The Fat Tail and the Individual's Freewill Offering

"If he offers a lamb" (Leviticus 3:7) - the first offspring is offered, the second offspring is not offered. "He" is offered, but the offspring of all consecrated animals are not all offered. The offspring of what? If of a burnt-offering or a guilt-offering, these are males and cannot bear young. If of a sin-offering, the law is received by tradition that it is left to die. To include the offspring of a tithed animal, why do I need a verse? Let us derive "passed, passed" - tithe from the firstborn: just as the firstborn does not have its offspring offered, since it cannot bear young, so too the tithe does not have its offspring offered. The verse was needed lest you say we do not derive what is possible from what is impossible; it teaches us that we do. "He" - the individual brings freewill peace-offerings, but the community does not bring freewill peace-offerings. And if you should say I have already excluded the herd-animal, so that perhaps the community may not bring a herd-animal as a freewill peace-offering, since the community does not bring peace-offerings of this kind as an obligation, but the community may bring a flock-animal as a freewill peace-offering, since it does bring such offerings as an obligation - Scripture says "he," the individual brings freewill peace-offerings and the community does not bring freewill peace-offerings. "And he shall offer from the sacrifice" (Leviticus 3:9-10) - even though he slaughtered them not for their own sake, even though he did not lay hands upon them. "A fire-offering to the LORD" - for the sake of fires to the LORD, for the sake of the One who spoke and the world came into being. "Its fat, the whole fat tail" - to include the fat adjoining the fat tail; this is the fat between the membrane, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda says: "its fat, the fat tail" likens the fat tail to the fat - just as the fat falls under two prohibitions, so too the fat tail falls under two prohibitions. "The fat tail" - one might think he may fulfill the commandment of the fat tail; Scripture says "whole." One might think he may take it from the spine; Scripture says "close to the backbone." One might think along with the backbone; Scripture says "he shall remove it" - he reaches inside the backbone. "And the fat that covers the entrails, and all the fat" - what does this teach? That one might think it is increased to include the fat of the flanks. And it is a logical argument: if the herd-animal, increased regarding libations, is lessened regarding the fat of the flanks, then the flock-animal, lessened regarding libations, surely should be lessened regarding the fat of the flanks. No: if you have said this of the herd-animal, which is lessened regarding the fat tail, will you say it of the flock-animal, which is increased regarding the fat tail? Since it is increased regarding the fat tail, it should be increased regarding the fat of the flanks. Therefore Scripture says "that covers the entrails and all the fat that is upon the entrails, and the two kidneys" - you have only what is stated in the matter. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: because it was in the general category and went out to be treated as a new matter, Scripture returned it to its general category. "And he shall turn it to smoke" (Leviticus 3:11) - that he shall not mix the fats of one offering with the fats of another. "Bread, a fire-offering to the LORD" - to tell you that the fats are called bread. "Its fat, the fat tail" (this is written in Remez 443).