Most sacrifices are brought in the Temple courtyard at the Altar, but not inside the Sanctuary proper. In fact, the Torah says that “Any sin-offering whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting... may not be eaten.” Rabbi Eliezer says that this is also true of the guilt-offering, since the Torah said, “just as the guilt-offering so is the sin-offering,” but the Sages insist that this is only true for the sin-offering.
What is the reason of the Sages - for seemingly, the Torah supports Rabbi Eliezer? The Sages defend with this logic: if burnt offering, which is completely burnt, is not disqualified by bringing its blood inside the Temple, then the guilt-offering, which is not completely burnt, surely cannot be thus disqualified! Now the arguments are as follows:
* burnt offering is no proof, because it does not achieve atonement!
* but the flour of a the one who swore falsely achieves atonement and still it is not disqualified if part of it is brought inside!
* but the flour does not require slaughter!
* but burnt offering does require slaughter and is not disqualified!
We came a full circle. What is common between all these? That they are holy and are not disqualified by bringing their blood inside, so the guilt-offering is not disqualified – say the Sages.
Art: Abraham Solomon - Not Guilty (The Acquittal)