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 fetus and after-birth inside it are not holy, so all [sacrifices], the fetus 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 peaceoffering 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 mealoffering 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 sinoffering, [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 sinoffering’: 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 sinoffering [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

---

(1). ↑ This is the answer to the question, how do we know that all sacrifices sanctify through absorption? The rest of the discussion is really irrelevant here.
(2). ↑ A guilt-offering was a male, and so there could be no fetus or afterbirth inside it to be holy. From this we learn that the fetus and afterbirth in female sacrifices, e.g. peace-offerings and sin-offerings, are not holy. If then a fetus 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.
(3). ↑ I.e., when they are born, but not before.
(4). ↑ I.e., females from males, though in the latter case the fetus and after-birth are not holy because they do not exist.
(5). ↑ V. Lev. VIII, 32, which refers to the consecration-offering.
(6). ↑ The consecration-offering was a public sacrifice, and we do not find that two animals were dedicated for the purpose (v. next note), so that one should be a ‘remainder’. Thus only flesh and bread were a remainder, and these alone were burnt.
(7). ↑ Whatever remains of a sacrifice after the time allowed for its consumption is burnt (as Nothar). This, however, does 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.
(8). ↑ V. supra 28b.
(9). ↑ For it is written, whatsoever toucheth them (sc. the meal-offerings) shall be holy (Lev. VI, 11).
(10). ↑ The same is written of the sin-offering.
(11). ↑ Since the flesh is thick, the grease penetrates deeply into it.
(12). ↑ Lev. XVI, 6. E.V. which is for himself.
(13). ↑ Purchased at his own expense.
(14). ↑ Not bought with public funds.
(15). ↑ It must not be an animal of tithe, which is sacred in its own right. Hence it must be hullin.
(16). ↑ Lev. VII, 38. This refers to all the sacrifices enumerated in the preceding verse; why then derive it from a sin-offering?
(17). ↑ And ‘priesthood’ is stated in connection with each of these sacrifices.
(18). ↑ To show that the right hand is meant.
(19). ↑ Both are stated in connection with a sinoffering, but only priesthood is stated in connection with the others. Hence they must be inferred from a sin-offering.
(20). ↑ Supra 86a.