Zevachim 11A

עולה שהיא כליל, נכנס דמה לפנים כשרה; אשם שאינו כליל, לא כל שכן?!

with regard to a burnt offering, which is totally consumed by the fire on the altar, nevertheless, even if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is fit, with regard to a guilt offering, which is not entirely consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that even if its blood enters the Sanctuary it remains fit?

מה לעולה, שכן אינה מכפרת!

The Talmud refutes this inference: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it does not atone for a sin. Perhaps this is why its blood is not disqualified if it enters the sanctuary.

מנחת חוטא תוכיח.

The Talmud responds: The meal offering of a sinner can prove the point, as it is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, even though it atones for a sin.

ולימא: חטאת העוף תוכיח! חטאת העוף ⁠– בעיא דרבי אבין היא.

The Talmud interjects: But let us say that a bird sin offering can prove the point, as it too atones for a sin but is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary. This case is more similar to that of a guilt offering, as a bird has blood, unlike a meal offering. The Talmud answers: It is not certain that a bird sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary; this is a dilemma raised by R' Avin.

ולפרוך: מה למנחת חוטא, שכן אינה מין זבח!

The Talmud asks: But let us refute the above response as follows: What is notable about a sinner’s meal offering? It is notable in that it is not a type of slaughtered offering.