Sifra Chovah Chapter 3

¹1) (Vayikra 4:3): ("then he shall offer a) bullock." I might think (he could offer) even an old one; it is, therefore, written "ben" (connoting a young one.) If "ben" alone were written, I might think it meant a very young one (i.e., one or two years old); it is, therefore, written "bullock. What satisfies this? A three-year-old. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Four and five-year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd). ²2) R. Yossi Haglili says (in connection with Bamidbar 8:8: "And they [the Levites] shall take a young bullock" [for a burnt-offering], "… and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"): What is the intent of "a second young bullock, etc."? Is it not already written (Bamidbar 8:12): "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd"? Why, then, repeat "And a second, etc."? The intent of "second" is "of the second year." ³3) Rebbi says: What is the intent of: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"? If to teach that they are two, it is already written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd." But, because it is written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd," I might think that the sin-offering takes precedence to the burnt-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering." If that alone were written, I would think that the burnt-offering takes precedence to the sin-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd." How is this to be reconciled. The (sprinkling of) the blood of the sin-offering takes precedence to that of the burnt-offering, because it effects conciliation. The (burning of the) limbs of the burnt-offering takes precedence to the (burning of the) devoted portions of the sin-offering because all of them are burnt. ⁴4) R. Shimon says: What is the intent of: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"? If to teach that they are two, is it not already written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd"? — I might think that this sin-offering is to be eaten; it is, therefore, written: "and a second bullock" — second to the burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so this sin-offering is not eaten." ⁵5) Similarly, R. Yossi said (Ezra 8:35): "Those who came out of the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt-offerings to the G d of Israel: twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven sheep, twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, all as burnt-offerings to the L–rd." How can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering! But (the intent is): Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so the sin-offering was not eaten. R. Yehudah says: They were brought for (unwitting) idolatry. ⁶6) R. Shimon says: Wherever "egel" (calf) is written in the Torah, (a calf) of the first year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:3): "and a calf and a lamb of the first year." (Wherever) "ben bakar" (is written), (a calf of) the second year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:2): "Take for yourself egel ben bakar (a bull-calf) and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish." Just as a ram is of the second year, so, a bull-calf. "bullock," unqualified, is of the third year. Four and five year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd).