1) (Vayikra 5:5) ("Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess upon it wherein he has sinned (Vayikra 5:6) And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd for his sin, etc.") "Then it shall be" — Immediately, what shall he do? "he shall bring" the offering (and then confess, even though in the verse "confess" appears before "bring.") Whence is it derived that he needs confession? From "then he shall confess." And whence is it derived that confession is over a living animal? It is written here "confess" and it is written there (Vayikra 16:21, in respect to the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur) "confess." Just as there, the confession is over a living animal, here, too, it is over a living animal. 2) Whence is it derived that (the confession) requires placing of the hands (semichah, upon the head of the animal)? "upon it" is written here and "upon it" is written there (Vayikra 16:2). Just as there semichah is required, here, too, semichah is required. 3) "And he shall bring": Even after Yom Kippur. (For Yom Kippur atones only for transgressions that are not known [to the sinner] upon it) "his guilt-offering": "his guilt-offering" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:19): ("It is a guilt-offering; a guilt-offering, a guilt-offering to the L–rd.") Just as with his guilt-offering there, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his guilt-offering here, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering. 4) "his guilt-offering for his sin": Just as with his guilt-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his sin-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering. 5) (Vayikra 5:5): "a female" — not a tumtum (of unknown sex) or hermaphrodite. "flock" — anything that can be subsumed in "flock," even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. "of the flock" — not a pilgess (a thirteen month sheep, see Chapter 10:2). "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering": What does this come to teach us? If that if he did not find a lamb, he may bring a goat-kid, does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If for a sin-offering (a lamb) that is brought for all of the mitzvoth, a bird may not be substituted but a goat-kid may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 4:32) — this offering, for which a bird may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 5:7), a goat-kid may not be substituted? (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) 6) For this (a fortiori argument) is refuted by (the sin-offering of) a leper (a lamb), where a bird may be substituted, but not a goat-kid. 7) No, (this is no refutation). This may be so in the instance of (the sin-offering of) a leper, where a tenth of an ephah (of fine flour) may not be substituted, whereas in our instance, if it (the lamb) went down to a tenth of an ephah (viz. 5:8), (would you say that) it would not go down to a goat-kid? If so, why is it necessary to state "a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering"? For it would follow a fortiori that (in our case) a burnt-offering should come with it (the sin-offering), viz.: 8) Does it not follow? This one (the poor man in our case) brings what his hand can attain, and (the poor man in the case of) the leper brings what his hand can attain. Just as the leper brings two in place of two (i.e., in the instance of poverty he brings two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, respectively, in place of the (rich man's) he-lamb for a burnt-offering and ewe-lambs for a sin-offering — here (in our case), too, (I would think that) since the poor man brings two, the rich man also should bring two, (one for a burnt-offering, aside from the one for the sin-offering). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "a lamb or a goat-kid for a sin-offering." He brings one and not two. 9) (In respect to a lamb, it is written (Vayikra 5:6) lit.,) "from his sin"; (in respect to a bird, Vayikra 5:10,) "from his sin," (and, in respect to the tenth of an ephah, Vayikra 5:13,) "on (i.e., in addition to) his sin." What is the intent of this? (The intent is that) One may bring from (the monies he set aside to) the sanctuary [hekdesh]: for a lamb, a goat-kid; for a goat-kid, a lamb; for a lamb or a goat-kid, turtle-doves or young pigeons; for turtle-doves or young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah. 10) How so? If he set aside (monies for) a lamb or a goat-kid and he became poor, he may bring a bird (and use the remainder for mundane purposes — thus, "from" the monies). If he became poorer, he may bring a tenth of an ephah. If he became richer, he may (add money and) bring a bird. If he became richer he may (add money and) bring a lamb or a goat-kid (— thus, "on, i.e., in addition to). If he set aside a lamb or a goat-kid and it became unfit — he may bring, from its monies, a bird, (this, too, being subsumed in "from his sin.") If he set aside the bird and it became unfit, he may not bring from its monies the tenth of an ephah (but he purchases from his own funds either a bird or a tenth of an ephah), for there is no redemption for a bird, (but only for a beast, viz. Vayikra 27:11). This (in summary) is the intent of "from his sin," "from his sin," "on his sin."
Sifra Chovah Section 10
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.