Sifra Nedavah Chapter 18

¹1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock. ²2) (Vayikra 3:6): "male or female (without blemish shall he offer it"): a definite male or a definite female, not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite. Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If a burnt-offering, which may be brought from fowl, may not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite — peace-offerings, which may not be brought from fowl, how much more so should they not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite! — No, this may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be brought as well as males, as opposed to peace-offerings, where females may be brought as well as males. — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where females may be brought as well as males, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite may not be brought. ³3) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male and female are kasher. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), where all species of male and female are kasher as offerings, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher. — No, this may be so with ma'aser, which is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive), whereas shelamim are one out of one (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since they are one out of one, tumtum and hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written: "male" or "female" — a definite male or a definite female, and not tumtum or hermaphrodite. ⁴4) (Vayikra 3:7): ("If) a lamb (he offers"): Why mention this (after "flock")? To include the pesach offering (which is a lamb) for the (smoking of the) fat-tail (along with the other devoted portions). "If a lamb" — to include a pesach whose (stipulated) time (for sacrifice) has passed, and shelamim which come by virtue of a pesach (e.g., a substitute) in all the mitzvoth of shelamim, as requiring semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh. For I might think: If the "father" (i.e., the pesach offering itself) does not require semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh, then what comes because of it, how much more so should it not require semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh! It is, therefore, written: "If a lamb" to include a pesach whose time has passed and what comes by virtue of it as requiring semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh. But they are eaten only for a day and a night, as per the origin of their consecration (i.e., the pesach offering). Ben Azzai says: They are eaten only at night and only roasted (like the pesach lamb itself). ⁵5) ("If) he (offers"): The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. If you would ask: But have they (the congregation) not already been excluded by (Vayikra 3:1): "if from the cattle he offers"? (This is no objection,) for I might think that the congregation does not bring shelamim from cattle as a gift-offering because they do not bring their like as a mandatory offering, and that they could bring shelamim from the flock as a gift-offering, because they do bring their like as a mandatory offering (i.e., the Atzereth lambs). It is, therefore, written (here) "he" — The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.