1) (Vayikra 5:7): ("And if his hand cannot attain enough for a lamb, then he shall bring (the offering) of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves, etc.") "his hand": (The implication is that if he does not have the money, he is not told to borrow (for a rich man's offering, even if he has from whom to borrow) and not to ply his trade. If he has a lamb, and he does not have (enough for the food) that it needs (until he reaches Jerusalem), whence is it derived that he should bring a poor man's offering? From "enough for a lamb." "then he shall bring (the offering of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons,": He must bring two; one does not suffice. 2) (For otherwise I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori — This one brings what he can afford and a metzora (a leper) brings what he can afford. Just as a metzora brings one (bird sin-offering) for one (lamb sin-offering, and one bird burnt-offering for one bird burnt-offering), this one, too, (in our case), since the rich man brings one (lamb), the poor man should bring one! Therefore, (to negate this) it is written "two turtle-doves or two young pigeons" — he brings two and not one. 3) (Vayikra 5:7) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written "one for a sin-offering" — and not two; "one for a burnt-offering" — and not two. 4) "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering": the owner must dedicate them thus. And whence is it derived that if the Cohein dedicated them, his dedication stands? From: "one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (Vayikra 5:6): "and he shall bring them to the Cohein." 5) (Vayikra 5:8) "and he shall bring them": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). ("And he shall bring them) to the Cohein": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. "And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings: 6) a bird sin-offering with a bird burnt-offering, a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering, a bird sin-offering with a beast bird-offering — (In all of these instances) the sin-offerings precede the accompanying burnt-offerings. 7) "and he shall pinch its head opposite (mul) its nape": opposite the beholder of the nape, as it is written (Numbers 22:5): "and it abides opposite (mul) me." "but he shall not sunder (it)": i.e., he shall pinch only one (shechitah) sign and not more. If he does it is unfit. 8) "And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering": from the body of the sin-offering (and not from a vessel). "upon the wall of the altar": not upon the wall of the ramp, and not upon the wall of the heichal (the hall containing the altar), but upon the lower wall (under the red line). It would (seem to) follow: Now if a beast, whose burnt-offering is below, its sin-offering is above — a bird, whose burnt-offering is above, should it not follow that its sin-offering is above? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Numbers 22:5): "and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar, (the wall from which) the left-overs of the blood are drained to the foundation — the bottom wall. 9) "It is a sin-offering." All of its operations must be specifically intended as such — to exclude "pinching" which is not so intended. 10) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).
Sifra Chovah Chapter 18
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.