Sifra Chovah Section 6

¹1) (Vayikra 4:23): "… then he shall bring (his offering a kid of goats, a male without blemish"): even after Yom Kippur, (the Yom Kippur goat not exempting him from this offering, for which he remains liable.) "his offering": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his (deceased) father. ²2) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a (relatively) lesser sin, for a greater sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own), but that he can fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a lesser sin, for a lesser sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own). It is, therefore, written: "his offering": He fulfills his obligation (only) with his offering and not with that of his father. ³3) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering with a beast that his father separated, from the lesser (of the father) to the greater (of his own), or from the greater to the lesser, or from the greater to the greater, or from the lesser to the lesser — for a son may not shave (after his Naziritism) by offering the beasts separated for his father's Naziritism — but that he does fulfill his obligation with the monies separated by his father from the lesser to the greater, from the greater to the lesser, from the lesser to the lesser, and from the greater to the greater — for he may shave by offering (beasts bought with) his father's monies when they were undesignated (i.e., how much for which offering), but not when they were designated. It is, therefore, written: "his offering": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his father. ⁴4) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering, even with monies that his father separated, and even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — but that he does fulfill it with an offering that he separated for himself, even from the greater to the lesser or the lesser to the greater. It is, therefore, written: (Vayikra 4:28): "his offering … for his sin" — It must be (separated) for that sin. ⁵5) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his own offering, with a beast that he separated for himself, even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated a beast for (a sin-offering for having eaten) cheilev and he offered it for having eaten blood, or (if he separated it) for blood and offered it for cheilev, he is not liable for me'ilah (abuse of sacred objects) and he does not receive atonement, (the first status of the offering not having been changed — so that in our instance, too, the status of the beast is not changed and it cannot serve as a sin-offering for the sin to which it has been transferred); but I might think that he does fulfill his obligation with (transference of) monies that he separated for himself, from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated monies for himself for (an offering for) cheilev, and he brought (the offering) for blood, or for blood and he brought it for cheilev, he is liable for mei'lah and it does effect atonement (its first status having been changed — so that in our instance, too, transference of monies is permitted ab initio). It is, therefore, written: "his offering … for his sin" — His offering must be brought (ab initio) for his specific sin (and not transferred from one sin to another). ⁶6) (Vayikra 4:23): "a he-goat" — and not a she-goat (even if he cannot find a he-goat). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that a nassi should be able to bring a she-goat), viz.: If a commoner, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a she-lamb or a she-goat) is not the same as his offering for Yom Kippur (the communal offering, a he-goat), still, his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (a she-goat) — then a nassi, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur — how much more so should his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (i.e., how much more so should he be able to bring a she-goat for all the mitzvoth if a he-goat could not be found! Therefore, the exclusion clause is necessary) — This is refuted by the (instance of the) high-priest, whose offering (for all the mitzvoth — a bullock) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur, yet not the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry! (i.e., he cannot bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock for all mitzvoth — see Section 3:3) ⁷7) No, this (that a she-goat may not be brought as an alternate) may be so with a high-priest, who does not bring both this (his offering for all the mitzvoth) and that (his idolatry offering) from the flock, (so that a she-goat may not be an alternate for a bullock), as opposed to a nassi who brings both (a he-goat for all mitzvoth, and a she-goat for idolatry) from the flock, and since he brings both from the flock, I would say (without an exclusion clause) that his offering for all the mitzvoth should be the same as his offering for idolatry (i.e., that he should be able to bring a she-goat as an alternate for a he-goat). It is, therefore, written: "sair" (a he-goat), and not a she-goat. (Vayikra 4:23): "izim" (goats), and not exchanges (i.e., sheep); "a male," and not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite; "whole," and not blemished. ⁸8) "And he shall place his hand on the head of the goat": to include the goat of Nachshon (and the other nesi'im — see Bamidbar 7) for semichah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: to include the (communal) idolatry goats for semichah (by the elders). For R. Shimon said: Every communal offering whose blood enters within (the heichal) requires semichah. ⁹9) "And he shall slaughter it": it, and not its exchange. And below, (Vayikra 4:33): "and he shall slaughter it": it, and not its offspring (that it bore after it had been set aside as a sin-offering). From here (i.e., using this as a point of departure) R. Shimon said: Five sin-offerings are consigned to death (i.e., incarcerated until they die): the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, the sin-offering of one who has already received atonement (with a different sin-offering), and a sin-offering that has passed its first year. You cannot say "the offspring of a sin-offering" in respect to a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring a female (as an offering); and there is no "exchange of a sin-offering" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring an exchange; and there is no "sin-offering whose owner died" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not die. I might think that a communal sin-offering whose owners received atonement and one which passed its first year are to be consigned to death, but this is not so; for the non-explicit are to be derived from the explicit. Just as the explicit — the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owner died — relate to an individual sin-offering and not a communal sin-offering, so a sin-offering "whose owner has received atonement" and one "which has passed its year" relate to an individual and not to a communal sin-offering. ¹⁰10) "And he slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered." Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north. This, too, is slaughtered in the north. But do I derive this from here? Is it not already written (Vayikra 6:18): "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd"? Why, then, is this specified here? To make it categorical — that if it were not slaughtered in the north, it is pasul. ¹¹11) You say that it was specified for this purpose. But perhaps it was specified to teach that only this (the goat of the nassi) requires north (but not other sin-offerings)! (This cannot be, for) it is written (Vayikra 4:29): "… and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering" — to include all sin-offerings as requiring slaughtering in the north.