1) (Vayikra 22:27) ("An ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and on, it shall be acceptable as an offering of fire to the L–rd.") "an ox … when it is born" (to exclude [from kashruth] one delivered by Caesarian section) — not a man (i.e., a Cohein delivered by Caesarian section is fit to serve.) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a treifah (an organic defect), which forbids an animal for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), the offenders (i.e., the Cohanim), were not made like the offerings (i.e., A Cohein with such a defect is permitted to serve), then in the instance of a Caesarian birth, which is permitted in an animal for mundane purposes, how much more so should the offerings (i.e., Cohanim of Caesarian birth) not be made like the offerers (and should be permitted to serve!) — (No,) this is refuted by the instance of a blemished animal, which, though it is permitted for mundane purposes, the offerers (i.e., Cohanim with blemishes) were made (forbidden) like the offered. 2) Do not wonder, then, if in the instance of Caesarian section, though it is permitted for mundane purposes, the offerers were made (forbidden) like the offered. It must, therefore, be written "an ox … when it is born" (by Caesarian section is forbidden as an offering), and not a man when he is born, (etc.) 3) "an ox or a sheep": to exclude a hybrid. "or a goat": to exclude a nidmeh (a sheep which looks like a goat, or vice-versa). When it is born": to exclude one delivered by Caesarian section. "and it shall be seven days": to exclude (acceptability) before that time. "under its mother": to exclude an orphaned animal. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan Beroka says: It is written here "under," and elsewhere (in respect to tithes, Vayikra 27:32) "under (the staff"). Just as "under" here excludes a hybrid, a Caesarian, before its time, and an orphan, so, "under" there. And just as "under" there excludes a treifah, so, "under" here. 4) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "it shall be seven days under its mother"? Because it is written (Shemoth 22:19) "seven days shall it be with its mother," I might think that it must be with its mother all seven days; it is, therefore, written "under its mother" (negating [in the Hebrew] the above assumption). If under its mother I might think (that it is acceptable) even if it left the mother's womb after she died; it is, therefore, written "with its mother." How is this to be reconciled? Even if its mother survives for only one moment (after its birth, it is acceptable). 5) "and from the eighth day and on it shall be acceptable": I might think that from the eighth day on it is permitted, but on the eighth day itself it is forbidden. It is, therefore, written in respect to a bechor (a first-born male animal, Shemoth 22:29) "On the eighth day you shall give it to Me." I might think that a bechor is permitted on the eighth day, but that from the eighth day on it is forbidden; it is, therefore, written of the holy things (here) "and from the eighth day and on it shall be acceptable." But why do I not rule that a bechor is permitted (only) in the eighth day, and the holy things from the eighth day and on? Whence do I derive that I apply what is stated in respect to bechor (also) in respect to the holy things, and what is stated in respect to the holy things also in respect to bechor? From "its mother" (here, in respect to the holy things) - "its mother" (there, in respect to bechor), a gezeirah shavah (identity). 6) "it shall be accepted isheh": to be brought up upon the fires (ishim, of the altar). Whence is it derived also that one may not dedicate an animal before its time )for offering, i.e., before it is eight days old?) From "as an offering." "to the L–rd": to include the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur (as forbidden to be brought before its time, eight days). 7) (Vayikra 22:28) ("And an ox or a sheep, it and its son you shall not slaughter in one day.") Whence is it derived that if one slaughtered "it and its son" of consecrated (and not only mundane) animals he is in transgression of "it shall not be accepted." From (the juxtaposition of) "shall be accepted as an offering of fire to the L–rd. And an ox or a sheep, it and its son you shall not slaughter in one day" — whereby we are taught that one who does slaughter "it and its son" of consecrated animals in one day is in transgression of "it shall not be accepted." 8) "an ox": and not an animal (is subject to "it and its son") (The verse is needed, for without it I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori that an animal is subject to "it and its son," viz.: If a beast, which is not subject to the mitzvah of covering (its blood), is subject to the mitzvah of "it and its son," then an animal, which is subject to the mitzvah of covering, how much more so should it be subject to the mitzvah of "it and its son!" It must, therefore, be written "an ox" — and not an animal. 9) "a sheep"; and not birds: Does it not follow (otherwise)? viz.: If a beast, which is not subject to the mitzvah (against taking) the mother with the yond, is subject to the mitzvah of it and its son, then a bird, which is subject to the mitzvah (against taking) the mother with the young, how much more so should it be subject to the mitzvah of "it and its son!" It must, therefore, be written "a sheep" — and not a bird. 10) If it were written "an ox and a sheep and its son," I would think that he were not liable until he slaughtered both of them and their son; it is, therefore, written "or a sheep" — either one or the other. 11) I might think that "it and its son" applied both to males (i.e., the father animal and his child) and females (the mother animal and her child), and it would follow (even without a verse that it applied only to mother and child, viz.: There is liability here and there is liability in the instance of "mother with her young" (re birds) — Just as there, males were not equated with females, here, too, males are not to be equated with females. 12) No, this may be true of "mother with her young," where domesticated birds were not equated with non-domesticated ones (to be subject to the mitzvah, as opposed to our instance (of "it and its son) where domesticated beasts were equated with non-domesticated ones. And since this is so, we would think that "it and its son" should apply to males as well as to females; it is, therefore, written "it and its son."
Sifra Emor Section 8
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.