1) "northward before the L–rd": The north must be empty (so that it is "before the L–rd.") These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. The altar was aligned with half the opening of the heichal (the sanctuary), and opposite one of the doors, extending south. R. Yehudah says: The altar was in the mid-point of the azarah, thirty-two amoth — ten amoth opposite the entrance of the heichal, eleven amoth to the north, and eleven amoth to the south. So that the altar is found to be aligned with the sanctuary and its walls. 2) Which is "north" (for purposes of shechitah of higher-order offerings)? From the northern wall of the altar until the northern wall of the azarah, and opposite (the length of) the altar (from east to west). These are the words of R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon adds: to the west (of the altar) between the ulam (the entrance hall to the heichal) and the altar, until the northern wall of the azarah. Rebbi adds: to the north-east (of the altar), the pathway of the Cohanim, and (continuing northward), the pathway of the Israelites, until the northern wall of the azarah. But all agree that (shechitah) is pasul in front (i.e., to the north) of the "cell of knives" (beth hachalafoth, in the north of the ulam [the altar being obscured from there]). 3) (Vayikra 1:12): "And he shall cut it": "it" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul; "it" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. "and its head and its suet": We are hereby taught that the head and the suet precede all the limbs (for arrangement). "and the Cohein shall arrange them" — in an orderly arrangement; "upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar" — he should not change the (normal) place of the woodpile for them. 4) (Vayikra 1:13): "And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water": He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): "and its innards," to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: "and its innards and its legs." (Vayikra 1:13): "he shall wash": I might think that just as "washing" written elsewhere (in respect to one who had had an emission) is with forty sa'ah, here, too, forty sa'ah are required. It is, therefore, written "with water" — any amount. "with water" — and not with wine; "with water" — and not with diluted wine; "with water" — all water (even "gathered" [i.e., non-flowing] water) — how much more so with water (fit for) the (Temple) laver, (which is flowing water [but not with the water of the laver itself].) 5) (Vayikra 1:13): "And the Cohein shall present the whole" — on the ramp, "and he shall smoke it upon the altar" — even if it is pasul, even if it had gone out (i.e., even if the flesh had left the precincts of the azarah), even if it is piggul, even if it is nothar, even if it is tamei. I might think that this applies even if they are below (i.e., even if they had not already been placed on the altar); it is, therefore, written "upon the altar" — this applies when they are already on the altar, but not when they are below. 6) (Vayikra 1:13): ("It is" an olah" — even if it were not flayed; even if it were not cut into pieces. — But perhaps (the implication is) even if it were not slaughtered in the north! It is, therefore, written (to negate this supposition): "It." Why do you see fit to make it kasher (in the absence of) flaying and cutting, and pasul (in the absence of) "north"? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I call it kasher (in the absence of) flaying and cutting? Because they follow conciliation (effected by the application of the blood.) Correspondingly, it is pasul (in the absence of) "north," because that precedes conciliation.... 7) "an olah" — even if he did not perform semichah. Now does not semichah precede conciliation? Even if he did not perform semichah, it is kasher. Why did you see fit to make it kasher (in the absence of) semichah, and to make it pasul in the absence of "north"? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I call it kasher (in the absence of) semichah? Because semichah does not obtain with all oloth. I call it pasul (in the absence of) "north," because "north" obtains with all oloth. 8) ("a burnt-offering, a fire offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd":) "a burnt-offering" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning it to ashes); "a savor" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); "sweet" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.
Sifra Nedavah Chapter 7
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.