Zevachim

[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.1 ‘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?2 let the positive command3 come and override the negative injunction!4 — 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.5 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 injunction6 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,7 and a positive injunction cannot override a positive and a negative injunction [combined]. We have thus found that a sin-offering sanctifies8 [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.9 ‘Of a burnt-offering’: as a burnt-offering requires a utensil,10 so all require a utensil. What utensil is meant? If we say, a basin?11 in respect of public peace-offerings too it is written, And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins!12 Rather, it means a knife.13 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],14 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.15 ‘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!16 If public peace-offerings? that is deduced from a Scriptural extension, [viz.] In a most holy place shalt thou17 eat thereof; every male may eat thereof:18 this teaches that public peace-offerings may be eaten by male priests only! — It is a controversy of Tannaim: negative injunction when the two are in conflict. are all assimilated to one another, and the Talmud proceeds to explain in which respect they are so assimilated. basin is inferred from Ex. XXIV, 5f, q.v. burnt-offerings. utensil), and the text intimates that the same applies to the others.