1) (Vayikra 1:3-4): "… before the L–rd. And he shall place (his hand on the head of the olah"): There is no semichah on a bamah (a temporary altar, it not being considered " before the L–rd"). (Vayikra 1:11): ("And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar) northward (tzafonah), before the L–rd": There is no tzafon (requirement) on a bamah. Now which measure is greater? That of tzafon or that of semichah? The measure of tzafon is greater. For tzafon obtains both with individual and with communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with individual offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the greater measure, would I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure? (Why, then, is the exclusion verse for bamoth re semichah necessary) Perceived thus, tzafon is the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tzafon the lesser. For semichah obtains with both higher and lower-order offerings, whereas tzafon obtains only with higher-order offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the lesser measure, I would not exclude them from semichah, the greater measure. So that because there obtains with tzafon what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tzafon; it is, therefore, written: "before the L–rd, vesamach" — there is no semichah on a bamah. "tzafonah before the L–rd" — there is no tzafon on a bamah. "before the L–rd vesamach": Even if he performed semichah outside (the azarah), he must return and perform it inside ("before the L–rd"). 2 ["vesamach" ("and he shall place") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim (peace-offerings)] (Vayikra 1:4): "And he shall place his hand" — not the hand of his wife (i.e., women do not perform semichah); "his hand" — not the hand of his bondsman; "his hand" — not the hand of his messenger. (Vayikra 1:4): "his hand on the head" — and not on the back; "his hand on the head" — and not on the throat; "on the head" — and not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written "on the head" — and not on the breast. 3) I might think that only a gift-offering (the subject of the verse) required semichah. Whence do I derive the same for a prescribed burnt-offering? It follows, viz.: It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as a gift burnt-offering requires semichah, so a prescribed burnt-offering requires semichah. 4) — No, a gift burnt-offering does not allow of a bird substitute to exempt it from semichah, whereas a prescribed burnt-offering (that of a leper) does allow of a bird substitute (in the instance of an impoverished leper) to exempt it (a beast brought by a leper) from semichah — so that it should not require semichah. It is, therefore, written "burnt-offering" — Both a gift burnt-offering and a required burnt-offering require semichah. ... [(Vayikra 1:3): "If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle … then he shall place his hand, etc."] This tells me only of a burnt-offering from the cattle. Whence do I derive (that the same holds true for) a burnt-offering from the sheep? It follows, viz.: It is written that an olah from the cattle is brought and that an olah from the sheep is brought. Just as an olah from the cattle requires semichah, so an olah from the sheep requires semichah. 6) — No, this may be so with an animal from the cattle, where the libations are greater (in quantity), and not with an animal from the flock, where the libations are less. We might think, since the libations, are less, that it would not require semichah; it is, therefore, written "olah" — Both an olah from the cattle and one from the flock require semichah. 7) I might think that a bird burnt-offering also required semichah; it is, therefore, written "the olah" — to exclude a bird burnt-offering. 8) (Vayikra 1:4): "venirtzah lo" ("and it shall be acceptable for him"): We are hereby taught that the L–rd is conciliated with him (meratzeh lo). For which things (i.e., transgressions) is the L–rd conciliated with him"? If you say for things which incur death by beth-din, death at the hands of Heaven, kareth at the hands of heaven, forty stripes, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings — these punishments are stipulated (i.e., irrevocable). For what, then, is the L–rd conciliated with him" For (transgression of) positive commandments and of negative commandments linked to positive commandments, (where stripes are not administered). R. Shimon says: "and it shall be acceptable for him": for him, and not for his offering — Even if he did not perform semichah, his offering conciliates for him. 9) "and it shall be acceptable for him to make atonement for him" — with that which effects atonement. And what is it that effects atonement? The blood, as it is written (Vayikra 17:11): "For it is the blood which atones for the soul." This tells me only (of atonement being effected by) the blood of a clean (i.e., undefiled) animal. Whence is it derived (that atonement is likewise effected by) the blood of an unclean animal? When it is written (Shemoth 28:38): "And Aaron shall atone (by means of the headplate [the tzitz] for the sin of the holy things," which sin does he atone for? If that of piggul (abuse of offerings), it is stated in that regard (Shemoth 7:18): "It (the offering) shall not be credited to him." If that of nothar (left-over offerings), it is stated in that regard (Shemoth 7:18): "It shall not be accepted." Which sin does he atone for? That of tumah (defilement), whose like (i.e., tumah) was permitted in a communal offering. 10) This tells me [(that the tzitz conciliates)] only in respect to the blood. Whence do we derive the same for the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed high-priest, and the libation meal-offering? (that if they were offered in a state of uncleanliness, the tzitz conciliates) From (Shemoth, Ibid.): "for all the gifts of their consecrations." This tells me only of men. Whence is it derived that the same applies with women? It tells me only of Israelites. Whence is it derived that the same applies with proselytes and with bondsmen? It is, therefore, written — in addition — "which they shall consecrate." Since we find that only the blood effects atonement, what is the intent of "And he shall place his hand … and it shall be acceptable"? To teach us that if he treated semichah lightly (and did not perform it), it is as if there were no atonement. R. Shimon says (Ibid.): "to make atonement alav" (lit., "upon him"). What is "upon him" (i.e., if he said: "A burnt-offering upon me"), he must make restitution (if it died or were stolen). And, what is not "upon him" (i.e., if he said: "Let this be a burnt-offering"), he need not make restitution.
Sifra Nedavah Chapter 4
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.