## Zevachim Daf 10b

###### Zevachim 10b:1
[Zevachim 10b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:1)

חוֹזְרַנִי חֲלִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I return** to my previous claim that a sin offering is unique since its blood is sprinkled above the red line. The discussion is going **around [*ḥalila*]** in circles.


###### Zevachim 10b:2
[Zevachim 10b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:2)

חָזַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: חַטָּאת נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ ״הִיא״ בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הִיא לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה; וּפֶסַח נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ בִּזְבִיחָה – הוּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer then presented a different logical inference: With regard to a sin offering,** the word **“it” is stated concerning slaughter,** in the verse: “And slaughter it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). The word “it” teaches that if **it** is sacrificed **for its sake** it is **fit;** if it is sacrificed **not for its sake** it is **unfit. And** similarly, **with regard to a Paschal offering,** the word **“it” is stated concerning slaughter [*zeviḥa*],** in the verse: “It is the sacrifice [*zevaḥ*] of the Lord’s Passover” (Exodus 12:27). Here, the word “it” teaches that if **it** is sacrificed **for its sake** it is **fit;** if it is sacrificed **not for its sake** it is **unfit.**


###### Zevachim 10b:3
[Zevachim 10b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:3)

אַף אָשָׁם נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ – הוּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the word **“it” is stated with regard to a guilt offering as well,** in the verse: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:5). Here too, say that the word “it” teaches that if **it** is sacrificed **for its sake** it is **fit;** if it is sacrificed **not for its sake** it is **unfit.**


###### Zevachim 10b:4
[Zevachim 10b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:4)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: חַטָּאת נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ ״הִיא״ בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הִיא לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה. פֶּסַח נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ בִּזְבִיחָה – הוּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל. אֲבָל אָשָׁם, לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ – אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין, וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הוּקְטְרוּ אֵימוּרִין – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: With regard to a sin offering,** the word **“it” is stated concerning slaughter,** teaching that if **it** is sacrificed **for its sake** it is **fit,** but if it is sacrificed **not for its sake** it is **unfit. With regard to a Paschal offering** too, the word **“it” is stated concerning slaughter,** likewise teaching that if **it** is sacrificed **for its sake** it is **fit,** but if it is sacrificed **not for its sake** it is **unfit. But with regard to a guilt offering,** the word **“it” is stated only after the burning of** the **sacrificial portions. And** since the offering **itself is fit** even if the **sacrificial portions were not burned** at all, it is certainly fit if they were burned not for the sake of a guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 10b:5
[Zevachim 10b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:5)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הֲרֵי [הוּא] אוֹמֵר: ״כַּחַטָּאת כָּאָשָׁם״ – מָה חַטָּאת שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל, אַף אָשָׁם שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **Rabbi Eliezer said to him:** A sin offering and a guilt offering are juxtaposed in the verse that **states: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”** (Leviticus 7:7). The verse teaches that **just as a sin offering** sacrificed **not for its sake** is **unfit, so too, a guilt offering** sacrificed **not for its sake** is **unfit.**


###### Zevachim 10b:6
[Zevachim 10b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:6)

אָמַר מָר: אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: חוֹזְרַנִי חֲלִילָה. וּלְמִיהְדַּר דִּינָא, וְלַיְיתֵי בְּ״מָה הַצַּד״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the *baraita*. **The Master said: Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: I return** to my previous claim, that a sin offering is unique since its blood is sprinkled above the red line. The discussion is going **around** in circles. The Gemara asks: **And let the derivation revert** to its starting point, **and let** Rabbi Eliezer **derive** the point **by** analogy from **the common element** of the two sources, a sin offering and a Paschal offering. Together they can prove that a guilt offering sacrificed not for its sake is also unfit, since they share no element of stringency that the latter lacks.


###### Zevachim 10b:7
[Zevachim 10b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:7)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Even such a derivation is not valid, **as it can be refuted: What** is notable **about their common element?** A sin offering and a Paschal offering are notable **in that they** both **have an element of *karet*.** A sin offering is brought for a transgression punishable by *karet* when committed intentionally, and one who refrains intentionally from bringing a Paschal offering is liable to be punished with *karet*. A guilt offering, by contrast, has no element of *karet*.


###### Zevachim 10b:8
[Zevachim 10b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:8)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן דָּמָהּ לְמַעְלָה! וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* states: **Rabbi Yehoshua said to him:** Your comparison of a guilt offering to a sin offering is **not** valid. **If you say** a *halakha* **with regard to a sin offering, whose blood is** sprinkled **above** the red line, should you necessarily say the same with regard to a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled below that line? The Gemara challenges: **And let** Rabbi Yehoshua **say to him** another refutation: Your comparison is **not** valid, as **if you say** the *halakha* **with regard to a sin offering, whose blood enters the innermost sanctum,** i.e., the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, must the same be said for a guilt offering, whose blood never enters the innermost sanctum?


###### Zevachim 10b:9
[Zevachim 10b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:9)

בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We are stating** a comparison of a guilt offering to a sin offering specifically **with regard to the external sin offerings,** whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctum.


###### Zevachim 10b:10
[Zevachim 10b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:10)

שֶׁאִם נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ [לִפְנַי] וְלִפְנִים – פְּסוּלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: If so, Rabbi Yehoshua could have refuted the comparison by pointing out another difference between a sin offering and a guilt offering, **as, if the blood of** an external sin offering **enters the innermost sanctum,** it is **disqualified.** This is not so in the case of the blood of a guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 10b:11
[Zevachim 10b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:11)

אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר ״אַף הָאָשָׁם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Eliezer holds** that **a guilt offering** whose blood enters the innermost sanctum is **also** disqualified.


###### Zevachim 10b:12
[Zevachim 10b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:12)

שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: Rabbi Yehoshua could have pointed out another distinction, **as** a sin offering **atones for** transgressions for which one is **liable to** receive ***karet*** if he committed them intentionally.


###### Zevachim 10b:13
[Zevachim 10b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:13)

מֵחַטָּאת דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer derives the *halakha* specifically **from a sin offering** brought **for hearing the voice,** i.e., for falsely taking an oath that one is unable to testify in another’s case. This transgression is not punishable by *karet*.


###### Zevachim 10b:14
[Zevachim 10b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:14)

שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: Rabbi Yehoshua could have pointed out another distinction, **that** the blood of a sin offering **requires four placements** on the altar, whereas the blood of a guilt offering requires only two.


###### Zevachim 10b:15
[Zevachim 10b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:15)

כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הַדָּמִים (טְעוּנָה) [טְעוּנִין] אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that **the blood** of almost **all** offerings **requires four placements.**


###### Zevachim 10b:16
[Zevachim 10b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:16)

שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: Rabbi Yehoshua could have pointed out another distinction, **that** a sin offering’s blood **requires** placement **on** all **four corners** of the altar, whereas the blood of a guilt offering, even according to Rabbi Yishmael, is sprinkled on only two corners.


###### Zevachim 10b:17
[Zevachim 10b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:17)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָאִיכָּא אֶצְבַּע! הָאִיכָּא קֶרֶן! הָאִיכָּא חוּדָּהּ! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי תְּלָת טַעְמֵי נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **And according to your reasoning,** why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua mention other distinctions between a sin offering and a guilt offering? **Isn’t there** the requirement that a priest place a sin offering’s blood on the altar with his **finger? Isn’t there** the requirement to place a sin offering’s blood on the **corner** of the altar? And even according to the opinion that it is not placed on the corner itself, **isn’t there** the requirement to place it on **the edge of** the corner? None of these requirements pertain to any offering other than a sin offering. **Rather,** Rabbi Yehoshua **mentioned one of two** or **three** valid **claims** at his disposal.


###### Zevachim 10b:18
[Zevachim 10b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:18)

אָמַר מָר, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ. לֵימָא לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אָשָׁם נָמֵי דָּמוֹ לְמַעְלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master says: Rabbi Yehoshua said to him:** Your comparison is **not** valid. **If you say** this with regard to a sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled above the red line, should you necessarily say the same with regard to a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled below that line? The Gemara challenges: **Let Rabbi Eliezer say to him: The blood of a guilt offering is also** sprinkled **above** the red line, since Rabbi Eliezer holds that the *halakhot* of a guilt offering and a sin offering are parallel.


###### Zevachim 10b:19
[Zevachim 10b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:19)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָשָׁם דָּמוֹ לְמַעְלָה לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, קַל וְחוֹמֶר מֵעוֹלָה; וּמָה עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא כָּלִיל – דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה, אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּלִיל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: You cannot say** that **the blood of a guilt offering is** presented **above** the red line, due to **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a burnt offering: Just as** in the case of **a burnt offering, which is** treated stringently in that it is totally **consumed** on the altar, **its blood** is presented **below** the red line, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that in the case of **a guilt offering, which is not** totally **consumed** on the altar, its blood is presented below the red line?


###### Zevachim 10b:20
[Zevachim 10b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:20)

מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the inference: **What** is notable **about a burnt offering?** It is notable **in that it does not atone** for a sin, unlike a guilt offering. Perhaps this is why its blood is presented below the red line.


###### Zevachim 10b:21
[Zevachim 10b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:21)

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A bird sin offering can prove** the point, as it atones for a sin, and still its blood is presented below the red line.


###### Zevachim 10b:22
[Zevachim 10b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:22)

מָה לְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מִין זֶבַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is notable **about a bird sin offering?** It is notable **in that it is not a type of offering** that is **slaughtered;** it is killed by pinching the nape of its neck. Perhaps this is why its blood is presented below the red line.


###### Zevachim 10b:23
[Zevachim 10b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:23)

עוֹלָה תּוֹכִיחַ. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁהֵן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְדָמָן לְמַטָּה; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם – שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים, וְדָמוֹ לְמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: If so, **a burnt offering can prove** the point, since it is slaughtered, and its blood is still presented below the red line. Therefore, the *halakha* is derived from a combination of the *halakhot* of a burnt offering and a bird sin offering: **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case. **Their common element is that they are offerings of the most sacred order, and their blood is** presented **below** the red line. **So too, I shall include a guilt offering** in this *halakha*, **as it is an offering of the most sacred order, and** therefore **its blood is** presented **below** the red line.


###### Zevachim 10b:24
[Zevachim 10b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:24)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִפַּרְזִקְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִפְרוֹךְ, מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה; תֹּאמַר בְּאָשָׁם – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava of Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: Let** Rabbi Eliezer **refute** this inference: **What** is notable **about the common element of** the two cases? It is notable **in that neither** a burnt offering nor a bird sin offering **has a fixed** value. Need **you say** that the same *halakhot* apply **to a guilt offering, which has a fixed** value of two silver shekels (see Leviticus 5:15)?


###### Zevachim 10b:25
[Zevachim 10b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:25)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אוֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ דָּמָהּ לְמַעְלָה, וְאֵין דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר לְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason** for not claiming that the blood of a guilt offering is presented below the red line: **As the verse states** with regard to the presenting of the blood of a sin offering: **“The priest who offers it”** (Leviticus 6:19). The word “it” indicates that **its blood** is presented **above** the red line, **but the blood of another** slaughtered offering is **not** presented **above** the red line.


###### Zevachim 10b:26
[Zevachim 10b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:26)

אִי הָכִי, חַטָּאת נָמֵי נֵימָא: אוֹתָהּ – לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה; הָא שְׁאָר זְבָחִים – בֵּין לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** if Rabbi Eliezer accepts that the word “it” indicates exclusivity, **let him also say** that the verse: “And slaughter **it** for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:33), teaches that only **a sin offering is fit** if slaughtered **for its sake,** and **unfit** if slaughtered **not for its sake. Consequently, other slaughtered offerings, whether** slaughtered **for their sake or not for their sake, are fit.** Why then does Rabbi Eliezer deem a guilt offering unfit if slaughtered not for its sake?


###### Zevachim 10b:27
[Zevachim 10b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:27)

הָהוּא ״אוֹתָהּ״ לָאו דַּוְקָא, דְּהָא שַׁיַּיר פֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** instance of the word **“it”** does **not** indicate that the *halakha* applies **specifically** to a sin offering and to no other offerings, **as** the Torah **excludes** the **Paschal offering** from such a generalization. A Paschal offering is certainly disqualified if sacrificed not for its sake.


###### Zevachim 10b:28
[Zevachim 10b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:28)

הָכָא נָמֵי לָאו דַּוְקָא, דְּהָא שַׁיַּיר עוֹלַת הָעוֹף!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: If so, **here too,** with regard to the presenting of the blood above the red line, one must say the word “it” does **not** indicate that this *halakha* applies **specifically** to a sin offering and no other offerings, **as** the Torah **excludes a bird burnt offering** from such a generalization. The blood of a bird burnt offering is presented above the red line.


###### Zevachim 10b:29
[Zevachim 10b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:29)

בִּזְבִיחָה מִיהָא לָא שַׁיַּיר מִידֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With regard to** offerings that require **slaughter, in any event,** the Torah **excluded nothing** from the generalization. Bird offerings are irrelevant, as they are killed by the pinching of the nape.


###### Zevachim 10b:30
[Zevachim 10b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:30)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הַאי מָקוֹם לְחוֹד, וְהַאי מָקוֹם לְחוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that even the blood of a bird burnt offering is presented in a manner different from that of a sin offering. In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** suggestion? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: This place** where the blood of a sin offering is presented is **discrete, and that place** where the blood of a bird burnt offering is presented is **discrete.**


###### Zevachim 10b:31
[Zevachim 10b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:31)

דְּתַנְיָא: דָּמִים הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים נִיתָּנִין מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה, וְהָעֶלְיוֹנִים מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַעְלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִין – בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף; אֲבָל בְּחַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה – הִיא עַצְמָהּ אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא עַל גּוּפָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The blood** that must be placed on **the lower** half of the altar **is placed** anywhere **from the red [*hasikra*] line and below, and** the blood that must be placed on **the upper** half is placed anywhere **from the red line and above. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to a bird burnt offering. But** the placement of the blood of **an animal sin offering is itself performed only on the actual corner** of the altar.


###### Zevachim 10b:32
[Zevachim 10b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:32)

תְּנַן הָתָם, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּמִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל לְכַפֵּר – פְּסוּלִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חַטָּאת בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאָשָׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כַּחַטָּאת כָּאָשָׁם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (81b): **As Rabbi Akiva would say: Any blood that** should have been sprinkled on the external altar but instead **entered to atone in the Sanctuary** is **unfit. And the Rabbis say:** That is the *halakha* **only** with regard to the blood of **a sin offering. Rabbi Eliezer says:** The halakhic status of **a guilt offering** is **also** like that of a sin offering, **as it is stated: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”** (Leviticus 7:7).


###### Zevachim 10b:33
[Zevachim 10b:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:33)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** is understandable, **as he states the reason** for his opinion. **But what is the reason** for the opinion of **the Rabbis?**


###### Zevachim 10b:34
[Zevachim 10b:34](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/10b:34)

אָמַר רָבָא: אָשָׁם נִכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים פָּסוּל – לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעוֹלָה; מָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: You cannot say** that **the blood of a guilt offering that entered into** the Sanctuary is **disqualified,** due to **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **a burnt offering: Just as**