1) (Vayikra 1:3): ("If his offering is) a burnt-offering": Why need this be written? (i.e., It is clear from the context that we are speaking of a burnt-offering.) I might think that all of these p'sulin (invalidating factors: muktza, ne'evad, rovea, etc.) obtain only with a gift burnt-offering. How would I know that they also obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering? (Therefore, "a burnt-offering" is needed.) — But does it not follow (even without the inclusion clause)? It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a gift burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering! 2) No, in the case of a gift bird-offering he cannot bring a [bird] burnt-offering as a) substitute, whereas in the case of a prescribed burnt-offering he can (sometimes) bring a bird burnt-offering as) a substitute. And since he can bring a substitute (we would say, without the inclusion verse that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering" — Whether a gift burnt-offering or a prescribed burnt-offering, all of the p'sulin obtain with them. 3) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with a temurah (an animal given in exchange for a consecrated animal). It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought and it is written that a temurah is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a temurah. 4) — No, in the instance of a burnt-offering, sanctity does not attach to it in the case of permanent blemish (i.e., if one dedicates an animal with a permanent blemish as a burnt-offering, it becomes chullin ["mundane," for all purposes] when redeemed), as opposed to a temurah, to which sanctity does attach in such a case (i.e., if one redeems a permanently blemished animal which he made a temurah, it does not become chullin (to be shorn or worked with, but only to be eaten). And since sanctity attaches to a temurah with a permanent blemish, we would think that all of these p'sulin do not obtain with it; it is, therefore, written: "if a burnt-offering," to include a temurah. 5) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with peace-offerings? It, indeed, follows that they should, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that peace-offerings are brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so should they obtain with peace-offerings. 6) And it is a kal vachomer (that they should so obtain), viz.: Now if these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, which may come from fowl, how much more so should they obtain with peace-offerings, which may not come from fowl! — No, it may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be offered as well as males, but not with peace-offerings, where females may be offered as well as males. And since females may be offered as well as males (we would say that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain with them; it is, therefore, written (the superfluous) "his offering," to include peace-offerings. 7) (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle": As we have said before (Section 2:10) — to exclude treifah; "a male," and not a female. As for (Vayikra 1:10): "a male," this is to exclude a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite. 8) Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If peace-offerings, where female animals are kasher as well as males, tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher — a burnt-offering, where females are not kasher as well as males, should it not follow that tumtum and hermaphrodite not be kasher? (Why, then, is the exclusion clause needed?) — No, this may be so in the case of peace-offerings, where fowl are not kasher (for the altar), but fowl are kasher for burnt-offerings (so that without the exclusion, tumtum and hermaphrodite would also be assumed to be kasher.) — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where fowl are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite. 9) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male are kasher, as opposed to a burnt-offering, where all species of male are kasher. — This is refuted by a bechor (a first-born male), where all species of male are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite. 10) — No, this may be so with bechor, which is holy from the womb, as opposed to a burnt-offering, which is not holy from the womb. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), which is not holy from the womb, and where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher. 11) — No, ma'aser is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive,) whereas a burnt-offering is "one out of one" (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since it is one out of one, tumtum or hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "male," and not female, and, again, (Ibid. 10), ("male") — to exclude tumtum and hermaphrodite. 12) (Vayikra 1:3): "unblemished": Just as if it is not unblemished it is not acceptable, so if it is not as indicated (i.e., if it is rovea, nirva, ne'evad, etc.) it is not acceptable. "unblemished shall he bring it" — unblemished shall he sanctify it (i.e., it is a positive commandment to sanctify unblemished animals). R. Yossi says: "unblemished shall he offer it (yakrivenu)" — yevakrenu ("He shall examine it" [for blemishes]), veyakrivenu (and he shall offer it). R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one slaughters an unexamined tamid (the offering of the day) on Shabbath he must bring a sin-offering (for having performed a forbidden labor on the Sabbath), and he brings a different tamid. 13) "to the door of the tent of meeting (shall he bring [yakriv] it"): The owner must attend to getting it there (and he cannot say to the Cohein: Since the sacrificial service is yours, you get it there!), it being written "yakriv (enu), yakriv" (the second "yakriv" coming for the above teaching). Whence is it derived that if an olah (a burnt-offering) got mixed up (so that it cannot be identified) with an (other) olah, or with a temurah, or with chullin that it should (still) be sacrificed (with certain pre-conditions)? From "yakriv, yakriv" (— in any event): I might think (that this were true) even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written "yakrivenu" ("he shall offer it") — to exclude an animal that got mixed up with p'sulin, which are not kasher as offerings. 14) Whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even (if it got mixed up) with inner sin-offerings (i.e., where the blood is sprinkled inside the mishkan). — No, such an instance is excluded (i.e., the olah would not be offered in such an instance), for these (the sin-offerings) are inner (as explained), whereas this (the olah) is outer. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with outer sin-offerings? ) — No, in such an instance it is excluded, for this (i.e., the service of the olah) is above (the red line on the outer altar), and (the service of) these (the sin-offerings) below. And whence is it derived that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with a bechor, or ma'aser or pesach? — No, such an instance is excluded, for with this (the olah) there are four (applications of blood on the altar), whereas with the others, there is (only) one. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered even if it got mixed up with peace-offerings or with a thank-offering? — No, such an instance is excluded, for this (the olah) is a higher-order offering (kodshei kodshim), whereas the others are lower-order offerings (kodshim kalim). I might think that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with an asham (a guilt-offering, both being kodshei kodshim); it is, therefore, written "yakrivenu" ("He shall offer it") — he offers only it, alone, and not when it got mixed up with others (like an asham). 15) Why did you choose (to include for offering) an olah that got mixed up with an olah? — It has the same name. An olah that got mixed up with a temurah? — A temurah can be sacrificed as an olah. An olah that got mixed up with chullin? — He can consecrate the chullin and make it an olah. (Ibid.): "yakriv otho" ("he shall bring it"): We are hereby taught that (if he is remiss in bringing his sacrifice) he is compelled to bring it. I might think, even against his will; it is, therefore, written: "of his own volition." How can this be reconciled? — He is compelled until he says: "I will it."
Sifra Nedavah Section 3
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.