Slaughtering the Sin-Offering in the North of the Altar

"And he shall slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered." Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north; so too this one in the north. But do I learn it from here? Surely it is already said (Leviticus 6:18) "in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered." Why then does the present verse come? To establish that if it was not slaughtered in the north it is disqualified. You say it comes for this; or does it come only to teach that no other offering requires the north? Therefore Scripture teaches (below, verse 33) "in the place where he slaughters," to include all sin-offerings, that their slaughter must be only in the north. Or does it include only one similar to this? Just as this one is a male sin-offering, fixed, atoning, coming from the flock, and brought for a known sin, so I include only what resembles it. What do I include? The goats brought for idolatry, which are male sin-offerings, fixed, atoning, from the flock, and brought for a known sin. When it says "shall be slaughtered," it includes the goats of the festivals, which are sin-offerings, fixed, atoning, from the flock, brought for a known sin, but are not male. Or the goats of the Day of Atonement, which are male sin-offerings, fixed, atoning, from the flock, but not for a known sin; it is balanced, so let both be included. When it says "shall be slaughtered," it includes the sin-offering for defiling the Sanctuary, which is an atoning sin-offering from the flock for a known sin, but is neither male nor fixed; or the nazirite's sin-offering, which is a fixed atoning sin-offering from the flock, but is not male and not for a sin. It is balanced, so let both be included. When it says "shall be slaughtered," it includes the leper's offering, which is not a fixed sin-offering, though atoning. After we have included things similar and things not similar, why then does the verse single this one out? To establish that if it was not slaughtered in the north it is disqualified. One might think only this one is disqualified if not slaughtered in the north, but all other sin-offerings, though it is a command to slaughter them in the north, would be valid if not so slaughtered; therefore Scripture teaches "and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering," a governing principle for all sin-offerings, that if they were not slaughtered in the north they are disqualified. "A sin-offering" means all its rites must be for the sake of a sin-offering, excluding one slaughtered not for its own sake. (Leviticus 4:25) "With his finger and he shall take" teaches that he receives the blood with his right hand. "With his finger and he shall place" teaches that he places it with his right hand. Rabbi Shimon said: was the word "hand" stated here? Since "hand" was not stated, if he received it with the left hand it is valid. "And he shall place it on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering," and not on the horns of the inner altar. Now is this not a matter for logical inference? The anointed priest is set apart from the individual and the ruler is set apart from the individual; just as the anointed priest's sin-offering blood enters within, so too the ruler's sin-offering blood should enter within. Therefore Scripture teaches "and he shall place it on the horns of the altar of burnt-offering," and not on the horns of the inner altar.