1) (Vayikra 1:10): "And (if from the flock is his offering, etc."): This ("And") adds to what precedes (so that what is stated above [about the cattle] applies to what follows [about the flock], and vice versa). And why is there a pause (between the two)? To give Moses time for reflection between parshah and parshah and verse and verse. This prompts a kal vachomer: If Moses, who heard it from the Holy One Blessed be He and spoke with the holy spirit, had to reflect between parshah and parshah, and verse and verse, how much more so, one plain person from another! 2) "from the flock." "of the sheep," and "of the goats": These are limitations, to exclude (as offering) the sick, the old, and the malodorous. "his offering" — to exclude the stolen; "sheep" "or" goats" — to exclude kilayim (hybrids). You say that these limitations were stated for these (exclusions); but perhaps they were stated to exclude consecrated animals with which transgressions were committed, such (transgressions) as plowing with an ox and an ass hitched together, (plowing) kilayim (hybrid growths) in the vineyard, (plowing) shevi'ith (produce of the seventh year), (plowing on) yom tov, Yom Kippur, and Shabbath! (— No, this is not so, for) it is written (to include the above as permitted): "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include all of these (as permitted, so that the exclusions must be for the sick, the old, etc.) 3) R. Shimon says: "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include temurah (a substitute, as permitted). Now does it not follow (that they are permitted, even without the inclusion clauses)? viz.: If the temurah of peace-offerings, for which fowl are not kasher, is kasher, how much more so the temurah of a burnt-offering, for which fowl are kasher! — No, it may be argued that this is so with peace-offerings, for which females are kasher just as males are, but not with an olah, where this is not the case; it is, therefore, written "sheep" and "goats" "as a burnt-offering," to include temurah. 4) R. Eliezer says: "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include (for sacrifice as an olah) mothar (the surplus of what is spent for an offering). For I might think that only the surplus of an olah is to be sacrificed as an olah. Whence do I derive the same for the mothar of a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, the tenth of an ephah, the birds of zavim, zavoth, and yoldoth, the surplus of the offerings of the Nazirite and the leper, (the surplus of) one who consecrated his possessions, among which were things fit for the altar — wines, oils, and birds — Whence is it derived that these are sold for the (altar) needs of that article (i.e., wines, for libations; oils, for meal-offerings, etc.), and burnt-offerings bought for the (remaining) monies? From "sheep" "as a burnt-offering," and "goats" "as a burnt-offering" — to include all of the above. And the sages say: Let them (the monies) fall for a gift (i.e., for communal gift-offerings). — Now are not these, too, burnt-offerings? What is the difference between R. Eliezer and the sages? (The difference is that) when the offering is prescribed, he (the owner) performs semichah upon it and brings libations for it from his own funds; and if he were a Cohein, its (sacrificial) service and its hide revert to him. But when the offering is a (communal) gift, he does not perform semichah upon it, and does not bring libations for it, these coming from communal funds; and if he were a Cohein, its service and its hide revert to the men of the watch. 5) (Vayikra 1:11): "And he shall slaughter it (on the side of the altar northward"): "it" northward, and not a bird northward. (For without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an animal of the flock, for which a Cohein was not stipulated (for shechitah), "northward" was stipulated, then a bird, for which a Cohein was stipulated (for melikah), how much more so should "northward" be stipulated for it! It is, therefore, written "And he shall slaughter it" — "it" northward, and not a bird northward. 6) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: "it" northward, and not the pesach (offering) northward. Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, for which a time for shechitah was not stipulated, a place for shechitah ("northward") was stipulated — pesach, for which a time for shechitah was stipulated (i.e., after midday), how much more so should a place for shechitah be stipulated! It is, therefore, written "And he shall slaughter it" — "it" northward, and not the pesach northward. 7) R. Chiyyah says: "it" northward, but the slaughterer need not stand in the north. For since we find that the receiver (of the blood) must stand in the north and receive in the north, and that if he stood in the south and received in the north it is pasul, we might think that the same is true of the slaughterer; it is, therefore, written "it" — it (must be slaughtered) in the north, but the shochet need not stand with it in the north. (But he may stand southward and slaughter it with a long knife.) 8) (Vayikra 1:11): "And he shall slaughter it at the foot of the altar northward": The foot was in the north. And where was the face? In the south — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south. R. Yehudah says (Ezekiel 43:17): "And its rising turned to the east." One who ascended it, turned to his right, to the east — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south. 9) "the altar northward": The entire altar may be considered "northward," so that if he slaughtered higher-order offerings on its top, they are kasher. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Yehudah says: From the midpoint of the altar northward is considered north; from the midpoint southward is considered south.
Sifra Nedavah Section 5
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.