[א] "זאת תורת האשם" – לבית עולמים. 'זאת' – אינה נוהגת בבמה. "תורת האשם" – תורה אחת לכל אשמות שיהיה דמם ניתן למטה. 1) (Vayikra 7:1) ("And this is the law of the guilt-offering; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the guilt-offering": for the Temple. It does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the guilt-offering": There is one law for all guilt-offerings (even that of a leper), that their blood is applied below (the red line on the altar).
[ב] וכי מאין בא? מכלל שנאמר (ויקרא יד, יג) "כי כחטאת האשם הוא לכהן" – מה חטאת דמה ניתן למעלה אף אשם יהיה דמו ניתן למעלה… תלמוד לומר "וזאת תורת האשם…ואת דמו יזרֹק" – לרבות כל אשמות ואשם מצורע שיהא דמם ניתן למטה. מנין לדם האשם שנתערב בדם שלמים יזרק? תלמוד לומר "קדש קדשים…ואת דמו יזרק" יכול אפילו נתערבה חיים? תלמוד לומר "הוּא". מה יעשה להם? ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו, ויביא מדמי היפה ממין זה ומדמי היפה ממין זה, ומפסיד המותר מביתו. ר' שמעון אומר אשם שנתערב בשלמים – שניהם ישחטו בצפון; זה יקרב לשם שהוא וזה יקרב לשם שהוא; ויאכלו כחומר שבהם. אמרו לו: והלא שלמים טעונים תנופה ואין אשם טעון תנופה?! אמר להם: ומה בכך ויניף אשם?! אמרו לו: אין מביאין לבית הפסול. "קדש קדשים הוּא" (ויקרא ז, א) "אשם הוא" (ויקרא ז, ה) – הוא קרב ואין תמורתו קרבה. 2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): "For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein," (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) "the law of the guilt-offering" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) ("In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.") "and its blood shall he sprinkle": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From "holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle." I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "it (is holy of holies," i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to "the house of unfitness" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).
[ג] "יִשְׁחֲטוּ" – ריבה כאן שוחטים הרבה; אף הגרים, ואף הנשים, ואף עבדים. אין לשון 'שחיטה' אלא משיכה שנאמר (מלכים א י, טז-יז) "זהב שחוט". ר' אליעזר אומר מכאן לעולת צבור שלא תהא שחיטתה אלא בצפון. "קדש קדשים" (ויקרא ו, יח) – לרבות זבחי שלמי צבור שלא תהא שחיטתן אלא בצפון. "הוא" – פרט לתודה ואיל נזיר. 3) "shall they slaughter": Many slaughterers are herein subsumed: even proselytes, even women, even servants. Shechitah (slaughtering) connotes drawing-forth, viz. (I Kings 10:16): "zahav shachut" ("drawn-forth gold"). R. Eliezer says: From here ("they shall slaughter") we derive that a communal burnt-offering (and not only an individual burnt-offering) is slaughtered only in the north.
[ד] "והקטיר אתם הכהן המזבחה אשה ליהו-ה…" – יכול אף על פי שלא שחטו בצפון? תלמוד לומר "הוא" 4) (Vayikra 7:5) ("And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, a fire-offering to the L–rd; it is a guilt-offering.")
[ה] ר' אליעזר אומר אשה לשם אישים. "אשם" – אף על פי שלא סמך עליו. יכול אף על פי ששחטו שלא לשמו? תלמוד לומר "הוא". 5) R. Eliezer says: "a fire-offering" — consigned to the fire; "a guilt-offering": even though he did not place his hands upon it. ("it is) a guilt-offering": I might think (that it is valid) even if he did not slaughter it to that end. It is, therefore, written "it" (— only if it were intended as such.)
[ו] אמר ר' אליעזר: חטאת בא על חטא ואשם בא על חטא. מה חטאת פסולה שלא לשמה אף אשם פסול שלא לשמו. 6) R. Eliezer says: A sin-offering comes for a sin, and a guilt-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering not intended as such is unfit, so a guilt-offering not intended as such is unfit.
[ז] אמרו לו: לא! אם אמרת בחטאת שדמה נתון למעלה! תאמר באשם שדמו נתון למטה! אמר להם: הפסח יוכיח! שדמו נתן למטה ואם שחטו שלא לשמו פסול! 7) They said to him (in refutation): No, this may be so with a sin-offering, whose blood is placed above, but not with a guilt-offering, whose blood is placed below. He countered: This is refuted by the Pesach offering, whose blood is placed below, (and even so,) if he did not slaughter it as such, it is unfit.
[ח] אמרו לו: והלא נאמר (שמות יב, כז) "פסח הוא"! אמר להם: אף נאמר "אשם הוא"! They countered: This may be so because it has a set time. He countered: Non-intention invalidates a sin-offering because it is written of it "It," and non-intention invalidates a Pesach because it is written of it "It" — and of a guilt-offering, too, it is written "It"! They countered: Of a Pesach and a sin-offering it is written "It" in respect to slaughtering, but in respect to a guilt-offering it is written "It" after the smoking of the devoted portions, and even if they were not smoked, it is kasher! Why, then, is it written "It"? It is sacrificed, but its exchange is not sacrificed.
[ט] "כל זכר" – לרבות בעל מום. למה?! אם לאכילה – כבר אמור! אם למחלוקת – כבר אמור! ואם בעלי מום קבועים – כבר אמורין! ואם בעלי מום עוברים – כבר אמורים! אם כן למה נאמר "כל זכר"? לרבות בעל מום ממעי אמו. שיכול אין לי אלא שנולד תמים ונעשה בעל מום; נולד בעל מום ממעי אמו מנין? תלמוד לומר "בכהנים". 9) (Vayikra 7:6) ("Every male among the Cohanim may eat it. In a holy place shall it be eaten; it is holy of holies.") "Every male": to include those with blemishes. Why (is this mentioned)? If for eating, this has already been mentioned (as permitted). If for apportionment, this has already been mentioned. If for those with permanent blemishes, this has already been mentioned. If for those with passing blemishes, this has already been mentioned. Why, then, is it mentioned! For I might think (were it not mentioned) that it were permitted only if he was born unblemished and became blemished; but how would I know that it were so (even) if he was born blemished? It is, therefore, written "Every male among the Cohanim."
[י] "יאכלנו" – כשר ולא פסול. "קדש קדשים" – לרבות זבחי שלמי צבור שלא יהיו נאכלים אלא לזכרי כהונה. "הוּא" – פרט לתודה ואיל נזיר. "may eat it": if it were kasher and not unfit (as an offering). "holy of holies": to include communal peace-offerings as being eaten only by the males of the Cohanim. "It (is holy of holies") — excluding the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite.