[this intimates] that it must absorb [thereof] in its flesh. You might think that if it touched a part of a piece of flesh, the whole of it is unfit. Therefore it says, ‘[Whatever] shall touch’: only that which touches is unfit. How so? The part which absorbed is cut away. ‘[In] the flesh thereof’: but not the tendons, bones, horns or hoofs. ‘Shall be holy’, to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] becomes unfit; while if it is fit, it may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies. Yet why so? let the positive command come and override the negative injunction! — Said Raba, A positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. For it was taught: Neither shall ye break a bone thereof. R. Simeon b. Menassia said: [This refers to] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow. Yet why so? let the positive injunction come and override the negative injunction? Hence you can infer that a positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. R. Ashi said: ‘Shall be holy’ is a positive injunction: thus there are a positive and a negative injunction, and a positive injunction cannot override a positive and a negative injunction [combined]. We have thus found that a sin-offering sanctifies [whatever touches it] through absorption; whence do we know it of other sacrifices? — Said Samuel on R. Eleazar's authority: [Scripture saith,] This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. ‘Of a burnt-offering’: as a burnt-offering requires a utensil, so all require a utensil. What utensil is meant? If we say, a basin? in respect of public peace-offerings too it is written, And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins! Rather, it means a knife. And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? — Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife [to slay his son], and there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. ‘Of a meal-offering’: as a meal-offering may be eaten by male priests [only], so all may be eaten by male priests only. Which [are thus inferred]? If the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? [surely] it is explicitly written in connection with them, Every male among the priests may eat thereof! If public peace-offerings? that is deduced from a Scriptural extension, [viz.] In a most holy place shalt thou eat thereof; every male may eat thereof: this teaches that public peace-offerings may be eaten by male priests only! — It is a controversy of Tannaim:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳ