the burnt-offering is fit when its blood enters within, though it is entirely burnt, how much the more is the guilt-offering [fit], seeing that it is not entirely burnt. [But it may be asked:] As for the burnt-offering, [the reason is] because it does not make atonement? — Let a sinner's meal-offering prove it. (1) (Yet he should rather say: Let the sin-offering of a bird prove it? (2) The sinoffering of a bird is the subject of a question by R. Abin.) (3) As for a sinner's meal-offering ‘ (4) [the reason is] because it is not of the species that is slaughtered? (5) Let the burntoffering prove it. And thus the argument revolves, the peculiarity of the one not being that of the other, while the peculiarity of the latter is not that of the former: the feature common to both is that they are sacrifices of the higher sanctity, and when their blood enters within they are fit; so too will I adduce the guilt-offering which is a sacrifice of the higher sanctity, and if its blood enters within it is fit. Raba of Barnesh (6) said to R. Ashi: Yet let him refute [it thus]: The feature common to both is that they have no fixed [value]; will you say [the same of] the guilt-offering, which has a fixed [value]? Rather this is the Rabbis’ reason, viz., because Scripture saith, [And no sin-offering whereof any of] its blood [is brought into the tent of meeting... shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire]: (7) [this intimates] the blood of this [sacrifice], but not the blood of another [sacrifice]. And the other? (8) — ‘Its blood’ [implies,] but not its flesh. (9) And the other? (10) — [Scripture writes,] ‘its blood’ [where] ‘blood’ [would suffice]. (11) And the other? — He does not interpret ‘blood’, ‘its blood’ [as having a particular significance]. It is well according to the Rabbis who maintain that if one slaughters a guilt-offering under a different designation it is valid: for that reason a mealoffering is likened to a sin-offering and to a guilt-offering. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: [It is written,] It is most holy, as the sinoffering, and as the guilt-offering: (12) a sinner's meal-offering is like a sin-offering, therefore if its fistful [of flour] is taken under a different designation, it is invalid; (13) a votive meal-offering is like a guilt-offering, therefore if he [the priest] takes its fistful under a different designation, it is valid. But according to R. Eliezer, in respect of which law is a meal-offering likened to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? — In respect of the other [ruling] of R. Simeon. For it was taught: [If the fistful was carried to the altar] not in a service-vessel, (14) it is invalid; but R. Simeon declares it valid. (15) Now Rab Judah son of R. Hiyya said, What is R. Simeon's reason? — Scripture saith, ‘It is most holy, as the sinoffering, and as the guilt-offering’: [this teaches:] If he [the priest] comes to perform its service with his hand, he does so with his right hand, as in the case of the sin-offering; [if he comes] to perform the service with a vessel, he may do so with his left hand, as in the case of the guilt-offering. (16) Now R. Simeon utilizes this verse for both purposes? (17) — The essential purpose of the text is to teach the dictum of Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya, while that a sinner's meal-offering is invalid when [the priest does] not [take its fistful] for its own sake is [based] on a different reason. [Thus:] what is the reason of a sin-offering? (18) Because ‘it is’ is written in connection therewith; then In connection with a sinner's meal-offering too ‘it is’ is written. Now according to the Rabbis, in respect of which law is a guilt-offering likened to a sin-offering? — To teach you: as a sin-offering requires laying on [of hands], so does a guilt-offering require laying on [of hands]. JOSEPH b. HONI SAID: SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED [IN THE NAME OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING OR A SINOFFERING ARE INVALID]. R. Johanan said: Joseph b. Honi and R. Eliezer said the same thing. (19) Rabbah said: They disagree in respect of others slaughtered in the name of a sin-offering. For it was taught: A paschal lamb which has passed its year, (20) and he [its owner] slaughtered it in its season, (21) for its own purpose; (22) and similarly, when a man slaughters other [sacrifices] as a Passoveroffering in its season, — R. Eliezer disqualifies them; (23) while R, Joshua declares them valid. Said R. Joshua: If during the rest of the year, when it is not valid [if slaughtered] in its own name, yet others [slaughtered] in its name are valid; (24) then is it not logical that in its season, when it is valid [if slaughtered] in its own name, others [slaughtered] in its name are valid? Said R. Eliezer to him: Yet perhaps the argument is to be reversed? If it is valid [when slaughtered] during the rest of the year in the name of another sacrifice, (25) though it is not valid [if slaughtered then] in its own name; is it not logical that it should be valid [when slaughtered] in its season in the name of another sacrifice, seeing that it is valid [if slaughtered, then] in its own name; and thus a Passover-offering [slaughtered] on the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation should be valid. (26) Now, would you say thus? [But in point of fact your a minori argument can be refuted thus:] As for others being valid during the rest of the year [when slaughtered] in its [sc. The Passoveroffering's] name, that is because it is valid [when slaughtered then] in the name of other [sacrifices]; should then others [slaughtered] in its season (27) in its name be valid, seeing that it [the Passover-offering] is invalid [if slaughtered then] in the name of others? (28) Said R. Joshua to him: If so, you lessen the strength of the Passover-offering and increase the strength of the peace-offering? (29) Subsequently R. Eliezer proposed a different argument: We find that a Passover remainder (30) comes as a peace-offering, whereas a peace-offering remainder does not come as a Passover-offering. Now if the Passover-offering, whose remainder comes as a peace-offering, is [nevertheless] unfit if one slaughters it in its season as a peace-offering; is it not logical that the peace-offering is unfit if slaughtered in the name of a Passoveroffering in its season, seeing that its remainder does not come as a Passoveroffering?

---

(1). ↑ This makes atonement, yet if it enters within it remains fit, for the disqualification is stated in reference to the entering of blood only.
(2). ↑ This would provide a better analogy, as it is a blood-sacrifice just as the other sacrifices under consideration.
(3). ↑ Whether it is unfit when its blood enters within (infra 92b). The objection and answer are parenthetical, and now the Talmud returns to its discussion.
(4). ↑ Emended text (Bah); omitting, ‘and let him refute’, of cur. edd.
(5). ↑ It is not a blood-sacrifice.
(6). ↑ A town in the vicinity of Matha Mehasia, a suburb of Sura (Obermeyer, op. cit. pp. 296-7).
(7). ↑ Lev. VI, 23.
(8). ↑ R. Eliezer: how does he explain ‘its blood’?
(9). ↑ It its flesh is taken ‘into the tent of meeting’, into the inner sanctuary, it is not disqualified.
(10). ↑ The Rabbis: how do they know this?
(11). ↑ Hence ‘its’ excludes that of other sacrifices, while ‘blood’ excludes the flesh of the same sacrifice.
(12). ↑ Lev, VI, 10. This refers to the meal-offering, and since it is likened to two other sacrifices, R. Simeon deduces that one kind of meal-offering is like a sin-offering, while another is like a guiltoffering, as explained in the text.
(13). ↑ The taking of the fistful of the meal-offering and its burning on the altar are the equivalent of the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice.
(14). ↑ A service-vessel is one that has been sanctified for use in the Temple in connection with the sacrificial service.
(15). ↑ If the priest carried it in his hand to the altar,
(16). ↑ This being R. Simeon's view, others hold that the service of all sacrifices must be done with the right hand (infra 24b).
(17). ↑ He had made two distinct deductions from the same verse.
(18). ↑ That it is invalid when not slaughtered for its own sake.
(19). ↑ R. Eliezer too holds that other sacrifices slaughtered as a Passover-offering in its time or as a sin-offering at any time are invalid. R. Johanan deduces this anon.
(20). ↑ It became a year old on the first of Nisan, and was then set aside for the Passover sacrifice. Since a year is the extreme limit for such (V. Ex. XII, 5: a male of the first year), it automatically stands to be a peace-offering, being unfit for its original purpose.
(21). ↑ I.e. , on the eve of Passover.
(22). ↑ Sc. as a Passover-offering. Thus he slaughtered a peace-offering as a Passover sacrifice.
(23). ↑ He infers this a minori: If an animal set aside for the Passover-offering is disqualified when slaughtered in its season (on the eve of Passover) as a peace-offering, though if left until after Passover it must be offered as such; then how much the more is a peace-offering disqualified if slaughtered on the eve of Passover as a Passoveroffering, seeing that if left over and not brought as a peace-offering at the time appointed for same it cannot be brought as a Passover-offering on Passover eve.
(24). ↑ For all sacrifices except the Passover-offering and the sin-offering are valid when slaughtered for a different purpose (supra 2a).
(25). ↑ Sc. a peace-offering.
(26). ↑ Which however is obviously wrong. Hence by a reductio ad absurdum the deduction a minori is shown to be inadmissible.
(27). ↑ On the eve of Passover,
(28). ↑ Surely not. From this R. Johanan deduces that just as R. Eliezer declares others unfit when slaughtered in the name of the Passover-offering, so are they unfit when slaughtered in the name of a sin-offering. For R. Eliezer's reason, as seen here, is because it (the Passover-offering) is unfit when slaughtered in the name of a different sacrifice, and this same holds good of the sinoffering too.
(29). ↑ For at the proper season for peace-offerings (i.e., during the rest of the year) the Passoveroffering if slaughtered as a peace-offering is fit; whereas at the season of the Passover-offering (on Passover eve) a peace-offering slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering is unfit! Yet in fact while Scripture insists that the Passover-offering must be killed in its own name (V. supra 7b), there is no such insistence with respect to the peaceoffering. — ‘Weaken’ and ‘strengthen’ mean to weaken and strengthen the necessity for (or, the insistence on) slaughtering these sacrifices for naught but their own sake.
(30). ↑ If an animal was dedicated for a Passoveroffering, lost and refound after Passover.