from a sin-offering.