Sifra Nedavah Section 8

¹1) (Vayikra 2:1): "And a soul" — to include the anointed priest (i.e., the high-priest) as bringing a gift meal-offering. Is it not a kal vachomer (that he may do so), viz.: If an individual (Jew), who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the high-priest, who does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, (see Vayikra 6:13), how much more so may he bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual (in an instance of extreme poverty) brings a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the high-priest does not — and since he does not, (I would say that) he may not bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written: "And a soul," to include a high-priest as bringing a gift meal-offering. ²2) The same applies to the congregation (as opposed to the individual), viz.: If the individual who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the congregation, which does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day (the libation meal-offering accompanying the daily offering), how much more so may it bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual brings an offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the congregation does not (and since it does not [I would say that] it may not bring a gift meal-offering.) — This is refuted by the instance of the high-priest, who does not bring a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, yet does bring a gift meal-offering. Do not wonder, then, if a congregation, which does not bring a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects would bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written (to negate this supposition): "a soul" — an individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not a congregation. ³3) "a soul shall offer" — I might think this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: "If a soul shall offer" — it is optional. "korban minchah" (lit., "an offering, meal-offering"). We are hereby taught (by the superfluous "korban") that an individual may offer frankincense (as a distinct offering, apart from the meal-offering). Now does it not follow (that he may do so, i.e., Why does this require an inclusion clause?), viz.: It is written that a beast is brought (as an offering), and a meal-offering as a prescribed adjunct to it (Bamidbar 15:1, etc.); that a meal-offering is brought, and frankincense, as a prescribed adjunct to it — Just as a meal-offering, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself (our verse), so, frankincense, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a meal-offering, comes as a gift by itself. (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) ⁴4) (No, I would say:) Why does a meal-offering come as a gift by itself? Because it comes as a prescribed offering by itself. Should frankincense, then, which does not come as a prescribed offering by itself, come as a gift by itself! Certainly not! It is, therefore, written (to negate this); "korban" ("an offering") — an individual may donate frankincense by itself. What is the minimum amount? A fistful. ⁵5) And whence is it derived that an individual may donate wine as a (distinct) gift? It is written that a beast is brought, and a meal-offering as a prescribed adjunct to it, and that a beast is brought, and wine as a prescribed adjunct to it — Just as a meal-offering, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself, so, wine, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself. ⁶6) (But this may be countered, viz.:) Why does a meal-offering come as a gift by itself? Because it comes as a prescribed offering by itself. Should wine, then, which does not come as a prescribed offering by itself, come as a gift by itself! Certainly not! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "korban" ("an offering") — an individual may donate wine by itself. What is the minimum amount? Three logim. ⁷7) And whence is it derived that an individual may donate oil by itself? Adduce the same derivation and the same rebuttal (as in the instance of frankincense.) It is, therefore, written (to negate the rebuttal): "korban," etc. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Tarfon said: Just as we find that wine, which is brought as an obligation, is brought as a gift, so, oil, which is brought as an obligation, is brought as a gift. R. Akiva countered: No, this may be so in the case of wine, which is brought as an obligation by itself, but not in the case of oil, which is not brought as an obligation by itself. And whence is it derived that an individual may donate wood by itself? It is written: "korban" — an individual may donate wood by itself. What is the minimum amount? Two logs. ⁸8) R. Yossi says: I read "korban," and I might think an individual may donate (even) incense, and that he is bound by (Devarim 23:24): "What issues from your lips shall you observe and you shall do, and that he satisfies (Shemoth 30:9) "You shall not bring upon it (the altar) strange (i.e., donated) incense, nor burnt-offering" by not bringing it upon the inner altar, but he may bring it upon the outer altar (just as he does a burnt-offering) — it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 31:11): "and the spice incense for (smoking in the sanctuary, which is) holy" — spices are offered only within (i.e., in the sanctuary).