1) (Vayikra 6:7) ("And this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it near before the L–rd in front of the altar.") "This is the law of the meal-offering" — for the eternal house (the Temple), i.e., one law obtains in the Temple as it does in the tabernacle (the mishkan). "This (is the law"): It does not apply to a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the meal-offering": There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense, (even the meal-offering of the Cohanim, and of the high-priest, which is entirely burnt). 2) Whence did they (oil and frankincense) leave (the general ruling, that they must be reincluded)? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "and he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it … (Vayikra 2:3) and what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons," I might think that only meal-offerings whose remainders are eaten (by the Cohanim) require oil and frankincense, but those which are not eaten, do not. Therefore, it is written "the law of the meal-offering" — There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense. 3) R. Akiva said: Just as we find that Scripture did not discriminate between the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite and that of a Cohein in respect to not placing (oil and frankincense upon it, viz. Vayikra 5:11), so we should not discriminate between them in respect to the gift meal-offering of an Israelite and that of a Cohein in respect to placing (oil and frankincense upon it, i.e., it should be required in both instances. Why, then, do we need the "one law" teaching for this?) R. Chananiah b. Yehudah countered: Would you compare a negative (not placing) to a positive? doing to not doing? (Certainly not!) It must, therefore, be written "the law of the meal-offering" — There is one law for all (gift) meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense. 4) "The sons of Aaron shall bring it near" — one that is fit, and not one that has become unfit; "it" — all of it at the same time. "the sons of Aaron" — and not the daughters of Aaron (they may not present their own meal-offerings). "before the L–rd": I might think, in the west (of the altar, before the sanctuary); it is, therefore, written "in front of the altar." If "in front of the altar," I would think the south, (where the ramp is). It is, therefore, written "before the L–rd." On which side, then, is it presented? At the southwest corner (at the point of the horn). 5. R. Eliezer says: I might think that he could present it (either) at the south of the horn or at the west. — This cannot be said! If there are two verses, one satisfying itself and satisfying the other, and one satisfying itself but nullifying the other, we choose the former and negate the latter. If you say "before the L–rd" at the west, you have nullified "in front of the altar" at the south; and if you say "in front of the altar" at the south, you have satisfied "before the L–rd" at the west. At which side, then, is it presented? At the south of the horn. (Vayikra 6:8) ("And he shall lift up from it with his fistful from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd.") "And he shall lift up from it": from what is all joined together, that he not bring one issaron (a tenth of an ephah) in two vessels. "with his fistful": that he not make a vessel for the fistful. "from the fine flour of the meal-offering": and not from the fine flour of its neighbor, (i.e., he should not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel so that they become intermixed and the fistful is taken from both). "and from its oil": and not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel. "from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense": (Even though it is not taken with the fistful), frankincense must be in the vessel when it is taken. "and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering and he shall cause it to smoke": He picks out the frankincense and brings it up on the fire. 6) "and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd." It is a remembrance through it, (i.e., through its presentation), and through (the smoking of) its fistful, and through (the smoking of) its frankincense. 7) (Vayikra 6:9) ("And what is left of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons. It shall be eaten unleavened; in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it."): "And what is left of it": of a valid offering, and not of one that became unfit. "shall be eaten by," "It shall be eaten," "shall they eat it": "eatings" are multiplied here (to indicate that they may be eaten in any manner they desire, (fried, cooked, etc.) and that non-consecrated food and terumah may be eaten together with it when it does not suffice (for a meal). 8) See Gift Offerings, Chapter 11:1 9) "It shall be eaten unleavened": This is a mitzvah (and not just an option). I might think that (since in the beginning, before it was consecrated), it was in the category of the permitted (i.e., it could be eaten either leavened or unleavened), and then (after it was consecrated until the fistful was taken) it became forbidden, and then (after the fistful was taken) it became permitted again — I might think that it returned to its original permissibility; it is, therefore, written "It shall be eaten unleavened" — It is a mitzvah ( to do so). 10) Similarly, (in respect to levirate marriage) (Devarim 25:5): "Her yavam (her dead husband's brother) shall come upon her": This is a mitzvah. I might think that (since in the beginning, before she married) she was in the category of the permitted, and then (upon her marriage) she was forbidden, and then (after her husband died) she was permitted again — I might think that she returned to her original permissibility (and that he might just as well resort to chalitzah [release from levirate marriage]); it is, therefore, written "Her levir shall come upon her" (It is a mitzvah for him to come upon her.) 11 "It shall be eaten unleavened": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "shall they eat it," I might think only all of it (i.e., only if the entire remainder is intact.) Whence do I derive that even part of it (is to be eaten if the rest went lost)? From "It shall be eaten" — any amount. 12) "in a holy place shall it be eaten": I might think, in the Levite encampment; it is, therefore, written "in the court of the tent of meeting (i.e., in the azarah) shall they eat it." This tells me only of the court of the tent of meeting. Whence do I derive for inclusion the (Temple) chambers that are built in a non-consecrated area and open into a consecrated one? From "in a holy place." "shall they eat it": They shall not eat along with it non-consecrated food and terumah when it is ample (in itself).
Sifra Tzav Section 2
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.