Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

Shmuel asked Rav Huna: From where do we learn that one who acts upon holy offerings absentmindedly disqualifies them? As it is said, "and he shall slaughter the bull" (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the slaughter must be for the sake of a bull. He said to him: This is in our hands; from where do we learn that it actually invalidates? He said to him: "You shall sacrifice it for your acceptance" (Leviticus 19:5), meaning sacrifice it with full awareness. Rav Huna said: From where do we learn that slaughter is performed at the neck? As it is said, "and he shall slaughter the bull" (Leviticus 1:5), from the place where it bows down, cleanse it. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Do not read "and he shall slaughter" but "and he shall squeeze" [reading the consonants as v'sachat], meaning from the place where it bends, cleanse it. And what is the implication that the word "cleanse it" carries a sense of purification? As it is written, "and he shall cleanse the house" (Leviticus 14:52). And if you wish to say it from here: "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean" (Psalms 51:9).

"And they shall bring near" (Leviticus 1:5) refers to the receiving of the blood. One might think this is the sprinkling; but when it says "and they shall sprinkle," the sprinkling is already stated. So how do I maintain "and they shall bring near" here? It refers to the receiving of the blood, which may be done only by a fit priest and in a sacred vessel. Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we learn that the receiving of the blood may be done only by a fit priest and in a sacred vessel? The word "priesthood" is used here, and the word "priesthood" is used elsewhere; just as the priesthood mentioned elsewhere requires a fit priest and a sacred vessel, so too the priesthood mentioned here requires a fit priest and a sacred vessel. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Akiva, how long will you rake words together and heap them upon us? I would forfeit my son if I have not heard that there is a distinction between receiving and sprinkling, but I cannot explain it. Akiva said to him: Permit me to say before you what you taught me. He said to him: Speak. Akiva said: With receiving, intention is not treated as deed, but with sprinkling, intention is treated as deed. If one received the blood outside, he is exempt; if he sprinkled it outside, he is liable. If impure persons received it, they are not liable for it; if impure persons sprinkled it, they are liable for it. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: I would forfeit my son, you have not strayed right or left. I heard it and could not explain, while you expound and arrive at the law. Whoever parts from you is as one who parts from life itself. The sacrifice is disqualified by four acts: by slaughter, by receiving, by carrying, and by sprinkling. But can it be disqualified at the receiving? Has it not been taught "and they shall bring near"? Rava said: It is not difficult. Here it speaks of an intention of refuse-thought, there of an intention not for the offering's own sake. The precise wording supports this, for it teaches that the sacrifice is "disqualified" and does not teach that the sacrifice is "rendered refuse." Does an intention of refuse-thought not disqualify at the receiving? Has it not been taught: One might think that intention is effective only at the sprinkling; from where do we include slaughter and receiving? Scripture teaches, "and if any of it is at all eaten" (Leviticus 7:18), the verse speaks of matters that lead to eating. One might think I should include even the pouring out of the remnants and the burning of the fats; Scripture teaches, "it shall not be accepted," since the sprinkling was already within the general rule, and why did it come forth? To draw an analogy to itself: just as sprinkling is distinct in that it is a service that holds back atonement, so the pouring of remnants and burning of fats, which do not hold back atonement, are excluded. It is not difficult: this case speaks of one who said, "I am slaughtering in order to receive its blood tomorrow," and that case of one who said, "I am receiving in order to pour out the remnants tomorrow." One of the rabbis said to Rava: Do the pouring of remnants and the burning of fats not disqualify? Has it not been taught: One might think intention is effective only at the eating of the flesh; from where do we include the pouring of remnants and the burning of fats? Scripture teaches, "and if any of it is at all eaten," the verse speaks of two kinds of eating, one the eating of a person and one the eating of the altar. It is not difficult: this case speaks of one who said, "I am sprinkling in order to pour out the remnants tomorrow," and that case of one who said, "I am pouring out the remnants in order to burn the fats tomorrow."

"And the sons of Aaron shall bring near" (Leviticus 1:5), and not the daughters of Aaron. The Master said: "And they shall bring near" refers to the receiving of the blood. "The sons of Aaron": one might think even those of profaned lineage; Scripture teaches "the priests," excluding those of profaned lineage. I would exclude those of profaned lineage but not exclude those with blemishes; Scripture teaches "the sons of Aaron," just as Aaron is fit, so his sons must be fit, excluding those of profaned lineage and those with blemishes. "And they shall sprinkle the blood" (Leviticus 1:5). Why does Scripture say "blood, blood" twice? From where do you say that if the blood of a burnt offering became mingled with the blood of another burnt offering, or the blood of a substituted animal with the blood of a substituted animal, or the blood of a burnt offering with the blood of ordinary slaughter, they should be offered? Scripture teaches "blood, blood." One might think that if these and those became mingled, since they would be offered if mingled while alive, so too here; and from where even if it became mingled with a guilt offering, I would bring that which became mingled with a guilt offering, since both are most holy offerings; and from where even if it became mingled with peace offerings or a thanksgiving offering, I would bring that which became mingled with these, since both require four applications of blood; and from where even if it became mingled with a firstborn, a tithe, or a Passover offering, Scripture teaches "blood, blood." One might think even if it became mingled with disqualified blood; Scripture teaches "and they shall bring near," so I exclude that which became mingled with disqualified offerings that are not fit to be offered. From where even if it became mingled with the blood of inner sin offerings, I exclude that, since these are offered within and those without. From where even if it became mingled with the blood of outer sin offerings? Scripture teaches "blood, blood." "And they shall sprinkle": one might think a single sprinkling; Scripture teaches "round about" (Leviticus 1:5). If "round about," one might think he should encircle the altar like a thread; Scripture teaches "and they shall sprinkle." How then? An interrupted set of four applications. Rabbi Yishmael says: "round about" is said here, and "round about" is said elsewhere (Leviticus 8:15); just as "round about" stated elsewhere means an interrupted set of four applications, so "round about" stated here means an interrupted set of four applications.

Two applications of blood that are four: how does one do it? Rav and Shmuel disagree. One says he places the blood and then places it again; the other says a single application shaped like the Greek letter gamma. This follows a dispute among the Tannaim: "and they shall sprinkle," one might think a single sprinkling, and so on, until "so too here an interrupted set of four applications." If, like there, four applications upon four corners, so too here four applications upon four corners? You said: the burnt offering requires a base, and the southeastern corner had no base. What is the reason? Rabbi Elazar said: Because it was not in the portion of the predatory one [Benjamin, called "a wolf that tears"]. Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yitzchak said: The altar consumed one cubit within the portion of Judah. Rabbi Levi bar Chama said in the name of Rabbi Chama bar Chanina: A strip extended out from the portion of Judah and entered the portion of Benjamin, and upon it the altar was built, and Benjamin the righteous would grieve over it every day, as it is said, "He covers him all the day" (Deuteronomy 33:12). Therefore Benjamin the righteous merited to become the host of the Divine Power, as it is said, "and he dwells between his shoulders" (Deuteronomy 33:12). They raised an objection: How was the bird burnt offering performed? He would go up the ramp and turn to the surrounding ledge, come to the southeastern corner, pinch off its head from the back of the neck, sever it, and drain its blood upon the wall of the altar. And if he performed it below his feet, even a single cubit, it is valid. Now if you say it had no base, he would merely be placing it into thin air? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Thus they arranged it, the ground belonging to Judah and the air space to Benjamin. What is meant by "it had no base"? Rav said, in its structure; and Levi said, with respect to the blood. Rav renders the verse: in his inheritance the altar shall be built; and Levi renders it: in his inheritance the Sanctuary shall be built, a place sanctified for the blood.

"And the sons of Aaron shall present the blood, and the sons of Aaron shall dash the blood" (Leviticus 1:5). What does Scripture teach by saying "the blood" a second time? From where do you derive that if it spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one gathered it up, it is fit? Scripture teaches, saying "blood." One might think that even if it spilled from the neck of the animal directly onto the floor and one gathered it up, it would be fit. Scripture teaches, saying "the blood" [with the definite article] - the blood that was received in a vessel. He shall dash it upon the altar, and no one else dashes upon the altar.

Another interpretation: "the blood upon the altar" - even though the flesh is no longer present [the blood still atones]. How then do I uphold the verse "And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood" (Deuteronomy 12:27)? It compares flesh to blood: just as the blood is offered by dashing, so too the flesh is brought by throwing. One might think he throws it [and leaves it as it lands]; Scripture teaches, saying "and the priest shall arrange" - how so? He throws it and then arranges it upon the altar all around. This applies when the altar is whole all around, and not when a horn of the altar has been removed. Thus, if a horn of the altar was removed and one performed the service upon it, that service is invalid.

"Which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Leviticus 1:5) - and not at the time it is dismantled, nor at the time the wind has rolled up the curtain. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: what does Scripture teach by saying "which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting"? Since it is said, "And you shall set the laver between the Tent of Meeting and the altar" (Exodus 40:7), one might think the laver stood between the Tent of Meeting and the altar. Scripture teaches, saying "the altar" - the altar is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and the laver is not at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And where did the laver stand? Between the porch and the altar, drawn toward the south. "And he shall flay" and "cut into pieces" (Leviticus 1:6) - one might think he flays limb by limb and cuts as he goes. Scripture teaches, saying "the burnt offering" - he flays the whole of it and only afterward cuts it into pieces. One might think that only a freewill burnt offering requires flaying; from where do we learn an obligatory burnt offering? It follows by reasoning: a freewill burnt offering is mentioned here and an obligatory burnt offering is mentioned here; just as a freewill burnt offering requires flaying, so too an obligatory burnt offering requires flaying. I have learned only the herd offering; from where the flock offering? It follows by reasoning: a burnt offering from the herd is mentioned here and a burnt offering from the flock is mentioned here; just as the herd offering requires flaying, so too the flock offering requires flaying. I have only the offering of men; from where the offering of women? I have only that of Israel; from where that of converts and of slaves? And as you go on extending the law, from where the offering of gentiles? Scripture teaches, saying "the burnt offering" - every burnt offering requires flaying. And what did you see to bring all of them into flaying and cutting, yet to exclude them from laying-on of hands? After Scripture has both extended and limited, why do I bring them into flaying and cutting? Because flaying and cutting are valid when done by any person. And I do not bring them into laying-on of hands, because laying-on of hands is done only by the owners. Rabbi Hiyya said: go out and see what Scripture limited above - the offered animals or the ones who offer? You must say: the ones who offer. So too I will exclude them from laying-on of hands, because I exclude the ones who offer, and I will not exclude them from flaying and cutting, because that is only the handling of the burnt offering itself. I have only one slaughtered for its own sake; from where one slaughtered not for its own sake? Scripture teaches, saying "the burnt offering" - every burnt offering requires flaying and cutting. "And he shall cut it into its pieces" (Leviticus 1:6) - one might think he cuts its pieces into further pieces; Scripture teaches, saying "it into its pieces" - and not its pieces into pieces. One might think even an invalid offering requires flaying and cutting; Scripture teaches, saying "it" - a valid one and not an invalid one. And an invalid offering that has already gone up onto the altar is offered as it is.

From where is this matter that the Sages said, "go after the majority"? From where do we derive it? As it is written, "to incline after the many" (Exodus 23:2). A majority that is before us, such as nine shops [where meat is sold as kosher and one where it is not] or a Sanhedrin, does not trouble us. What troubles us is a majority that is not before us, such as a minor boy or a minor girl [whose status cannot be examined directly]. From where do we derive it? Rabbi Elazar said: it comes from the head of the burnt offering, for Scripture says, "And he shall cut it into its pieces" - and not its pieces into pieces. Let us be concerned that perhaps the membrane of the brain was perforated [rendering the animal unfit]. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority [and most animals are sound]? How so? Perhaps he splits it and examines it. And if the concern is "it into its pieces and not its pieces into pieces," that applies only where he cuts it entirely through, but where he does not cut it entirely through, we have no objection. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: it comes from the breaking of a bone at Passover, for the Merciful One said, "and you shall not break a bone in it" (Exodus 12:46). Let us be concerned that perhaps the membrane of the brain was perforated. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority? How so? Perhaps he places a coal upon it and burns and examines it. As it is taught: but one who cuts through sinews and one who burns through bones is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rav Nahman said: it comes from the fat-tail, for the Merciful One said, "its fat, the whole fat-tail" (Leviticus 3:9). Let us be concerned that perhaps the spinal cord was severed. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority? And should you say he cuts it from below, the Merciful One said, "close by the backbone" (there) - the place where the kidneys give counsel [the lower spine]. How so? Perhaps he opens it and examines it. And if the concern is "the whole fat-tail," that applies only where he cuts it entirely through, but where he leaves it joined, we have no objection. Rav Sheshet son of Rav Idi said: it comes from the heifer whose neck is broken, for the Merciful One said "the one whose neck is broken" - it must be whole. Let us be concerned that perhaps it is an animal with a fatal defect. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority? And should you say, what difference does it make - the school of Rabbi Yannai said atonement is written concerning it, like consecrated offerings. Rabbah bar Rav Shila said: it comes from the red heifer, for the Merciful One said, "and he shall slaughter and burn" (Numbers 19:3-5) - just as its slaughter is when it is whole, so its burning is when it is whole. Let us be concerned that perhaps it has a fatal defect. Rather, is it not because the Merciful One said, go after the majority? And should you say, what difference does it make - the Merciful One called it a sin offering. Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: it comes from the goat sent away, for the Merciful One said, "and he shall take the two goats" (Leviticus 16:7) - that the two of them be alike. Let us be concerned that perhaps one of them has a fatal defect. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority? And should you say, what difference does it make - the lot establishes nothing except for a thing fit for the Name. And should you say we examine it, we have learned: it did not reach the half of the mountain before it was made limb from limb. Rav Dimi said: it comes from one who strikes his father and mother, for the Merciful One said, put him to death. Let us be concerned that perhaps the man is not his father. Rather, it is because the Merciful One said, go after the majority, and most of a woman's relations are with her husband. How so? Perhaps it is a case where his father and mother were imprisoned together; he holds that there is no guardian against forbidden relations. Rav Kahana said: it comes from one who kills a person, for the Merciful One said, put him to death. Let us be concerned that perhaps the victim had a fatal defect. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority? And should you say we examine the corpse - it would be disgraced. And should you say, for the sake of the slain one's soul, let it be disgraced - let us still be concerned that perhaps where the sword fell there was already a perforation. Ravina said: it comes from scheming witnesses, for the Merciful One said, "and you shall do to him as he schemed." Yet perhaps the one against whom they testified had a fatal defect. Rather, is it not because we say, go after the majority? And should you say we examine him, it is taught: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: if they did not yet kill him, they are executed; if they already killed him, they are not executed. Rav Ashi said: it comes from slaughter itself, for the Merciful One said, slaughter and eat. Let us be concerned that perhaps he slaughtered at the place of a perforation. Rather, is it not because the Merciful One said, go after the majority? Rav Ashi said: I stated this teaching before Rav Kahana, and he said: perhaps where it is possible to examine, it is possible, and where it is not possible to examine, it is not possible. For if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority, he would never eat meat. And should you say, indeed so - what is there to say about the Passover offering and consecrated offerings? Rather, where examination is possible it is possible, and where examination is not possible it is not possible.

Rabbi Hiyya says: from where do we learn that slaughter is from the neck? As it is written, "And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces" (Leviticus 1:8) - since there is no need for Scripture to say "the head and the fat," for were not the head and the fat included among all the pieces? Why then is it stated? Because it is said, "And he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces" - I have only the pieces that are included in the flaying; from where do I include the head, which had already been severed? Scripture teaches, saying "and its head and its fat, and he shall arrange" (Leviticus 1:12). Since it says "the head, which had already been severed," it follows that slaughter is from the neck. The Sage opened with "head and fat" and concluded with "its head and its fat." This is what he means: from where to include the head, which had already been severed? Scripture teaches, saying "the head and the fat." And why do I need "its head and its fat"? It is needed for what was taught: from where that the head and the fat precede all the other pieces? Scripture teaches, saying "its head and its fat, and he shall arrange." And the first "fat" that the Merciful One wrote, why do I need it? For what was taught: how does he do it? He drapes the fat over the place of slaughter and brings it up, and this is the way of honor toward Heaven.

"And the sons of Aaron shall put fire upon the altar" (Leviticus 1:7). Rabbi Yehudah said: from where do we learn that the kindling of the wood-pile must be done only by a fit priest and with a sacred vessel? Scripture teaches, saying "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar." Rabbi Shimon said: did it ever enter the mind that a non-priest would approach the altar? If so, why is it said "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar"? It teaches concerning the kindling of the wood-pile that it must be only at the top of the altar. "And the sons of Aaron shall put" - what does Scripture teach by saying "the priest"? From the implication of "Aaron," do I not already know he is a priest? What does "the priest" teach? In his priesthood. It teaches concerning a high priest who served in the garments of a common priest that his service is invalid. From where that a common priest who served in the garments of a high priest, his service is invalid? Scripture teaches, saying "the priests" - in their priesthood. Thus you have learned that a high priest who served in the garments of a common priest, his service is invalid, and a common priest who served in the garments of a high priest, his service is invalid. "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar" - even though fire comes down from heaven, it is a commandment to bring fire from a layman. The fire that came down in the days of Moses did not depart from the bronze altar until they came to the eternal House. The fire that came down in the days of Solomon did not depart from the altar of the burnt offering until it departed in the days of Manasseh. "And they shall arrange wood upon the fire" (Leviticus 1:7) - and not the fire upon the wood. Rabbi Shimon said: from where to include two logs of wood in the arrangement together with the afternoon daily offering? Scripture teaches, saying "And they shall arrange wood upon the fire." Rabbi Eliezer says: the sons of Aaron did not die until they ruled a legal matter in the presence of Moses their teacher. What did they expound? "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar" - even though fire comes down from heaven, it is a commandment to bring it from a layman. They began to bring up logs to arrange the wood-pile. And is all wood fit for the wood-pile? Yes, all wood is fit, except for olive wood and vine wood; but with these they were accustomed: with branches of fig, of nut, and of oil-tree. And these others, why not? Rav Pappa said: because they crumble into embers quickly. Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: because of the settlement of the Land of Israel. They raised an objection: "upon the wood that is upon the fire" - wood that is set to become fire. What is that? Hard sticks. As for that which crumbles into embers, there is fig and nut. Rabbi Eliezer adds also pine, oak, palm, carob, and sycamore. According to the one who says "because they crumble into embers," they differ in this: one master holds that even though it does not crumble from within, since it crumbles from without we do not bring it; and the other master holds that since it does not crumble from within, even though it crumbles from without, we bring it. But according to the one who says "because of the settlement of the Land of Israel," does the palm not involve the settlement of the Land of Israel? And by your reasoning, does the fig not involve the settlement of the Land of Israel? Rather, what have you to say - it speaks of a fig that does not bear fruit; the palm too speaks of a palm that does not bear fruit.

"And the sons of Aaron shall arrange" (Leviticus 1:8) - one might think even a hundred. Scripture teaches, saying "and the priest shall arrange." One might think a single priest arranges all the limbs. Scripture teaches, saying "and they shall arrange." How so? One priest arranges two limbs. And how many limbs are there? Ten, and one with the innards. It turns out that the lamb is offered up by six priests, the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: "and they shall arrange" - two; "the sons of Aaron" - two; "the priests" - two; from here that the lamb is offered up by six.

It is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: from where do we learn that the afternoon daily offering requires two logs of wood, brought by two priests? As it is said, "And they shall arrange wood upon the fire" (Leviticus 1:7). If this verse is not needed for the morning daily offering, since it is written, "and the priest shall burn wood upon it" (Leviticus 6:5), apply it to the matter of the afternoon daily offering. And say that both this and that refer to the morning daily offering, for the Merciful One said: do it and then do it again. If so, let the verse say "and he shall burn" and "and they shall burn," or alternatively "and he shall arrange" and "and they shall arrange." What is the meaning of "and he shall burn" and "and they shall arrange"? As we said. From where that flaying and cutting are valid when done by a layman? As it is said, "And the sons of Aaron the priests shall arrange the pieces." Now since from the receiving of the blood onward it is the commandment of the priesthood, why do I need "and they shall arrange"? To exclude flaying and cutting [from the requirement of priesthood]. "And they shall arrange" - two; "the sons of Aaron" - two; "the priests" - two; we have learned that the lamb requires six. This troubled Rabbi Eliezer: this is written concerning the lamb, but a bull of the herd should require twenty-four. And it sat well with him: "upon the wood that is upon the fire that is upon the altar" - which is the thing about which "wood, fire, and altar" are all written? You must say: this is the lamb.

Hezekiah inquired: As for limbs that one arranged and then arranged the wood-pile upon them, what is the law? Did the Merciful One say "upon the wood" to mean specifically upon the wood, or perhaps, since another verse is written, "that the fire shall consume upon the altar" (Leviticus 6:3), then if he wishes he may do it the other way? Let it stand unresolved. Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha inquired: As for limbs that one arranged on the sides of the wood-pile, what is the law? According to the one who says "upon" means literally upon, do not ask, for "upon the wood" is written. Rather ask according to the one who holds "upon" can mean "near": what then? Is it likewise here "upon" meaning near, or perhaps "upon the wood" is comparable to "upon the altar" — just as there "upon" means literally upon, so too here "upon" means literally upon? Let it stand unresolved. Rabbi Chama bar Gurya said: The split logs that Moses made were a cubit in length and a cubit in width, and their thickness was like the leveled heap of a se'ah-measure. Rabbi Yirmeyah said: With a foreshortened cubit. Rabbi Yosef said: Is this not what was taught — "upon the wood that is upon the fire that is upon the altar" (Leviticus 1:8), so that the wood should not protrude beyond the altar at all?

"The priests" (Leviticus 1:8) — this includes even bald priests; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. "And they shall arrange the pieces" — what does Scripture teach by saying "the head and the fat," and so on, as above? One might think that a person who freely vows a burnt offering should bring wood and fire along with it; therefore Scripture says, "upon the wood that is upon the altar" (Leviticus 1:8). Just as the altar is from the public, so too the wood and the fire are from the public — these are the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi says: Just as the altar is something no layman has made use of, so too the wood and the fire must be such as no layman has made use of.

It was taught in another source: One might think that one who says "I take upon myself a burnt offering" should bring wood from his own house, just as he brings the libations from his own house; therefore Scripture says "upon the wood," and so on — just as the altar, and so on. What is the difference between them? New wood and old wood. And old wood may not be used? But is it not written, "And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what is good in his eyes; behold the oxen for the burnt offering and the threshing sledges and the implements of the oxen for wood" (II Samuel 24:22)? There too it was with new wood. "And its inwards and its legs he shall wash" (Leviticus 1:9). One might think this applies even if they became mixed with disqualified portions; therefore Scripture says "and its inwards" — I would exclude what became mixed with disqualified portions, but not exclude what became mixed with the most holy offerings or with lesser holy offerings; therefore Scripture says "and its inwards and its legs." Concerning the ox it says "its inwards and its legs," and concerning the ram it says "the inwards and the legs" (Leviticus 1:13). What is the difference between ox and ram? An ox lacks woof and warp [coverage by hide, requiring extra rinsing]; a ram does not lack woof and warp. The Sages said: We learned the manner of offering for the ox from the ram. I said to them: My masters, I am dust beneath the soles of your feet; let me say one thing before you. Twelve chieftains came for the dedication of the altar, and there "offering" is stated regarding the ram and not regarding the ox. So that a person should not say, "I will go and do ugly deeds, deeds that are unfit, and bring an ox that has much meat on it — perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, will show me favor." Rather, let a person do good deeds and study Torah, and bring even a ram, which has little for the fires, and behold, I am with him in mercy and receive him in repentance.

"He shall wash" (Leviticus 1:9). One might think that just as the washing stated elsewhere requires forty se'ah, so too the washing stated here requires forty se'ah; therefore Scripture says "in water" — any amount whatever. "In water" and not in wine; "in water" and not in diluted wine; "in water" — to render fit any kind of water. And it follows all the more so for the water of the laver. "And he shall burn" — even though it has been disqualified, even though it has gone out [of its bounds], even though it is piggul [offered with improper intent], even though it is leftover, even though it is impure. One might think this applies even when they are below; therefore Scripture says "toward the altar" (Leviticus 1:9) — I have said it when they are atop the altar, and not when they are below.

"And the priest shall burn the whole toward the altar" (Leviticus 1:9) — to include the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hooves. One might think even if they had separated; therefore Scripture says, "And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood" (Deuteronomy 12:27). If flesh and blood, one might think he should strip off the sinews and bones and bring up only the flesh to the altar; therefore Scripture says "and he shall burn the whole." How then? While joined, let them go up; if they separated, even if they are atop the altar, let them come down — these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: "And the priest shall burn the whole" — to include the bones, sinews, horns, and hooves, even if they separated. Then how do I uphold "And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood"? To tell you: consumed flesh you do return, but consumed bones and sinews you do not return. Rabbah said: They taught this only where they separated after the tossing of the blood; but if they separated before the tossing, the tossing comes and renders them permitted, even to make from them a knife handle.

It was taught in another source. Rabbi says: One verse states, "And the priest shall offer the whole" (Leviticus 1:13) — an inclusion; and it is written, "And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood" (Deuteronomy 12:27) — a limitation. How then? While joined, let them go up, and so on. And the Rabbis hold: "joined" did not need to be included, just as it is with the head of the burnt offering; rather the verse was needed for what separated. And Rabbi holds: parts joined that are permitted did not need a verse to include them; rather the verse was needed for the displaced sinew while attached. And the Rabbis say: that you cannot say, for "from the drink of Israel" (Ezekiel 45:15) means from what is permitted to Israel. And Rabbi says: it is like the forbidden fat and the blood. And the Rabbis say: their commandment is precisely so, which is different. Rav Huna said: The displaced sinew of a burnt offering — he removes it onto the ash heap. Rav Chisda said to him: Is it written "therefore the altar shall not eat it"? It is written, "therefore the children of Israel shall not eat" (Genesis 32:33). And Rav Huna replies: "from the drink of Israel" — from what is permitted to Israel. And since he removes it, why does he bring it up at all? Because it is said, "Offer it now to your governor" (Malachi 1:8). It was taught in accordance with Rav Huna: the displaced sinew of a peace offering he sweeps into the channel, and that of a burnt offering he removes onto the ash heap.

"A burnt offering, a fire offering, a pleasing aroma to the LORD" (Leviticus 1:9). For the sake of six things the sacrifice is offered, said Rav Yehudah: "a burnt offering" — for the sake of a burnt offering, to exclude offering it for the sake of a peace offering; "a fire offering" — for the sake of the fires, to exclude one whose fire went out, which is not by fire; "aroma" — for the sake of aroma, to exclude limbs that one roasted and then brought up, for Rav Yehudah said: limbs that one roasted and then brought up have no aroma in them; "pleasing" — for the sake of giving contentment of spirit; "to the LORD" — for the sake of the One who spoke and the world came to be. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings, where it says neither "El" nor "Elohim" but only "to the LORD," so as to give no opening to a disputant to argue. Of the large ox it says "a fire offering, a pleasing aroma," and of the small bird (Leviticus 1:17) it says "a fire offering, a pleasing aroma," and of the meal offering it says "a fire offering, a pleasing aroma" — to tell you that the one who brings much and the one who brings little are alike, provided he directs his heart to Heaven. And lest you say He needs it for food, Scripture says, "If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are Mine" (Psalms 50:12), and it says, "For Mine is every beast of the forest, the cattle on a thousand hills; I know every bird of the mountains, and the creatures of the field are with Me; were I hungry I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are Mine; do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?" (Psalms 50:10-13). I did not tell you to slaughter so that you should say "I will do His will and He will do mine"; you do not slaughter for My desire, but rather "according to your own acceptance you shall slaughter" (Leviticus 19:5).

"And if his offering is from the flock" (Leviticus 1:10). This adds to the earlier subject. And why was there a break? To give Moses a pause to contemplate between one passage and another, and between one matter and another. And are these things not a matter of all the more so? If Moses, who comprehended by the Holy Spirit and heard continually by the Holy Spirit, needed to contemplate between one passage and another and between one matter and another, then how much more so an ordinary person learning from an ordinary person. Where is the place of the slaughterings? The most holy offerings are slaughtered in the north. Of the burnt offering it is written, "And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward" (Leviticus 1:11). We have found this regarding the offspring of the flock; regarding the offspring of the herd, from where do we derive it? The verse says, "And if from the flock" — the letter vav adds to the earlier subject, and let the upper case learn from the lower.

"From the flock, from the sheep, or from the goats" (Leviticus 1:10) excludes the aged, the sick, and the foul-smelling animal. And all three exclusions are necessary. For if the Merciful One had written only one, I would have said that He meant to exclude the aged, which does not recover and become sound again, but the sick, which does recover and become sound, you might say is not excluded. Or, on the other hand, He meant to exclude the sick, since that is not its natural state, but the aged, since that is its natural state, you might say is not excluded. And if the Merciful One had written two, I would have said He meant to exclude those that are emaciated, but the foul-smelling animal, which is not emaciated, you might say is not excluded; or, on the other hand, He meant to exclude the foul-smelling because it is loathsome, but those animals that are not loathsome you might say are not excluded. Therefore all three are necessary.

"His offering" excludes the stolen animal. "From the sheep or from the goats" excludes the crossbred. You say these exclusions were stated for this purpose, or were they stated only to exclude an animal with which a transgression had been committed, or one that plowed with an ox and donkey together while it was consecrated, or mixed seeds in a vineyard, or work done in the Sabbatical year, on a festival, on the Day of Atonement, or on the Sabbath? Therefore Scripture teaches, "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering," to include all of them. These are the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Simeon says: Why does Scripture teach "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering"? To include the substitute animal. Is this not a matter of logic? If peace offerings, which are not fit to be brought from birds, have their substitute fit as a burnt offering, then a burnt offering, which is fit to be brought from birds, surely should have its substitute made fit. No: if you say so of peace offerings, which may be brought from females as from males, will you say the same of a burnt offering, which may not be brought from females as from males? Since it cannot be brought from females, perhaps its substitute should not be made fit either. Therefore Scripture teaches "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering," to include the substitute. Rabbi Eliezer says: Why does Scripture teach "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering"? Because one might think only a surplus burnt offering may be brought as a burnt offering. How do we know to include the surplus of a sin offering, the surplus of guilt offerings, the surplus of the tenth of an ephah, the surplus of the bird offerings of men and women with a flux and of women after childbirth, and the surplus of the offerings of a Nazirite and a leper, and the case of one who consecrates his property and there are among it things fit for the altar, such as wines, oils, and birds? How do we know these are to be sold for the needs of that same kind, and burnt offerings brought with their proceeds? Therefore Scripture teaches "sheep for a burnt offering and goats for a burnt offering," to include all of them. But the Sages say: their proceeds fall to the freewill fund. Yet is not the freewill offering also a burnt offering? What then is the difference between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages? When it comes as an obligation, one leans his hands upon it, brings its libations with it, the libations are from his own, and if he is a priest, its service and its hide are his. But when it comes as a freewill offering, one does not lean his hands upon it, does not bring libations with it, its libations are from the public funds, and even if he is a priest, its service and its hide belong to the men of the priestly watch.

(Leviticus 1:11) "And he shall slaughter it": it must be on the north side, but not the bird on the north side. Is this not a matter of logic? If a member of the flock, for which no particular priest is fixed, has the north fixed for it, then the bird, for which a priest is fixed, surely should have the north fixed for it. Therefore Scripture teaches, "and he shall slaughter it": it on the north, and not the bird on the north. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: "It" on the north, and not the Passover offering on the north. Is this not a matter of logic? If a burnt offering, for which no fixed time of slaughter was set, has a fixed place of slaughter set for it, then the Passover offering, for which a fixed time of slaughter was set, surely should have a fixed place of slaughter set for it. Therefore Scripture teaches, "it": it on the north, and not the Passover offering on the north. Rabbi Hiyya says: "It" on the north, and not the one who slaughters on the north. For we have learned that the one who receives the blood must stand on the north and receive on the north, and if he stood on the south and received on the north, it is invalid. One might think that if he stood on the south and slaughtered on the north it would be invalid; therefore Scripture teaches, "it": it on the north, and the one who slaughters need not stand on the north.

The father of Samuel asked of Samuel: if the animal is inside and its leg is outside, what is the law? He said to him: "and they shall bring them to the LORD" (Leviticus 17:5) teaches that the whole of it must be inside. If one suspended the animal and slaughtered it, what is the law? He said to him: it is valid. He said to him: you have erred. I require slaughter beside the flank of the altar, and here there is none. If one suspended it and another slaughtered, what is the law? He said to him: it is invalid. He said to him: you have erred. Scripture requires slaughter beside the flank, not the slaughterer beside the flank. If one suspended the animal and received its blood, what is the law? He said to him: it is valid. He said to him: you have erred. This is not the manner of priestly service. If one suspended it and another received the blood, what is the law? He said to him: it is invalid. He said to him: you have erred. Scripture requires slaughter beside the flank, not receiving the blood beside the flank. Rava said: whether in the case of most holy offerings or of offerings of lesser holiness they are valid, except for one who suspended and slaughtered in the case of most holy offerings, and one who suspended and received the blood, whether in most holy offerings or in offerings of lesser holiness. Rabbi Jeremiah asked of Rabbi Zeira: if it is inside and its fringe of wool is outside, what is the law? He said to him: did you not say that "and they shall bring them to the LORD" teaches that the whole of it must be inside? So too here, "when they come into the tent of meeting" the Merciful One said, until the whole of it comes into the tent of meeting.

"By the flank of the altar northward" (Leviticus 1:11) means that the flank shall be on the north. Where then are its front parts? On the south. From this you have learned that the ramp was on the south. Rabbi Judah says: "and its steps shall face east" (Ezekiel 43:17) means that one ascends it and turns to his right, toward the east. From this we have learned that the ramp was on the south.

We learned there: the ramp was on the south side of the altar, thirty-two cubits long by sixteen cubits wide. From where are these matters derived? Rav Huna said, Scripture says, "by the flank of the altar northward": the Torah said, place the flank on the north and the front on the south. One might say the flank and the front are both on the north. Rava said: the man sets it against its own face. Abaye said to him: answer the man and then raise the objection. He said to him: "foursquare" is written, and this is needed to teach that it was made perfectly square. But is "foursquare" written, or is it not rather written so as to bear this meaning and that meaning? And by your own reasoning, is "crouching" written? He said to him: it is written "foursquare," which can be read this way and that way. And a Tanna derives it from here, as it was taught: Rabbi Judah says, "and its steps shall face east" (Ezekiel 43:17) means all the turns that you turn shall be only by way of the right, toward the east. One might say, by way of the left, toward the east. This cannot enter your mind, for Rami bar Yehezkel taught: the Sea that Solomon made "stood upon twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, three facing east, and the Sea was upon them above" (1 Kings 7:25); all the turns that you turn shall be only by way of the right, toward the east. This verse is needed for its own teaching; if so, why does it say "facing, facing" twice? (Beside the binding of Isaac, "northward" is written in the margin.)

"The altar northward" means that the whole altar must be fit for the north, so that if they slaughtered most holy offerings on its top they are valid; these are the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: from the middle of the altar northward counts as north, and from the middle of the altar southward counts as south. "Northward before the LORD" means that the whole north must be unobstructed; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. (He says:) the altar is aligned opposite the middle of the entrance of the Sanctuary and opposite one of the doors, drawn toward the south. Rabbi Judah says: the altar stood centered in the middle of the courtyard, thirty-two cubits; ten cubits opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, eleven cubits to the north, and eleven cubits to the south. Thus the altar is found aligned opposite the Sanctuary and its walls. Which is the north? From the northern corner of the altar to the northern wall of the courtyard, and also opposite the altar; these are the words of Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Simeon adds the area from opposite the space between the porch and the altar up to the northern wall of the courtyard. And Rabbi adds even the area opposite the place where Israelites tread and where the priests tread, from the wall of the altar northward to the northern wall of the courtyard; but from opposite the chamber of the knives inward, all agree that it is invalid. "Northward before the LORD" teaches that there is no north on a private altar.

(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.

(Leviticus 1:14-15) "And if his offering to the LORD is a burnt-offering of birds." Rabbi Abbahu said: Let a person always be among the pursued and not among the pursuers, for you have no bird more pursued than turtledoves and young pigeons, and Scripture declared them fit for the altar. A bird may be a burnt-offering, but a bird may not be a peace-offering. Is this not a logical argument? If the burnt-offering, which is not fit to be brought from females as from males, is fit to be brought from a bird, then peace-offerings, which are fit to be brought from females as from males, should all the more be fit to be brought from a bird. Scripture therefore teaches, "the bird" [a burnt-offering of birds]: a bird as a burnt-offering, but a bird is not for peace-offerings. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehudah says: Just as the females among cattle, which are not fit to be brought as burnt-offerings, are fit to be brought as peace-offerings, so the females among birds, which are fit as burnt-offerings, should all the more be fit as peace-offerings. Scripture therefore teaches, "the bird": a bird as a burnt-offering, but a bird is not for peace-offerings. "From the bird" -- and not every bird. From the principle stated, "unblemished, a male of the cattle, of the sheep, or of the goats" (Leviticus 22:19), we learn that wholeness and maleness apply to cattle, but wholeness and maleness do not apply to birds. One might think a bird is fit even if its wing dried up, its eye was gouged, or its leg was severed; Scripture therefore teaches, "from the bird" -- and not every bird. Rabbi Shimon says: If consecrated animals, in which a blemish disqualifies, are not affected by the prohibition of a harlot's hire and the price of a dog, then a bird, in which a blemish does not disqualify, should all the more not be affected by the prohibition of a harlot's hire and the price of a dog. Scripture therefore teaches, "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any vow" (Deuteronomy 23:19) -- to include the bird. Rabbi Eleazar says: Wherever "male" and "female" are stated, an animal of doubtful or double sex disqualifies; a bird, in which "male" and "female" are not stated, is not disqualified by an animal of doubtful or double sex.

Rav Sheshet said: If a slave's eye was blind and his master gouged it out, the slave goes free on its account; what is the reason? He is now lacking a limb. And the Tanna of the school taught likewise: wholeness and maleness apply to cattle but not to a bird; one might think this holds even if its wing dried up, and so on. "His offering" -- the individual brings a bird, but the community does not bring a bird. Is this not a logical argument? An animal burnt-offering comes by vow and by freewill gift, and a bird burnt-offering comes by vow and by freewill gift; just as the animal burnt-offering that comes by vow and freewill gift may come as a communal freewill gift, so the bird burnt-offering should come as a communal freewill gift. The meal-offering proves otherwise, for it comes by vow and freewill gift yet does not come as a communal freewill gift. But one could distinguish: the meal-offering does not come as the joint gift of two, whereas the bird burnt-offering does come as the gift of two. Peace-offerings prove the point, for they come as the gift of two yet do not come as a communal gift. One could still distinguish, and Scripture therefore teaches, "his offering": the individual brings a bird, but the community does not bring a bird. By another argument: if the animal burnt-offering, whose bringing Scripture limited so that it does not come from females as from males nor from blemished as from unblemished, nonetheless comes as a communal gift, then the bird burnt-offering, whose bringing Scripture expanded, should all the more come as a communal gift. Scripture therefore teaches, "his offering": the individual brings a bird, the community does not. One might think that just as it does not come as a communal gift, so it does not come as the gift of two; Scripture teaches "and he shall bring it," showing it comes as the gift of two. Rabbi says: Scripture states, "which he brings as his offering for all their vows and all their freewill gifts which they bring to the LORD" (Leviticus 22:18), teaching about consecrated things that they come in partnership, except that Scripture removed the meal-offering. One might think every bird is fit; Scripture teaches, "and he shall bring it from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons." You have among birds only turtledoves and young pigeons. "Turtledoves" -- the grown and not the young. Is this not logical? If young pigeons, which are not fit when grown, are fit when young, then turtledoves, which are fit when grown, should be fit when young; Scripture teaches "turtledoves" -- the grown and not the young. "Young pigeons" -- the young and not the grown. Is this not logical? If turtledoves, which are not fit when young, are fit when grown, then young pigeons, which are fit when young, should be fit when grown; Scripture teaches "young pigeons" -- the young and not the grown. One might think all turtledoves and all young pigeons are fit; Scripture teaches "from the turtledoves" -- not all turtledoves, "from the young pigeons" -- not all young pigeons, excluding the start of the yellow plumage in each. So from when are turtledoves fit? Once they shine golden. And from when are young pigeons unfit? Once they turn golden. "Young pigeons" -- the young and not the grown; what is the textual proof? Rava said: let Scripture not omit the wording and write "of the young of the turtledoves or of the pigeons"; since the Merciful One wrote "young pigeons," the young yes, the grown no. And say of turtledoves: if he wishes the grown let him bring, if he wishes the young let him bring -- no, they are likened to young pigeons: as young pigeons are the young yes, the grown no, so turtledoves are the grown yes, the young no. Rabbi Yaakov Korchah taught: from when are young pigeons fit? Once their feathers show blood. He both taught it and explained it from "and its young ones lap up blood." Abbaye said: from when one plucks a feather and blood comes.

"His offering" -- turtledoves and young pigeons, but the means of making it fit are not turtledoves and young pigeons. Is this not logical? If sparrows, which are not fit to atone within, are fit to atone outside, then turtledoves and young pigeons, which are fit to atone within, should all the more be fit to atone outside; Scripture teaches "his offering" -- turtledoves and young pigeons, but the means of making it fit are not turtledoves and young pigeons. And by an inference to sparrows that they are fit to atone within: if turtledoves and young pigeons, not fit to atone outside, are fit to atone within, then sparrows, fit to atone outside, should be fit to atone within; Scripture teaches, "and he shall bring from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons his offering" -- you have among birds only turtledoves and young pigeons. Rabbi Yehudah says... [the same is the law for the poor man; how do we know it for the rich man?] Scripture teaches "his offering" -- turtledoves and young pigeons, but the means of making it fit are not turtledoves and young pigeons. "And he shall bring it" -- why does Scripture say this? Since it is stated "from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons," one might think the one who freely offers a bird must bring no fewer than two pairs; Scripture teaches "and he shall bring it" -- even a single pair. "To the altar" -- why does Scripture say "the priest"? To fix a priest for it. And he shall pinch -- teaching that the pinching is done only by a priest. Is this not logical? Just as the animal of the flock, for which the north side is fixed, has no priest fixed for it, so pinching, for which the north is not fixed, should have no priest fixed for it; Scripture teaches "the priest" -- to fix a priest for it. One might think he may pinch it with a knife; Scripture teaches "the priest, and he shall pinch." Rabbi Akiva said: Could it enter your mind that a non-priest draws near the altar? Rather, what does "priest" teach? That the pinching is done with the priest's own body [his fingernail]. One might think he may pinch it either above or below; Scripture teaches "and he shall pinch and turn into smoke" -- just as the burning is at the top of the altar, so the pinching is at the top of the altar. "And he shall pinch" -- that the pinching is from the back of the neck. Or is it from the front of the throat? It says here "and he shall pinch" and it says there "and he shall pinch" (Leviticus 5:8); just as there it is from the back of the neck, so here from the back of the neck. If so, just as there he pinches and does not sever, so here he pinches and does not sever; Scripture teaches "and he shall pinch and turn into smoke" -- just as the burning is the head by itself and the body by itself, so too here, and so on. And how do we know the head is burned by itself and the body by itself? When it says "and the priest shall turn it into smoke at the altar," the burning of the body is stated; so how do I uphold "and he shall pinch and turn into smoke"? Scripture speaks of the burning of the head. "And its blood shall be drained out" -- all its blood; he grasps the head and the body and drains from both. "On the wall of the altar" -- and not on the wall of the ramp, nor on the wall of the foundation, nor on the wall of the sanctuary, on the upper wall. One might think on the lower wall, and there is an argument: an animal whose sin-offering is given above has its burnt-offering below; a bird whose sin-offering is below should have its burnt-offering below; Scripture teaches "and he shall turn into smoke at the altar and its blood shall be drained on the wall of the altar" -- the place stated for burning is the place stated for draining: just as burning is above, so draining is above. How does he do it? He stands on the surrounding ledge at the southeast corner and pinches the head from the back of its neck and severs it and drains its blood on the wall of the altar. If he did it below his feet, even one cubit, it is fit. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov say: the whole act was done only at the top of the altar; what is between them? Abbaye and Rava both say the difference is whether one may make a pyre upon the surrounding ledge. Rabbi Eliezer says: Since it is stated "this is the law of the animal and the bird" (Leviticus 11:46), in what law is an animal equal to a bird? Just as the bird's preparation is from the neck, so the animal's slaughter is from the neck. If so, just as there from the back of the neck, so here from the back of the neck; Scripture teaches "and he shall pinch its head from the back of its neck" (Leviticus 5:8) -- the head of this one from the back of its neck, but not the head of another from the back of its neck. How does one pinch in a bird sin-offering? He cuts the spine and the neck-bone without most of the flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, cuts one pipe or most of it together with most of the flesh; and in a burnt-offering, both pipes or most of both. The sprinkling of a bird's blood is done by priests and not by priestesses, by an inference from the animal of the flock: just as the animal of the flock, for which no priest is fixed for its slaughter, has a priest fixed for its sprinkling, so the bird, for which a priest is fixed for its pinching, should all the more have a priest fixed for its sprinkling.

(Leviticus 1:16) "And he shall remove its crop" -- this is the gullet-pouch. One might think he should cut it out with a knife and take it; Scripture teaches "with its feathers" -- he takes it with the feathers. Abba Yosi ben Hanan says: he takes the gizzard with it. The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: "with its feathers" -- with its own plumage; he cuts it with a knife like a chimney-opening. "And he shall cast it" -- a fit one and not an unfit one. "It" -- and not a bird sin-offering. "It" -- by casting, but an animal burnt-offering is not disposed of by casting. Is this not logical? If in the place where Scripture declared the skin fit it disqualified the place of the dung, then in the place where it disqualified the skin should it not all the more disqualify the place of the dung? Scripture teaches "it" -- it is disposed of by casting, but an animal burnt-offering is not disposed of by casting. "Beside the altar" -- close to the altar. "Eastward" -- to the east of the ramp. "To the place of the ashes" -- where they would put the ashes. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: there were two ash-places there, one to the east of the ramp and one to the east of the altar. The one to the east of the ramp was where they put the bird's crop and the ashes from cleaning the inner altar and the lamp-stand; and the one to the east of the altar was where they burned disqualified consecrated things and the portions of lesser holy things.

The ashes from cleaning the inner altar and the lamp-stand -- one does not benefit from them, nor is one liable for sacrilege regarding them. Granted, for the outer altar, since it is written "and he shall place it beside the altar." But the inner altar -- from where do we learn it? Rabbi Eleazar said: Scripture says, "and he shall remove its crop"; if it is not needed for the matter of the outer altar, apply it to the matter of the inner altar. Say that both this and that refer to the outer altar? If so, let Scripture say "beside the altar"; what is "the ashes"? Even the inner altar. The lamp-stand -- from where do we learn it? "The ashes of the ashes" [the doubled expression includes it].

"And he shall remove its crop" -- Rabbi Tanhum bar Hanilai said: This bird flies and soars across the whole world and eats from every side, and it eats from what is stolen and from what is seized by violence. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Since this crop is full of robbery and violence, let it not be offered upon the altar. But a domestic animal grows up at its owner's feeding-trough and does not eat from every side, neither from robbery nor from violence; therefore one offers all of it. Thus it is said (above, verse 13), "and the priest shall bring the whole and turn it into smoke at the altar." Because this creature robs and seizes, come and see how much pain and how much toil there is until its food passes out of it: from the mouth to the gullet, from the gullet to the stomach, from the stomach to the first chamber, from the first chamber to the second chamber, from the second chamber to the belly, from the belly to the intestines, from the intestines to the thin coil, from the thin coil to the thick coil, from the thick coil to the lower bowel, from the lower bowel to the rectum, and from there outside. Come and see how much pain and how much toil there is until its food passes out of it.

(Leviticus 1:17) "And he shall tear it apart by its wings, but he shall not divide it." Rabbi Yochanan said: If this common person smells the odor of burnt wings together with the feathers, his soul is repelled by it, and you say it shall be offered upon the altar? And why all this? So that the altar shall be adorned with the offering of the poor. King Agrippa wished to offer a thousand burnt-offerings in one day. He sent word and said to the High Priest: Let no person offer today except me. A certain poor man came with two turtledoves in his hand. He said to the priest: Offer these for me. He said to him: The king commanded me that no person offer today except him. He said to him: My lord priest, I trap four birds each day; I offer two and support myself from two. If you do not offer them, you cut off my livelihood. He took them and offered them. Agrippa saw in a dream: the offering of the poor man preceded yours. He sent and said to the priest: Did I not command you that no person offer today except me? He said to him: My lord the king, a certain poor man came with two turtledoves in his hand and said to me, Offer these for me. I said to him, The king commanded that no person offer today except him. He said to me, I trap four each day, I offer two and support myself from two; if you do not offer them you cut off my livelihood. Was I not to offer them? He said to him: You did well in all that you did. It happened with a certain ox that they were dragging it to be sacrificed and it would not be led. A poor man came with a bundle of endives in his hand and held it out, and the ox ate it, and so on; it expelled a needle and was led to the offering. The owner of the ox saw in his dream: the offering of the poor man preceded yours. It happened with a certain woman who brought a handful of fine flour, and the priest despised her over it and said: See what these women offer; what is there in this to eat, what is there in this to offer? The priest saw in a dream: Do not despise her, it is as though she offered her own soul. And is this not an argument from the lesser to the greater? If of one who does not offer a soul "soul" is written, then of one who brings a soul, how much more so. If someone brought his meal-offering from Gaul or from Spain or from their neighboring lands, and saw the priest take a handful and eat the rest, and said to him, Woe is me, all this trouble I troubled myself for this -- they all appease him and say to him: If this one, who troubled himself only two steps between the porch and the altar, merited to eat, you who troubled yourself with all this trouble, how much more so.

"And he shall tear it apart" -- a fit one and not an unfit one. "It" by tearing, but an animal burnt-offering is not done by tearing. Is this not logical? If the bird burnt-offering, which does not require dismembering, requires tearing, then the animal burnt-offering, which requires dismembering, should all the more require tearing; Scripture teaches "it" -- it by tearing, but an animal burnt-offering is not done by tearing. "By its wings" -- to declare the skin fit. Is this not logical? If in the place where it declared the place of the dung fit it disqualified the skin, then in the place where it disqualified the place of the dung should it not disqualify the skin? Scripture teaches "by its wings" -- to declare the skin fit. "He shall not divide" -- one might think that if he divided it, it is unfit; Scripture teaches "and he shall turn into smoke." One might think this even if he pinched it with a knife; Scripture teaches "it." And what did you see, to declare fit in the case of dividing and to disqualify in the case of pinching? After Scripture expanded and limited, why do I declare fit in dividing, which is after the offering is accepted, and disqualify in pinching, which is before the offering is accepted? "A burnt-offering" -- even though he drained the blood of the body and did not drain the blood of the head. One might think even though he drained the blood of the head and did not drain the blood of the body; Scripture teaches "it." What is the proof? Rava said: most of the blood is found in the body. "A burnt-offering" (olah) -- for the sake of a burnt-offering. "A fire-offering" -- for the sake of a fire-offering. "An odor" -- for the sake of an odor. "Pleasing" -- for the sake of spiritual satisfaction. "To the LORD" -- for the sake of the One who made the world. It is stated of the animal burnt-offering (above, verses 9-13) "a fire-offering, a pleasing odor," and of the bird burnt-offering "a fire-offering, a pleasing odor," and of the meal-offering (Leviticus 2:2) "a fire-offering, a pleasing odor," to teach that it is the same whether one offers much or one offers little, provided he directs his heart to Heaven. "And he shall tear" -- there is no tearing except by hand, and so it says, "and he tore it as one tears a kid, with nothing in his hand." Rav Huna said: One may write tefillin upon the skin of a clean bird. Rav Yosef said: What does this teach us? That it has a skin? We have already learned, one who wounds them is liable, which shows it has a skin. Abbaye said to him: It teaches us much, for from the Mishnah I might have said that since it is full of holes it is not fit; he teaches us, as they say in the West, any hole over which the ink passes is not a hole. They raised an objection: Rabbi Zeira taught "by its wings" to include the skin; and if it should enter your mind that it is skin, how does the verse include it? Abbaye said to him: it is skin, and the verse included it. Some report: Rabbi Zeira said, We too have learned, "by its wings" to include the skin. Granted if you say it is skin, that is why the verse needed to include it; but if you say it is not skin, how does the verse include it? Abbaye said to him: I will ever tell you it is not skin, and it was needed, for it might enter your mind that since it is full of holes it is repulsive; he teaches us otherwise.

(Leviticus 2:1-3) "And when a soul brings near a meal offering." Rabbi Isaac said: Why is the meal offering different, that Scripture says of it "soul"? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Who is it whose way it is to bring a meal offering? A poor person. I credit it to him as though he had offered up his very soul before Me. And Rabbi Isaac said: Why is the meal offering different, that five kinds of preparation by frying are spoken of regarding it? It is like a king of flesh and blood for whom his beloved friend made a banquet, and the king, knowing that the man loves him, said to him: Make me five kinds of fried food, so that I may take pleasure from you. "And a soul" comes to include the anointed priest, that he may bring a freewill meal offering. For consider the argument: if an ordinary person, who does not bring an obligatory meal offering every day, nonetheless brings a freewill offering, then the anointed priest, who does bring an obligatory offering every day, surely should bring a freewill offering. But one might object on the other side; therefore the verse says "and a soul," to include the anointed priest who brings a freewill meal offering. The same applies to the congregation by similar reasoning, yet the verse teaches "and a soul": the individual brings a freewill meal offering, but the congregation does not bring a freewill meal offering. "Soul" — one might think this is a binding decree; therefore the verse says "when he brings near," [the form indicating] it is only a voluntary matter. "An offering of a meal offering" — from where do we learn that an individual may donate frankincense on its own? It is derived: just as a meal offering, which comes as an obligation together with an animal, also comes as a freewill offering by itself, so too frankincense, which comes as an obligation with the meal offering, may come as a freewill offering by itself; the word "offering" teaches that an individual may donate frankincense, not less than a handful. Likewise an individual may donate wine, not less than three log; and oil; and, from the word "offering," even a donation of wood, not less than two logs. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find with wine that what comes as obligation comes also as freewill, so too oil. Rabbi Akiva replied to him with the distinction of the cases. Rabbi Yose said: were I to read only "offering," I might think an individual may donate incense; but Scripture says elsewhere of the oil of anointing and the incense of spices, "according to all that I have commanded you they shall do" (Exodus 31:11) — the anointing oil and the spice incense belong only within. "A meal offering" — by a verbal link with "fine flour" said elsewhere (Exodus 29), just as the fine flour there is from wheat, so the fine flour here is from wheat: "fine flour shall be his offering," that he bring only from wheat. "His offering" — the individual brings a freewill meal offering, but partners do not bring a freewill meal offering; nor do two together bring wine, oil, frankincense, or wood, though they may donate a burnt offering and peace offerings, and in birds even a single bird.

"And he shall pour oil upon it" — upon the whole of it. "And he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it. And what made you say this? Because a limitation following a limitation in the Torah serves only to restrict. Another explanation: "and he shall pour oil upon it" — upon the whole, because the oil is blended with it and is taken up with the handful; "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part, because the frankincense is neither blended with it nor taken up in the handful. "And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it" — I do not know how much. So I reason: it requires the taking of a handful and it requires frankincense; just as the handful is a full handful, so the frankincense is a full handful. Rabbi Judah says: if he reduced its frankincense, it is still valid. "And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it and bring it," and so forth — this teaches that the pouring of oil and the blending are valid when performed by any person.

How is the order of the meal offerings carried out? A person brings his meal offering from his house in baskets of silver and gold, places it into a service vessel, and puts its oil and its frankincense upon it, as it is written, "And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it and bring it to the sons of Aaron." He carries it to the priest, and the priest carries it to the altar, as it is written, "And he shall bring it near to the priest, and he shall bring it close to the altar." "And he shall bring it close" — at the southwest corner, opposite the point of the corner, and that suffices. From where do we know this? It is written, "This is the law of the meal offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the face of the altar" (Leviticus 6:7). It was taught: "before the LORD" — one might think on the west; the verse says "before the face of the altar." If "before the face of the altar," one might think on the south; the verse says "before the LORD." How then? He brings it close at the southwest corner, opposite the point of the corner, and that suffices. Rabbi Eliezer said: one might think he should bring it close at the west of the corner or at the south of the corner; but wherever you find two verses, one upholding itself while upholding its fellow, and one upholding itself while nullifying its fellow, we set aside the one that nullifies its fellow and hold to the one that upholds both. This Tanna held that the whole altar stood in the north. What is the force of "and that suffices"? Rav Ashi said: it is needed, lest you suppose the meal offering itself requires waving; it teaches that bringing it close is enough. And why bringing it close in a vessel? The verse says "and he shall bring it near to the priest and bring it close to the altar": just as the bringing near to the priest is in a vessel, so the bringing close to the altar is in a vessel. He moves its frankincense to one side so that it not be taken up with the handful, as we learned: if he took the handful and a pebble, a grain of salt, or a fleck of frankincense came up in his hand, it is invalid. He takes the handful from the place where its oil was abundant, as it is written "of its crushed grain and of its oil" (verse 16). He places the handful into a service vessel — why, since it was already sanctified once? Just as with blood: even though the knife sanctified it at the animal's neck once, it is sanctified again in a service vessel; here too it is no different. He gathers all its frankincense and sets it upon the handful, as it is written, "and all the frankincense" (Leviticus 6:8). He raises it and offers it up; he salts it and places it upon the fires, as it is written, "and every offering of your meal offering you shall salt with salt" (Leviticus 2:13). Once the handful is offered, the remainder is eaten, as it is written, "and the priest shall burn its memorial portion on the altar" (verse 16), and "the rest of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons" (verse 3). When may the handful permit the remainder to be eaten? Rabbi Hanina said: once the fire takes hold of it; Rabbi Yohanan said: once the fire is kindled in most of it. They are permitted to put into them wine, oil, and honey, for the verse says "as a portion of greatness" — a mark of distinction, in the manner that kings eat; and they are forbidden only from leavening, as it is written, "it shall not be baked leavened, their portion" (Leviticus 6:10), and Resh Lakish said: even their own portion shall not be baked leavened. All meal offerings require oil and frankincense, except the meal offering of the suspected wife, which requires neither and comes from barley as coarse flour; whereas the sinner's meal offering, though requiring neither oil nor frankincense, comes from wheat as fine flour; and the offering of the omer, though it comes from barley, requires oil and frankincense and comes as groats.

Rabbi Elazar said: a meal offering whose handful was taken inside the sanctuary hall is valid, for so we find with the removal of the bowls of frankincense from the showbread table. Rabbi Jeremiah objected from the verse "and he shall take a handful from there" (Leviticus 6:8) — from the place where the feet of the non-priest stand, [meaning the courtyard, not the hall]. Ben Beteira says: from where do we know that if he took the handful with his left hand he must take it again with his right? The verse says "and he shall take a handful from there" — from the place where he already took the handful. This teaching is needed only to render fit the entire courtyard for taking the handful. Rather, it was necessary, for it might have entered your mind to say: since it is written "and he shall bring it near to the priest and bring it close to the altar, and he shall lift up" (verses 8-9), then just as the bringing close is at the southwest corner, so too the taking of the handful must be at the southwest corner. The verse therefore comes to teach us that this is not so.