1) (Vayikra 1:6): "And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and he shall cut it into its pieces": I might think that he flays it limb by limb and he cuts it (i.e., each limb, after it has been flayed); it is, therefore, written "the burnt-offering." He flays the whole animal and then cuts it. 2) I might think that only a gift burnt-offering requires flaying. 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 flaying, so, a prescribed burnt-offering. 3) I might think that only a burnt-offering from the cattle requires flaying. Whence do I derive the same for a burnt-offering from the flock? It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought from the cattle, and it is written that a burnt-offering is brought from the flock. Just as the first requires flaying, so, the second. 4) This tells me only that (the burnt-offering) of men (requires flaying). Whence do I derive the same for that of women? This tells me only of the burnt-offering of a Jew. Whence do I derive the same for that of bondsmen? — until even that of gentiles is included? From "the burnt-offerings" — Whatever is a burnt-offering requires flaying. Why did you see fit to include them (the burnt-offerings of all the above) for flaying and cutting and to exclude them from semichah? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I include them for flaying and cutting and exclude them from semichah? For flaying and cutting are kasher with all persons. And I exclude them from semichah, for semichah is performed only by the owner. 5) R. Chiyya says: Go and see what Scripture excludes above (by [Vayikra 1:2] "a man, if he offers, etc.") — what is offered? (i.e., the animal), or the offerers? The offerers (e.g., a woman is excluded from semichah). Likewise, I exclude them (gentiles) from semichah, because I am excluding the offerers. I do not exclude them (the animals of gentiles) from flaying and cutting, because then I would be excluding the burnt-offering itself from an act (affecting its body). 6) This tells me (that flaying is required) only of a (burnt-offering) that was slaughtered lishmah (i.e., with the intent that it be a burnt-offering). Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered lo lishmah (i.e., with a different intent)? From "the burnt-offering." Whatever is a burnt-offering requires flaying. 7) "and he shall cut it into its pieces": I might think that he cuts its pieces into pieces; it is, therefore, written "it" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. I might think that even an animal that is pasul requires flaying and cutting; it is, therefore, written "it" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul. And one that is pasul, which was placed on the altar, is sacrificed as it is (without flaying and cutting). 8) (Vayikra 1:7): "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar." R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that the kindling of the alita (kindling wood) is to be performed by a Cohein kasher in priestly vestments? From "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar." R. Shimon said: Would it enter your mind that a zar (a non-priest) could sacrifice on the altar! If so, why is it written "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, etc."? To teach that the wood must be kindled on the top of the altar (and not below, and then brought up to the altar). 9) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein": Why "the Cohein"? From "Aaron," do I not know that he is a Cohein? Why is it mentioned? To emphasize "in his priesthood" — to teach that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, his service is pasul. And whence is it derived that if a regular priest officiated in the vestments of the high-priest his service is pasul? From (Vayikra 1:8) "the priests" — in their priesthood. So that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, or a regular priest, in those of a high-priest, their service is pasul. 10) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar." Even though fire descends from Heaven, it is a mitzvah to bring man-made fire. The fire that descended in the days of Moses did not depart from the copper altar until they came to the temple. The fire that descended in the days of Solomon did not depart from the burnt-offering altar until the days of Menasheh. 11) (Vayikra 1:7): "And they shall arrange wood upon the fire": "wood upon the fire," and not fire upon the wood. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that the daily afternoon offering requires two additional logs for the woodpile? From "And they shall arrange the (lit.,) woods upon the fire."
Sifra Nedavah Chapter 5
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.