Cutting, Washing, and Burning the Burnt Offering for Heaven

(Leviticus 1:12) "And he shall cut it into its pieces": a fit animal, not an unfit one. "It" into its pieces, and not its pieces into further pieces. "Its head and its suet, and the priest shall arrange": this teaches that the head and the suet take precedence over all the other limbs. "And the priest shall arrange them" in their proper order. "Upon the wood that is on the fire that is on the altar": that he should not change the arrangement of the wood-pile for them. (Leviticus 1:13) "And the innards he shall wash, and the legs he shall wash": even if the innards of one burnt offering became mixed with the innards of another burnt offering, or the innards of a burnt offering with the innards of its substitute. One might think this applies even if they became mixed with invalid ones; therefore Scripture teaches "and the innards." I would then exclude only what became mixed with most holy offerings and offerings of lesser holiness; therefore Scripture teaches "and its innards." "He shall wash": one might think that just as the washing spoken of elsewhere requires forty se'ah, so too here it requires forty se'ah; therefore Scripture teaches "in water," in any amount of water. "In water," and not in wine. "In water," and not in a mixture. "In water," to render fit any water. And how much more so the water of the laver. "And the priest shall offer the whole": this refers to bringing it up the ramp. "And he shall burn it": even though it is invalid, even though it has gone outside, even though it is rejected sacrifice, even though it is leftover, even though it is impure. One might think this applies even when they are below; therefore Scripture teaches "the altar": I said this when they are on top of the altar, not when they are below. "A burnt offering": even though he did not flay it, even though he did not cut it into pieces. One might think even though he did not slaughter it on the north; therefore Scripture teaches "it." And what did you see to render fit the cases of flaying and cutting and to disqualify the north? After Scripture has included and excluded, why do I render fit the absence of flaying and cutting? Because they come after the appeasement. And why do I disqualify the north? Because it comes before the appeasement. "A burnt offering": even though he did not lay his hands upon it. But does not the laying on of hands precede the appeasement? Even so, if he did not lay his hands upon it, it is valid. And what did you see to render fit the absence of laying on of hands and to disqualify the north? After Scripture has included and excluded, why do I render fit the absence of laying on of hands? Because the laying on of hands does not apply to all burnt offerings. And why do I disqualify the north? Because the north applies to all burnt offerings. "A burnt offering": for the sake of a burnt offering. "A fire offering": for the sake of the fires. "An aroma": for the sake of the aroma. "Pleasing": for the sake of giving satisfaction. "To the LORD": for the sake of the One who spoke and the world came into being.