And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering, (1) which intimates that receiving must be for the sake of a sin-offering. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering and receiving: How do we know it of sprinkling? — Because Scripture saith, And the priest shall make atonement for him through his sin-offering, (2) [which teaches] that atonement must be [made] for the sake of the sinoffering. (3) We have thus found [the law relating to] change in respect of Sanctity; how do we know it of change in respect of owner?- Scripture saith: [And the priest shall make atonement]for him, implying for him, but not for his fellow. We have thus found it as a regulation: how do we know that it is indispensable? — As R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said [elsewhere; Scripture saith,] ‘his sin-offering’, [where] ‘sin-offering’ [alone would suffice]: so here too’ [Scripture saith,] his sin-offering [where] sin-offering [alone would suffice]. (4) We have thus found the regulation relating to change in respect of sanctity, and [a prohibition of] change in respect of owner at the sprinkling, this being both a regulation and indispensable. How do we know that it is indispensable [in the case of all services] (5) as far as change in respect of sanctity is concerned; and that [the prohibition of] change in respect of ownership at the other services is both a regulation and indispensable? — Said R. Jonah: It is inferred from a Nazirites sin-offering, for it is written, And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall prepare his sin-offering, and his burntoffering: (6) [this intimates] that all its preparations [sc. the services] must be for the sake of a sin-offering. We have thus found it regarding change in respect of sanctity; how do we know change In respect of owner? (7) — Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: [Scripture saith,] ‘his sin-offering’, [where] ‘sin-offering’ [alone would suffice]. To this Rabina demurred: If so, how do you interpret [the superfluous] ‘his burnt-offering’ [where] ‘burnt-offering’ [alone would suffice]? (But according to Rabina, how does he interpret [the apparently superfluous] ‘his mealoffering’, ‘his drink-offering’, where ‘mealoffering’, ‘drink-offering’ [alone would suffice]? (8) — He requires those [for the following deduction]: Their meal-offering and their drink-offering [intimates] at night; their meal-offering and their drink-offering, even on the next day.) (9) But how do you interpret [the superfluous] his burnt-offering [where] burnt-offering [alone would suffice]? Furthermore, can they (10) be learnt from each other? The sin-offering of forbidden fat (11) cannot be learnt from a Nazirites sin-offering, since the latter is accompanied by another sacrifice. (12) [On the other hand] a Nazirites sin-offering cannot be learnt from the sinoffering of forbidden fat, since the latter is a case of kareth! (13) — Rather, said Raba: We infer it from a leper's sin-offering, for it is written, And the priest shall prepare14 the sin-offering, (15) which teaches that all its preparations [services] must be for the sake of a sinoffering. Thus we have found [the law relating to] change in respect of sanctity; how does he know it of change in respect of owner? — Scripture saith, And [he shall] make atonement for him that is to be cleansed: (15) [this intimates,] for this [man] who is to be cleansed, but not for his fellow who is to be cleansed. Yet [the question] still [remains]: Can they be learnt from each other? The sin-offering of forbidden fat cannot be learnt from the leper's sin-offering, since the latter is accompanied by another sacrifice. [On the other hand] a leper's sinoffering cannot be learnt from the sinoffering of forbidden fat, since the latter is a case of kareth! — One cannot be learnt from one, but one can be learnt from two. (16) But in the case of which should it not be written? [Shall we say,] Let the Divine law not write it in the case of the sin-offering of forbidden fat, and let it be deduced from these others? [Then I can argue that] the reason in the case of these others is that another sacrifice accompanies them! [If we say,] Let the Divine law not write it in the case of the Nazirites sin-offering and let it be deduced from these others: [I can argue that] the reason in the case of these others is that no absolution [revocation] is possible! (17) [If I say,] Let the Divine law not write it in the case of the leper's sin-offering, and let it be deduced from these others: [then I can argue that] the reason in the case of these others is that they do not come in poverty! (18) — Rather, Scripture saith, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering [and of the sacrifice of peaceofferings]: (19) thus the Writ assimilated it [the sin-offering] to the peace-offering. As in the case of peace-offerings both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of name [are prohibited, for] we require [that the services be performed] for their own [sc. that of the peace-offerings’] sake, this being a regulation; (20) so in the case of the sin-offering both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of name [are prohibited, for] we require [that the services be performed] for their own sake, this being a regulation. Therefore the regulation is deduced from a peace-offering, while these other verses (21) teach that it is indispensable. Again, we have found [this of] the sin-offering of forbidden fat, where ‘for a sin-offering’ is written; (22)

---

(1). ↑ Ibid, 34.
(2). ↑ Ibid. 35. This is apparently the Talmudic rendering of the verse.
(3). ↑ Atonement consists in essence of the sprinkling. — Carrying the blood to the side of the Altar where it is sprinkled is included in receiving (Rashi).
(4). ↑ The emphasis implicit in ‘his’ intimates indispensability.
(5). ↑ Sh. M. deletes bracketed words.
(6). ↑ Num. VI, 16.
(7). ↑ A passage follows here in the original which the commentaries delete.
(8). ↑ ‘His meal-offering’ and ‘his drink-offering’ (or rather ‘their’) occur quite frequently; why does Rabina ask only about ‘his burnt-offering’ and not about these?
(9). ↑ V. infra 84a.
(10). ↑ Sc. different kinds of sin-offerings.
(11). ↑ This is the technical designation of all sinofferings brought on account of actual sin, in contrast e.g., to a Nazirites sin-offering, which is not really brought through sin at all.
(12). ↑ Lit., ‘other blood’.
(13). ↑ A sin-offering is brought for the unwitting transgression of an injunction which, if deliberately violated, entails kareth (v. Glos).
(14). ↑ E.V. ‘offer’.
(15). ↑ Lev. XIV, 19.
(16). ↑ For Scripture need not have intimated the teaching in the case of all those. — This answer implies that one intimation at least is superfluous.
(17). ↑ A Nazirite can be absolved of his vow altogether, and then his sacrificial obligations automatically expire. But in no circumstances can the other two be freed of their obligations.
(18). ↑ If a leper is too poor he can bring a bird instead of an animal for a sin-offering (V. Lev. XIV, 21-22). But this leniency is not permitted in the case of the other two.
(19). ↑ Lev. VII, 37.
(20). ↑ But not, however, indispensable to the extent that a peace-offering is invalid if offered as a different sacrifice.
(21). ↑ Quoted above, teaching that change of name and of sanctity are forbidden, which are now superfluous.
(22). ↑ In Lev. IV, 33. The passage deals with an offering brought for sins other than those which the Talmud proceeds to enumerate.