1) (Vayikra 4:4): "And he shall bring (the bullock to the door of the tent of meeting."): even after Yom Kippur (i.e., Yom Kippur does not atone for those liable for categorical sin-offerings and guilt-offerings). "bullock": he brings a bullock and not an alternate (offering [i.e., a she-goat], as a [lay] individual may.) 2) For does it not follow (without the exclusion clause that he may bring an alternate), viz.: If the (lay) individual, whose offering for (unwitting sin) in respect to all the mitzvoth [i.e., a she-lamb] is not the same as his offering on Yom Kippur (i.e., the "dispatched" he-goat), (yet) his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (that of idolatry, for which he brings a she-goat, [in that he may also bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the she-lamb]) — the high-priest, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (i.e., a bullock) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur — how much more should it follow that his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., that he should be permitted to bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock)! — This is refuted by (the instance of) the nassi, whose offering for all mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, in spite of which his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., he was not permitted to bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the he-goat). 3) Here, too, then, do not wonder that the high-priest, even though his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, still, his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (and no exclusion clause is needed to tell us that he may not bring an alternate.) But, I might think that "And he shall bring" implies that he may bring an alternate; it is, therefore, written "bullock" — he brings a bullock and not an alternate. 4) (Vayikra 4:4): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. Now dos this not follow (without the inclusion clause), viz.: If this (offering), which does not require two confessions, and does not require "Ana" (I pray you, etc.", but only one confession, for his sin, at the time of semichah) — the Yom Kippur bullock, which does require two confessions (one for him alone, and one for him and his brother priests), and does require "Ana" — how much more so should it require semichah! — No, it may be so in this case, where the offering is for an ascertained sin, as opposed to the Yom Kippur bullock, where the offering is not for an ascertained sin (but for a possible one). And since this is the case, I might think that it does not require semichah; it is, therefore, written: "And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north (as all other sin-offerings). 5) (Vayikra 4:5): "And the anointed Cohein shall take (from the blood of the bullock"): "taking" is written here and elsewhere (Shemoth 24:6: "And Moses took half of the blood and put it into basins.") Just as the "taking" there refers to (receiving the blood) in a vessel, here, too, (the "taking" is) in a vessel. 6) "And the anointed Cohein": This tells me only of the (Cohein) anointed with the oil of anointment (i.e., the high-priest). Whence is it derived that the "many-garmented priest" (may also receive the blood)? From "the Cohein." If in the end we are to include a different Cohein, why state: "And the anointed Cohein shall take"? It is a mitzvah for the anointed Cohein to receive (the blood), but if a different Cohein does so, it is kasher. 7) "from the blood of the bullock": of the blood of the life (i.e., the blood with which the life goes out), and not of the blood of the flesh, and not of the blood that is squeezed out. "from the bullock": shall he receive it (to exclude blood that spilled to the ground and was gathered up.) "and he shall bring it (to the tent of meeting"): a (Cohein that is) kasher, and not one who is pasul. "to the tent of meeting" — to exclude his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., the she-goat of Yom Kippur), that its blood not be sprinkled on the golden altar, (but on the outer altar.) 8) (Vayikra 4:6): "And the Cohein shall dip his finger into the blood.": He shall dip and not wipe, (against the wall of the vessel. It must contain enough blood for him to "dip" his finger into it.) "And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle (seven times"): for every sprinkling, a dipping (and not one dipping for all the sprinklings.) "his finger": "his finger" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:16, in respect to a leper). Just as "his finger" there is the most dexterous (i.e., the index finger) of the right hand, so, "his finger" here. 9) "into the blood": The blood must contain the required amount for dipping (seven dippings, [and not that the needed amount be placed in it for each successive dipping]). "and he shall sprinkle": and not drip; "and he shall sprinkle": and not fling. "from the blood": from the blood previously referred to (i.e., the blood in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) "seven times": and not seven drops (i.e., the "sprinklings" must be complete); "seven times": he counts seven times, and not "one and seven" (as he counts on Yom Kippur). 10) "before the L–rd": I might think (that he sprinkles) over the entire house; it is, therefore, written: "before the parocheth." I might then think (that he sprinkles before the entire parocheth; it is, therefore, written: "of the holiness." We are hereby taught that he directs (the sprinkling) in alignment (with the space) between the staves of the ark. 11) (Vayikra 4:7): "And the Cohein shall put of the blood": of the blood previously referred to (i.e., that in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) "on the horns of the altar": two; and later (Vayikra 4:18) it is written "horns" — four all together. These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says (Vayikra 4:7): "which is in the tent of meeting" — to include all the corners of the tent of meeting. "the altar of the smoking (of the incense."): The (golden) altar is to be inaugurated with smoking (of the incense). "ketoreth (smoking)": It (the incense that is smoked) must come from the congregation (and not from an individual.) "samim" (incense): It must contain all of its (composite) spices, (failing which the inauguration is invalid.) "before the L–rd." What is the intent of this? R. Nechemiah said: Because we find with the Yom Kippur bullock that he stands in front of the altar (i.e., between the altar and the parocheth), and, in sprinkling, he sprinkles on the parocheth, we might think that here, too, it is so; it is, therefore, written: "the altar of the smoking of the incense before the L–rd" — (The altar is before the L–rd,) but the Cohein is not before the L–rd, (but before the altar, which is before the L–rd [i.e., before the (parocheth of the) holy of holies.]) 12) "And all the (remaining) blood of the bullock he shall pour (at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.": to include the blood of the Yom Kippur bullock for pouring. "he shall pour" — and not drip; "he shall pour" — and not sprinkle; "he shall pour" — and not fling. "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering": not at the base of the inner (golden) altar. For (without this qualification) I would reason: Does it not follow (that the blood should be poured at the base of the inner altar, viz.): The outer altar "merits" the application of blood, and the inner altar "merits" the application of blood. Just as with the outer altar — in the place of the application of the blood on its horns (i.e., in the azarah), there is the place for the application of the blood on its base — so, with the inner altar — in the place of the application of the blood on its horns (i.e., in the heichal), there is the place for the blood on its base. (It is, therefore, written [to negate this]: "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering.") 13) Why mention again in respect to (the offering of) the congregation (Ibid. 18): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? To teach that there was no base to the inner altar itself. Why mention again in respect to the nassi (Ibid. 25): "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? If the inner altar does not receive its own remnants (i.e., the blood remaining from the bullock of the high-priest, which was sprinkled on the inner altar), should it receive those of the outer altar (i.e., the remnants of the blood of the he-goat of the nassi, which was sprinkled on the outer altar)? Furthermore, is there a base to the inner altar itself? Why, then, state: "at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering"? (To teach) that (the law of pouring the remaining blood) at the base of the altar should apply to (whatever blood remains in the vessel from the offerings of) the altar of the burnt-offering. "At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting": the western base, (which is opposite the entrance of the heichal).
Sifra Chovah Section 3
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.