[א] "זאת תורת החטאת" "זאת" – אינה נוהגת בבמה. "תורת החטאת" – תורה אחת לכל חטאות שיהיה דמם טעון כיבוס. וכי מאין יצא?! מכלל שנאמר (ויקרא ו, יט-כ) "הכהן המחטא אֹתה יאכלנה..ואשר יזה מדמה..תכבס", יכול אין לי אלא חטאת החצונית שיהיה דמם טעון כבוס; חטאת פנימית מנין? ודין הוא! ומה אם קדשי קדשים – ששוו לחטאת החיצונית למריקה ולשטיפה – לא שוו לכיבוס, חטאת הפנימית – שלא שוו למריקה ולשטיפה – אינו דין שלא ישוו להם לכיבוס?! תלמוד לומר "תורת החטאת" – תורה אחת לכל חטאת שיהא דמם טעון כיבוס.
1) (Vayikra 6:18) ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the sin-offering": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it" and (Vayikra 6:20): "and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed," I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.
[א] "זאת תורת החטאת" "זאת" – אינה נוהגת בבמה. "תורת החטאת" – תורה אחת לכל חטאות שיהיה דמם טעון כיבוס. וכי מאין יצא?! מכלל שנאמר (ויקרא ו, יט-כ) "הכהן המחטא אֹתה יאכלנה..ואשר יזה מדמה..תכבס", יכול אין לי אלא חטאת החצונית שיהיה דמם טעון כבוס; חטאת פנימית מנין? ודין הוא! ומה אם קדשי קדשים – ששוו לחטאת החיצונית למריקה ולשטיפה – לא שוו לכיבוס, חטאת הפנימית – שלא שוו למריקה ולשטיפה – אינו דין שלא ישוו להם לכיבוס?! תלמוד לומר "תורת החטאת" – תורה אחת לכל חטאת שיהא דמם טעון כיבוס.
1) (Vayikra 6:18) ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the sin-offering": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it" and (Vayikra 6:20): "and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed," I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.