1) (Vayikra 2:11): ("All of the meal-offering) that you offer up to the L–rd shall not be made of leaven": I might think that the negative commandment applies only to the fistful alone. Whence would I derive that it applies to the entire meal-offering? From "minchah" (connoting the whole meal-offering.) Whence do I derive that all meal-offerings are included? 2) For I might think that this applies only to those meal-offerings whose remainders (after the fistful) may be eaten. Whence do I derive that it applies even to those whose remainders are not eaten? From "All the minchah" (connoting all meal-offerings). "… that you offer up to the L–rd shall not be made of leaven": R. Yossi says: This includes the show bread (in the prohibition against leaven). R. Akiva says: It includes the libation meal-offering. 3) "shall not be made of leaven": I might think that they (all of the steps in preparing the meal-offering) are subsumed in one negative commandment (against leaven); it is, therefore, written (to negate this [Ibid. 6:10]): "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the general category (of those steps). Why did it leave the category (for special mention)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular, significant act, and subject to liability (for leaven) in and of itself, so, I will include all such acts, like kneading and mixing, for liability in and of themselves. 4) (Vayikra 2:11): ("… for all leaven and all [fruit] honey you shall not smoke from it a fire-offering to the L–rd"): "… leaven … you shall not smoke": This tells me (that he has transgressed) only (if he smoked) the great part (i.e., the entire fistful, leavened). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From "all leaven." This tells me only of it (leaven, by) itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture (of leaven and non-leaven)? From "for all leaven." I might think that only meal-offerings subsumed under (Vayikra 2:5) "unleavened bread shall it be" come under the interdict against smoking leaven, but that meal-offerings which are not thus subsumed (such as the thanksgiving loaves and the two breads [if he transgressed and smoked them]) do not come under that interdict. It is, therefore, written: "for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke." (Just as the interdict against honey applies to all meal-offerings, so, the interdict against leaven.) This tells me (in respect to honey) only of the great part (i.e., smoking an entire fistful of date-honey). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From "all honey." This tells me only of it itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture? From "and all honey." This tells me only of things (i.e., offerings) which honey spoils. Whence do I derive (that honey is forbidden even with) things which honey improves? [For, (as) the spice compounders say: "Honey enhances the incense."] From "all honey." 5) Why mention (both) "all leaven" and "all honey" (instead of mentioning just one and learning one from the other)? For there is a factor relating to leaven which does not relate to honey, and there is a factor relating to honey which does not relate to leaven: Something in the class of leaven (i.e., the two loaves) is permitted in the sanctuary, but nothing in the class of honey is permitted in the sanctuary. Honey is permitted (to be eaten) by the Cohanim with what is left of the meal-offering, but not leaven. So that since there obtains with leaven what does not obtain with honey, and with honey what does not obtain with leaven, it is necessary to state "all leaven and all honey." 6) Whence is it derived that if one offers up what is left from the flesh of a sin-offering, or of a guilt-offering, or of higher order or lower order offerings, or the two loaves or the show bread or what is left of meal-offerings — that he transgresses "You shall not smoke"? From "for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke of it a fire-offering to the L–rd" — Anything that there is "of it" (i.e., of which there has been offered) a fire-offering to the L–rd, you shall not smoke. 7) (Vayikra 2:12): ("As a first-offering you may offer them [leaven and honey] up to the L–rd"): "As a first-offering" (the two loaves were leavened, and the first-fruits contained the honey of fruits and dates.): — that they (the two loaves) be first of all the meal-offerings (of the year, no meal-offering of the new grain being brought before the two loaves are offered), as it is written (Vayikra 23:16): "And you shall offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd" — that it be the newest of all the meal-offerings. This tells me (that it precedes) only a meal-offering of wheat (the two loaves being of wheat.) Whence do I derive that it precedes even) a meal-offering of barley (such as the meal-offering of rancor [of the sotah])? From (Numbers 28:26): "And on the day of first-fruits, when you offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd, in your (festival of) weeks (Shavuoth)." If it ("new") is not needed for a wheat meal-offering, (this already having been written), understand it as applying to a barley meal-offering (i.e., that a barley meal-offering, too, does not precede it). 8) And whence is it derived that they (the two loaves) precede the (bringing of) the first-fruits (bikkurim)? From (Shemoth 34:22): ("And the festival of Shavuoth shall you make for yourself,) the first of the wheat harvest" (i.e., What you make on Shavuoth [the two loaves] should precede [all that comes of] the wheat harvest.) This tells me (that it precedes only bikkurim) of wheat. Whence do I derive (that it precedes also bikkurim) of barley? From (Shemoth 23:16): "which you sow" (implying all that you sow.) This tells me only of what is sown. Whence do I derive (that the two loaves precede) what grows of itself (from seeds scattered by the wind)? From (Shemoth 23:16): "in the field" (implying all that grows in the field.) This tells me only of what grows in the field. Whence do I derive the same for (fruits planted on) a roof, in a yard, or in a ruin? From (Bamidbar 18:13): (The two loaves shall be) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land." And whence is it derived that they precede the (bikkurim of) libations and the fruits of the tree? From (Bamidbar 23:16): (The two loaves shall be) "the first fruits of your labor," and (Bamidbar 23:16): "when you gather your labor from the field." (Grapes for libations and fruits are subsumed in "gathered.") 9) I might think that if a different offering (of the new grain) preceded them (the two loaves) they should not be offered; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:12): "You may offer them." I might think that if they were not offered on Shavuoth they could be offered afterwards; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "them" (i.e., the ones specifically designated in respect to Shavuoth). I might think that an individual could bring their like (the two loaves) as a gift-offering (whenever he wished); it is, therefore, written: "them." I might think that an individual cannot bring their like as a gift-offering because he does not bring their like as a mandatory offering, but that the congregation, which does bring their like as a mandatory offering, could bring their like as a gift-offering. It is, therefore, written: "them." (Vayikra 2:12): ("but they [leaven and honey] shall not come up to the altar for a sweet savor"): "the altar": This tells me only of the altar. Whence do I derive the ramp (to be included in the prohibition)? From "and to the altar they shall not come up." I might think (that they are prohibited) both for an offering and not for an offering (i.e., as fuel); it is, therefore, written: "for a sweet savor" — it is only for an offering that they are prohibited.
Sifra Nedavah Section 12
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.