Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

If he did not pour the oil, did not blend, did not break into pieces, did not salt, did not wave, did not bring it close, or broke it into too many pieces, or did not anoint the wafers, it is valid. This teaching of the Mishnah does not accord with Rabbi Shimon. For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says, any priest who does not acknowledge the service has no portion in the priesthood, as it is said, "he who offers the blood of the peace offerings... to him shall belong the right thigh as a portion" — one who acknowledges the service has a portion in the priesthood; one who does not acknowledge it has no portion. And I have only this; from where do I include the pourings, the blendings, the breakings, the saltings, the wavings, the bringings-close, the takings of the handful, the burnings, the pinchings of the bird's neck, the receivings of blood, the sprinklings, the giving of drink to the suspected wife, the breaking of the heifer's neck, the purification of the leper, and the lifting of the hands in priestly blessing, whether inside or outside? The verse says "of the sons of Aaron" — a service entrusted to the sons of Aaron: any priest who does not acknowledge it has no portion in the priesthood. What is the reasoning of the Sages? The verse says, "And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it, and bring it to the sons of Aaron the priests, and he shall take a handful": from the taking of the handful onward it is a commandment of the priesthood, which teaches that the pouring and blending are valid even when done by a non-priest. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the "and" of "and bring it" adds to the earlier matter. But then consider what is written, "And he shall slaughter the bullock, and the sons of Aaron the priests shall offer and shall dash the blood" (Leviticus 1:5): from the receiving of the blood onward it is a commandment of the priesthood, which teaches that the slaughter is valid by a non-priest. So too, according to Rabbi Shimon, would the "and" add to the earlier matter and render slaughter by a non-priest invalid? There it is different, for the verse says "and he shall lay his hand, and he shall slaughter": just as laying on of hands is done by non-priests, so slaughter is done by non-priests. And if you would say, just as laying on of hands is done by the owners, so too slaughter, that you cannot say, by an argument from the lesser to the greater: if for sprinkling, the essence of atonement, we do not require the owners, then for slaughter, which is not the essence of atonement, all the more so. And lest you say one does not reason from the possible to the impossible, the Merciful One revealed concerning the Day of Atonement, "and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering that is his," implying that ordinary slaughter does not require the owners.

"And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, and he shall take a handful" — the sons of Aaron, and not the daughters of Aaron. "And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it and bring it" — this teaches that the pouring and blending are valid when done by any person. "And he shall bring it" — that he not bring it in halves; thus if he said "I take upon myself a meal offering of two tenths," he may not bring them in two vessels but in a single vessel. "To the sons of Aaron" — even if they are myriads, and so it says, "in a multitude of people is the king's glory" (Proverbs 14:28). "The priests, and he shall take a handful" — this teaches that the taking of the handful is a commandment of the priests. For consider the argument: if slaughter, for which the north side was fixed, did not have a priest fixed for it, then the handful, for which the north was not fixed, surely should not have a priest fixed for it. The pinching of the bird's neck proves otherwise, for the north was not fixed for it yet a priest was fixed for it. The cases are then distinguished, and the verse says "the priests, and he shall take a handful," teaching that the taking of the handful is a commandment of the priesthood. One might think it is a commandment that the priest take the handful, yet if a non-priest took it, it would be valid; the verse says again, "and the priest shall lift up," establishing that if a non-priest took the handful it is invalid. "And he shall take a handful" — one handful for one tenth, and one handful for sixty tenths. For consider: it requires a handful and it requires frankincense; just as the frankincense is one handful for one tenth and one handful for sixty tenths, so the handful is one for one tenth and one for sixty tenths. Or go the other way: it requires the handful and it requires oil; just as oil is one log for one tenth and sixty log for sixty tenths, so too the handful. Let us see which it resembles: we reason about a thing wholly given to the fires from a thing wholly given to the fires, and oil, not wholly given to the fires, shall not prove otherwise. Or go this way: we reason about a thing whose minimum is indispensable to its bulk from a like thing, and frankincense, whose minimum is not indispensable to its bulk, shall not prove otherwise. The verse says "and he shall take a handful": one handful for one tenth, and one handful for sixty tenths.

"The fullness of his handful" — one might think heaped up; the verse says "with his handful" (Leviticus 6:8). If "with his handful," one might think with the tips of his fingers; the verse says "the fullness of his handful," as people take a handful. How then? He folds his three fingers over the palm of his hand and takes the handful. For the pan offering and the deep-pan offering (in another reading, also for the broken pieces) he wipes off the excess with his thumb above and with his little finger below, and this is the hardest service in the Temple. As for what lies between the boundaries of the handful, what is its status? Of what is within, you need not ask, for it is certainly part of the handful; of what is outside, you need not ask, for it is certainly part of the remainder; the question is only of what lies between, and the matter is left in doubt. What does he do? He burns the handful by itself first, then burns what lies between the boundaries. For if you said the in-between portion first, perhaps it is part of the remainder, and then it would be remainder that became deficient; and the master said that remainder which became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning — one does not burn the handful upon it. Even now we apply here, "whatever is partly given to the fires is under the prohibition do not burn it." He burns the in-between portion for the sake of wood, like Rabbi Eliezer who said of "for a pleasing aroma" (verse 12), you may not offer it up as an aroma, but you may offer it up for the sake of wood; and according to the Sages, what can be said? That they take the handful from the oily part. Rav Pappa said: it is obvious to me that "the fullness of his handful" means as people take a handful. Rav Pappa asked: if he took the handful with the tips of his fingers, what is the law? From the sides, what is the law? From below upward, what is the law? Let it stand undecided.

For the pan offering and the deep-pan offering he wipes off the excess with the thumb above and with the little finger below, and this too is the hardest service in the Temple. The handful: its minimum is indispensable to its bulk. What is the reason? The verse says "the fullness of his handful" two times.

"Of its fine flour" (Leviticus 2:2) teaches that if it lacks even the smallest amount it is unfit. "And of its oil" teaches that if it lacks even the smallest amount it is unfit. And another teaching states: "And what is left over of the meal-offering" (Leviticus 2:3) comes to exclude a meal-offering that is itself deficient, one whose handful is deficient, and one from whose frankincense nothing was burned. Why do I need these two verses about deficiency? One teaches the case of a meal-offering that became deficient before the handful was taken: if the owner brings flour from his house and fills it up, yes, it is valid; if not, no. And one teaches the case of the remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful and its burning, for even though one burns the handful upon them, those remainders are forbidden to be eaten. Ze'iri said: "what is left over" means the remainder, but not the remainder of the remainder. And Rabbi Yannai said: "of the meal-offering" means a meal-offering that already existed in full. As for the tenth of an ephah, a small lack of it invalidates the larger part. What is the reason? Scripture says "of its fine flour"; if it lacks even the smallest amount it is unfit. The oil and the flour each hold the other back from validity, as it says "of its fine flour and of its oil" and "of its crushed grain and of its oil" (Leviticus 2:15) implying both must be present, and here too it is written "of its crushed grain and of its oil," that both must be present; Scripture repeated the matter regarding them to make each indispensable. The handful and the frankincense each hold the other back, as it says "upon all its frankincense" (Leviticus 6:8) "that is upon the meal-offering."

"His handful of fine flour" (Leviticus 2:2): one might think the handful itself should be fine flour while the rest may be ordinary meal; therefore Scripture says "of its fine flour." If "of its fine flour," one might think the handful and the sides should be fine flour while the rest may be meal; therefore Scripture says "of its fine flour," that all of it must be fine flour. "And of its oil," that all of it must be oil. "Of its fine flour and of its oil," that the flour must be mixed with the oil. "Of its fine flour," and not of the flour of its fellow offering; "of its oil," and not of the oil of its fellow, so that one may not bring two meal-offerings in a single vessel. From here they said: two meal-offerings that became mixed together before their handfuls were taken, if one can take a handful from each by itself they are valid, and if not they are unfit. "His handful of its fine flour and of its oil": if he took a handful and a pebble or a grain of salt or a speck of frankincense came up in his hand, it is unfit. "Of its fine flour and of its oil upon all its frankincense," that frankincense must be present at the moment of taking the handful. "Upon all its frankincense, and he shall burn," that he gathers the frankincense and brings it up to the fires. "And he shall burn" the handful, even though there are no remainders. If the handful became impure or was lost, one might think the priests may still eat the remainder. And it would follow by reasoning: in a case where the altar's power was weakened, with the two loaves and the showbread, the priests' power was strong; in a case where the altar's power is strong, with the handful, is it not right that the priests' power should be strong with the remainders? Therefore Scripture says "And what is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing from the fire-offerings of the LORD" (Leviticus 2:3): they have a portion only after the giving of the fire-offerings. "Its memorial-portion": they are remembered by it, remembered in the handful, remembered in its frankincense. Rabbi Shimon said: "memorial-portion" is said here and "for a memorial" is said elsewhere (Leviticus 24:7); just as the memorial there is a full handful, so the memorial said here is a full handful. "And what is left of the meal-offering" even though it was not salted, even though it was not brought near, even though not all its frankincense was burned. "Of the meal-offering" excludes one that is itself deficient, one whose handful is deficient, and one from whose frankincense nothing was burned. "For Aaron and his sons": for Aaron first and afterward for his sons. For Aaron without division and for his sons with division. And just as Aaron the High Priest eats without dividing, so his sons who are High Priests eat without dividing. "For Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the meal-offering of an Israelite. And from where had it been excluded? From the principle stated, "Every native shall do thus" (Numbers 15:13), that if one wishes to add he may add. Or perhaps the meal-offering of an Israelite should be given entirely to the fires, and how then would I uphold "and what is left of the meal-offering"? As referring only to that of converts, women, and slaves; therefore Scripture says "for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the meal-offering of an Israelite. I know only of their meal-offerings; from where do I learn their pinched bird-offerings? Rabbi Shimon said: I might read "a carcass or torn animal he shall not eat, to be defiled by it"; therefore Scripture says "for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the pinched bird-offering of an Israelite. I know only the pinched offering of an Israelite; from where the pinched offering of priests? Rabbi Shimon said: it follows by reasoning. In the place where Scripture permitted voluntary fine flour it forbade obligatory fine flour; in the place where it forbade a voluntary pinched offering, is it not right that an obligatory pinched offering should be forbidden? The pinched offering of an Israelite proves otherwise, for there it forbade the voluntary pinched offering and permitted the obligatory one. Just as it permitted the obligatory pinched offering of an Israelite because it permitted their obligatory fine flour, let us permit the obligatory pinched offering of priests, since it forbade their obligatory fine flour; therefore Scripture says "for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the pinched offering of priests. "From the fire-offerings of the LORD": they have a portion only after the giving of the fire-offerings.

"And when you bring near" (Leviticus 2:4): when you bring near, doing the matter is optional. Rabbi Yehudah said: from where do we learn that one who says "It is upon me to bring an oven-baked meal-offering" may not bring half loaves and half wafers? Scripture says "an offering of a meal-offering" (Leviticus 2:1): he brings one offering, and he does not bring loaves and wafers together. Rabbi Shimon said: is "offering, offering" stated twice? Only one offering is stated, and within it loaves and wafers are mentioned; say therefore that if he wished to bring loaves he may, wafers he may, half loaves and half wafers he may, and he mixes and takes a handful from both, so that if he took a handful and only one of the two kinds came up in his hand, that is enough. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehudah said: from where that one who says "It is upon me to bring an oven-baked meal-offering" may not bring half loaves and half wafers? Scripture says "and every meal-offering that is baked in the oven" (Leviticus 2:4 and 7:9); just as the "every" stated below refers to two kinds, so the "every" stated above refers to two kinds. And Rabbi Yehudah holds that Rabbi Shimon spoke well; he would say to you: since it is written "in oil, in oil," it is as if it were written "offering, offering." And Rabbi Shimon holds: had it not written "in oil," I would have said specifically half loaves and half wafers, but loaves by themselves and wafers by themselves, say no; therefore it teaches us otherwise. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehudah is the same as his father; the difference between them concerns one done after the fact. "Baked in the oven," and not baked in a small stove, and not baked on tiles, and not baked in Arabian kettles. Rabbi Yehudah said: "oven, oven" twice, to render fit what is baked in a small stove. Rabbi Shimon said: "oven, oven" twice, that its dedication be for the sake of an oven.

Rav Huna said: an oven-baked offering that one baked as a single loaf is valid; what is the reason? "unleavened" is written. Rav Pappa objected: is the reason that "unleavened" is written in singular form, so that the plural "unleavened breads" would not be valid? But concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, where "unleavened breads" is written (Leviticus 7:12), Rav Tuvyah bar Kisma said in the name of Shmuel: thanksgiving loaves that one baked as four loaves are valid; that case differs. "Fine flour blended" (Leviticus 2:5) teaches that the fine flour is blended. Rabbi said: the loaves are blended. They said to him: but is it not said of the thanksgiving loaves "loaves," and it is impossible to blend them except as fine flour? How then does one do it? He puts oil in a vessel before they are made, and places the flour in and pours oil upon it and blends it, kneads it and bakes it and breaks it into pieces and puts oil upon it and takes a handful. Rabbi said: the loaves are blended, as it is said "loaves blended"; how does one do it? He puts a measure of oil in a vessel before they are made and places the flour in and kneads it and bakes it and breaks it and puts oil upon it and blends it, and again puts oil upon it and takes a handful. As to the impossibility the Sages spoke of, what is it? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said: a quarter-log of oil, how is it divided among so many loaves? "Loaves blended" and not wafers blended, for one might think, does it not follow by reasoning? If loaves, which do not require anointing, require blending, then wafers, which require anointing, is it not right that they require blending? Therefore Scripture says "loaves blended," and not wafers blended; wafers are anointed and not loaves anointed. For one might think, does it not follow? If wafers, which do not require blending, require anointing, then loaves, which require blending, is it not right that they require anointing? Therefore Scripture says wafers anointed and not loaves anointed. What is the textual proof? Rava said: let it not deviate and write "loaves anointed and wafers blended." The Sages taught: a meal-offering brought half loaves and half wafers, he brings a log of oil and divides half for the loaves and half for the wafers; the loaves he blends, the wafers he anoints, and he anoints the wafer over its whole surface, and the remaining oil he returns to the loaves. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: he anoints it like the shape of a Greek letter kaf, and the rest is eaten by the priests. Another teaching: wafers brought by themselves, he brings a log of oil and anoints them and anoints them again until all the oil in the log is used up. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: he anoints them like the shape of a Greek letter kaf, and the rest of the oil is eaten by the priests.

"Fine flour, unleavened loaves blended with oil and unleavened wafers anointed with oil" (Leviticus 2:4): what does Scripture teach by saying "with oil, with oil" twice? To render fit the second oil and the third oil. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: he anoints the wafers like the shape of a Greek letter kaf, for an amplification after an amplification serves only to limit. Rabbi Yehudah said: "unleavened, unleavened" — they are alike with respect to being unleavened, but not alike with respect to blending. Similarly Rabbi Yehudah said: "And you shall make a basin of bronze and its stand of bronze for washing" (Exodus 30:18); one might think that just as they wash from the basin so they wash from the stand; therefore Scripture says "bronze" — it is the same as bronze, but not the same with respect to washing. Similarly Rabbi Yehudah said: "And you shall make a breastplate of judgment, the work of a skilled craftsman; like the work of the ephod you shall make it" (Exodus 28:15); one might think that just as the ephod is doubled so this is doubled; therefore Scripture says "gold" — it is the same as gold, but not for doubling.

"And if your offering is a meal-offering on a griddle" (Leviticus 2:5-6, written in remez 487). The deep pan is hollow and its contents seethe. How so? If a person has words of Torah in him, let him be careful with himself not to come to transgression and to something disgraceful; and should it arise in his mind and he say, "I will go and bring a meal-offering, lest iniquity and sin have come about by my hand," the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: "My son, why did you not blend your deeds with oil?" — and oil means nothing other than Torah and good deeds, as it is said, "For fragrance your oils are good" (Song of Songs 1:3). The shallow pan is flat and its contents are firm. How so? If a person has words of Torah in him, let him be careful with himself not to come to transgression and to something disgraceful; and should it arise in his mind and he say, "I will go and bring a meal-offering out of my love, because I have loved the Omnipresent," the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: "My son, blessed are you; may there be contentment of spirit for you in the world, and may words of Torah be stored in your mouth forever." Of him it says, "Counsel in the heart of a man is deep water" (Proverbs 20:5), and it says, "Out of the depths I have called You, O LORD" (Psalms 130:1). "And if a meal-offering on a griddle" teaches that it requires a vessel. "Your offering, your offering" forms a verbal analogy: just as the offering stated here requires pouring and blending, so the offering stated below requires pouring and blending; and just as your offering stated below requires the placing of oil in a vessel before they are made, so your offering stated here requires the placing of oil in a vessel before they are made.

"You shall break it into pieces, a meal-offering" (Leviticus 2:6) includes every meal-offering for the breaking into pieces. One might think I should include even the two loaves and the showbread for breaking; therefore Scripture says "it." And what did you see to include other meal-offerings and to exclude the two loaves and the showbread? After Scripture amplified and limited, just as these are distinguished in that part of them goes to the fires, so the two loaves and showbread are excluded, since none of them goes to the fires. "And you shall pour oil on it, a meal-offering" includes every meal-offering for pouring. One might think I should include even the oven-baked meal-offering; therefore Scripture says "oil upon it." I would exclude the loaves but not the wafers; therefore Scripture says "it." What is the textual proof? Say it comes to exclude the meal-offering of priests. Rava said: which is the thing that requires two limitations? Say it is the oven-baked offering. "You shall break": one might think into two; therefore Scripture says "pieces." If "pieces," one might think he should make crumbs; therefore Scripture says "it": it is broken into pieces, but the pieces are not broken into further pieces. How then? An Israelite's meal-offering he folds one into two and two into four, and does not separate them. The meal-offering of an anointed priest he would fold — but did we not learn that he did not fold it? Rava said: he does not fold it into four, but he folds it into two. All the meal-offerings come as ten loaves, except the showbread and the High Priest's griddle-cakes which come as twelve, the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: all of them come as twelve, except the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and of the nazirite, which come as ten each. The showbread is stated explicitly. The High Priest's griddle-cakes are derived by the analogy of "statute, statute" from the showbread. As for the other meal-offerings that come as ten, from where do we know? It is derived from the thanksgiving loaves: just as there it is ten, so here it is ten. But let us derive it from the showbread, that just as there it is twelve, so here it is twelve? It is more reasonable to derive from the thanksgiving loaves, since both are of an individual, brought as a freewill gift, with oil, disqualified, not on the Sabbath, and not in impurity. On the contrary, let us derive from the showbread, since both are consecrated, with frankincense, unleavened, and lasting; those features are more numerous. And if we hold that a matter derived by verbal analogy may in turn teach by a governing principle, derive it from the High Priest's griddle-cakes, whose features are more numerous. And if we hold that a matter derived by verbal analogy may not in turn teach by a governing principle, derive it from the showbread, for it is preferable to derive consecrated from consecrated. "Except the loaves of the thanksgiving and the nazirite": the thanksgiving loaves are stated explicitly; as for the nazirite, the Master said "his peace-offerings" (Leviticus 7:13) comes to include the peace-offerings of the nazirite. The meal-offering of priests he folds one into two and two into four and does not separate them; the meal-offering of an anointed priest he did not fold. Rabbi Shimon says: the meal-offering of priests and the meal-offering of an anointed priest have no breaking into pieces, because they have no taking of a handful, and whatever has no taking of a handful has no breaking into pieces. And all of them he breaks into olive-sized pieces. "You shall break it into pieces, a meal-offering" includes every meal-offering for breaking. One might think even the two loaves and the showbread; therefore Scripture says "it." And what did you see to include every meal-offering and to exclude the two loaves and the showbread? After Scripture amplified and limited, just as these are distinguished in that part of them goes to the fires, so all that have a part going to the fires; the two loaves and showbread are excluded, since none of them goes to the fires.

"And if your offering is a meal-offering of a deep pan" (Leviticus 2:7): what is the difference between a griddle and a deep pan? The deep pan has a cover, the griddle has no cover, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel says: the deep pan is hollow and its contents seethe, and the griddle is flat and its contents are firm. "Fine flour with oil it shall be made" teaches that it requires oil before it is made. "Your offering, your offering" forms a verbal analogy. Had it said only "and you shall bring that which is made of these," I would have said only the handful requires bringing near; from where the rest of the meal-offering? Scripture says "the meal-offering." From where the sinner's meal-offering? Scripture says "the meal-offering" with the direct-object marker. And it would follow by reasoning: a sinner's meal-offering is stated here and a freewill meal-offering is stated here; just as the freewill meal-offering requires bringing near, so the sinner's requires bringing near. But the freewill offering requires oil and frankincense; the meal-offering of the suspected wife will prove otherwise. But that requires waving; the freewill offering will prove otherwise. The reasoning circles back: this case is not like that, and the common ground between them is that they share the taking of a handful and share the bringing near; so I bring the sinner's meal-offering, which shares the handful with them, to share the bringing near. But their common ground is that they were both made fit to come as a rich man's or a poor man's; whereas the sinner's was not; therefore Scripture says "the meal-offering" with the marker. Rabbi Shimon says: "and you shall bring" includes the omer meal-offering for bringing near, as it says "and you shall bring the omer" (Leviticus 23:10). "And he shall offer it" includes the suspected wife's meal-offering for bringing near, as it says "and he shall offer it at the altar" (Numbers 5:25). As to the remainders that became deficient between the handful and the burning: Rabbi Yochanan said he burns the handful for them; Resh Lakish said he does not burn the handful for them. The one who disqualifies holds that Scripture says "of the meal-offering" — only when there is a whole meal-offering; the other holds "of the meal-offering" means a meal-offering that was already permitted. Had it said "that you shall offer to the LORD shall not be made with leaven," I would have said I have only the handful; from where the whole meal-offering? Scripture says "all the meal-offering." From where the other meal-offerings? Scripture says "all the meal-offering." "To the LORD," the fit one and not the unfit; from here they said one who leavens a fit offering is liable, an unfit one is exempt. "That you shall offer" includes the libation meal-offering for leavening, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: it includes the showbread for leavening. As to the libation meal-offering being fruit-liquid that does not leaven, Resh Lakish said: Rabbi Yose the Galilean would say the libation meal-offering is kneaded with water and is therefore fit to leaven; and the showbread, since it is a dry measure, and we heard Rabbi Akiva say a dry measure is not consecrated; Rabbi Yochanan said: reverse the attributions.

From where do we learn to include the other meal offerings? Scripture teaches by saying "the whole meal offering" (Leviticus 6:10). One might think that I have only those meal offerings whose remnants are eaten, that they may not be made as leaven; from where do I include meal offerings whose remnants are not eaten? Scripture teaches by saying "the whole meal offering that you bring to the LORD." Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: this comes to include the showbread. Rabbi Akiva says: it comes to include the meal offering that accompanies the drink offerings. "It shall not be made as leaven" (Leviticus 2:11). One might think there is a single prohibition covering all of them together; Scripture teaches by saying "it shall not be baked as leaven" (Leviticus 6:10). Baking was already included in the general rule, so why was it singled out? To draw a comparison to it and to tell you: just as baking is distinctive in that it is a single discrete act and one is liable for it on its own, so too I include the kneading and the shaping, and for every act involved in it one becomes liable on its own.

Our rabbis taught: a firstborn animal seized by congestion of blood, one may let its blood in a place where one does not thereby make a blemish, but one may not let its blood in a place where one thereby makes a blemish; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: even though he makes a blemish in it, provided he does not slaughter it on account of that blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: it may even be slaughtered on account of that blemish. Rabbi Yehuda says: even if it would die, one may not let its blood. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: all agree regarding one who leavens after another has leavened, that he is liable, for it says "it shall not be baked" and "it shall not be made as leaven" (Leviticus 6:10, 2:11). Regarding one who castrates after another has castrated, that he is liable, for it is written "that which is bruised or crushed or torn or cut" (Leviticus 22:24); if one is liable for the cut, then for the torn how much more so; rather it comes to make liable one who severs after another has severed. They differed only regarding one who inflicts a blemish upon an already-blemished animal: Rabbi Meir held "any blemish shall not be in it" (Leviticus 22:21), and the sages held "it shall be unblemished for acceptance." And as for Rabbi Meir, is it not written "it shall be unblemished for acceptance"? That verse serves to exclude an animal blemished from the outset. An animal blemished from the outset is merely like an ordinary palm tree; rather it excludes consecrated animals that became disqualified, after their redemption. You might have reasoned: since they remain forbidden for shearing and for work, let them also be forbidden as to a blemish; therefore it tells us otherwise. And as for the sages, is it not written "any blemish shall not be"? That is needed for what was taught: "any blemish shall not be in it," I have only that no blemish be in it; from where that he must not cause it to be blemished by means of others, that he should not place dough or a fig-cake upon its ear so that a dog will come take it? Scripture teaches by saying "any blemish." It said "blemish" and it said "any blemish." "You shall not burn as an offering leaven" (Leviticus 2:11): I have only an olive's bulk; from where even half an olive's bulk? Scripture teaches "any." Its mixture, from where? Scripture teaches "for any." Rava said: thus it means, "you shall not burn leaven," I have only a handful's measure; from where half a handful? Scripture teaches "any"; its mixture, from where? Scripture teaches "for any." In what do they differ? Abaye said: there is a handful that is less than two olives' bulk, and there is a burning of less than an olive's bulk. And Rava held: there is no handful less than two olives' bulk, and there is no burning less than an olive's bulk. From where do we learn that to offer up flesh of a sin offering, or flesh of a guilt offering, or flesh of the most holy offerings, or flesh of the lesser holy offerings, or what remains of the Omer, or of the showbread, or remnants of meal offerings, is a violation of a negative commandment? Scripture teaches by saying "for no leaven and no honey shall you burn from it as a fire offering to the LORD" (Leviticus 2:11); anything of which a part goes to the altar fires is included in "you shall not burn." But do the two loaves and the showbread have a part that goes to the fires? Was it not taught that the two loaves and the showbread are excepted because no part of them goes to the fires? Rav Sheshet said: nothing of their own substance goes to the fires. It was stated: as for one who offers up any of these upon the ramp, Rabbi Yochanan said he is liable, Rabbi Elazar said he is exempt. Rabbi Yochanan said liable, for it was taught: "the altar," I have only the altar; from where the ramp? Scripture teaches by saying "and to the altar." And Rabbi Elazar said exempt; what is his reason? For the verse said "them" (Leviticus 2:12): it is "them" that I extended for you from the altar, but nothing else. And Rabbi Yochanan, what does he do with this word "them"? For what was taught: one might think an individual may donate a like offering as a freewill gift, and I would apply to it "that which goes out of your lips you shall keep and perform" (Deuteronomy 23:24); Scripture teaches by saying "as an offering of firstfruits you shall bring them" (Leviticus 2:12), the community I told you of and not an individual. One might think the individual may not bring what is not his obligation in like manner, but the community may bring what is its obligation in like manner; Scripture teaches "them." And what do you have to bring? The two loaves from the leaven, and the firstfruits from the honey. But were the two loaves never brought as a freewill offering? Was it not taught: if "any leaven" is stated why is "any honey" stated, and if "any honey" is stated why is "any leaven" stated? Because there is in leaven what is not in honey, and in honey what is not in leaven. Leaven was permitted in part within the Sanctuary, honey was not permitted in part within the Sanctuary; honey was permitted in remnants of meal offerings, leaven was not permitted in remnants of meal offerings. Thus, because there is in leaven what is not in honey and in honey what is not in leaven, it was necessary to say "any leaven" and necessary to say "any honey." The leaven that was permitted, what is it? Is it not the two loaves that were brought as a freewill offering? Rabbi Amram said: it means it shall not be brought to the altar with them. If so, the firstfruits too, as we learned: the young birds that were upon the baskets were offered up, and what was in their hands was given to the priests. Those came merely to adorn the firstfruits. "You shall not burn from it" (Leviticus 2:11): Rabbi Eliezer says, anything part of which goes to the fires. Rabbi Akiva says, anything whose name is "offering." What is between them? Rav Chisda said: the flesh of a bird sin offering is between them. Rava said: the log of oil of a leper is between them.

One might think that any meal offering that is made as unleavened bread is included in "you shall not burn it as leaven," but one that is not made as unleavened bread is not included in "you shall not burn it as leaven"; Scripture teaches by saying "for no leaven and no honey shall you burn" (Leviticus 2:11). I have only a large quantity; from where even a small quantity? Scripture teaches "any honey." I have only it by itself; from where its mixture? Scripture teaches "and any honey." I have only things to which honey is harmful; from where things to which honey is beneficial, as when the spice-compounder says that honey improves the incense? Scripture teaches by saying "and any honey."

We learned there: one does not bring firstfruits except from the seven species, and not from dates that grow in the hills, and not from fruits that grow in the valleys. Ulla said: and if one brought them, it did not sanctify them. Rav Acha bar Abba raised an objection: "an offering of first-ripe produce" (Leviticus 2:12) means that it should be first to all the meal offering. And so it says "when you bring a new meal offering" (Numbers 28:26); I have only a new offering of wheat; from where a new offering of barley? Scripture teaches "new, new"; if it is not needed for the matter of a new wheat offering, apply it to the matter of a new barley offering. And from where that it should precede the firstfruits? Scripture teaches by saying "and the feast of weeks you shall make for yourself, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest" (Exodus 34:22). I have only the wheat harvest; from where the barley harvest? Scripture teaches "and the feast of the harvest, the firstfruits of your labors which you sow." I have only what you sow; from where things that came up of themselves? Scripture teaches "in the field." I have only what is in the field; from where to include what is on the roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, and on a ship? Scripture teaches by saying "the firstfruits of all that is in their land." And from where that it should precede the drink offerings and the fruits of the tree? It says here "the firstfruits of your labors," and it says there "when you gather in your labors"; just as there it means drink offerings and fruits of the tree, so here drink offerings and fruits of the tree. Now it teaches at any rate what is on the roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, and on a ship; the latter clause comes to refer to meal offerings. Rav Acha bar Abba challenged it: if so, this accords with what is written "every clean person in your house may eat it" (Numbers 18:11), but if these are meal offerings they are eaten only by the males of the priesthood. Rav Mesharshiya said: two verses are written, it is written "to you it shall be" and it is written "every clean person in your house"; how so? Here regarding firstfruits, there regarding meal offerings. Rav Ashi said: all of them refer to meal offerings, and the latter clause comes to refer to the loaves of the thanksgiving offering. In the dispute: Rabbi Yochanan said, if one brought them it did not sanctify them; Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, if one brought them it sanctified them, it becomes like the lean among the consecrated. Granted according to Reish Lakish, as he stated his reason; but Rabbi Yochanan, what is his reason? Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Yochanan saw it in a dream and said an excellent matter; the verse said "from the first-ripe" (Deuteronomy 26:2) and not all the first-ripe, "from your land" and not all your land. And Reish Lakish needs that for what was taught: Rabban Gamliel beRabbi says, it says here "land" and it says there "land"; just as there it means the praise of the land, so here the praise of the land. And the other one derives "land" from "land." And the other does not infer "land" from "land."

Limbs of a sin offering that became mixed with limbs of a burnt offering: Rabbi Eliezer says, let him place them upon the altar, and I regard the flesh of the sin offering above as though it were wood. The sages say, let their form deteriorate and let them go out to the place of burning. What is Rabbi Eliezer's reason? The verse said "and to the altar they shall not go up for a pleasing aroma" (Leviticus 2:12): for a pleasing aroma you may not offer them, but you may offer them for the sake of wood. And the sages: the Merciful One limited it with "them," it is "them" that you may not offer for a pleasing aroma but may offer for the sake of wood, but nothing else. And Rabbi Eliezer: "them" is what extends the ramp like the altar, but nothing else. And the sages: you learn two things from it. The teaching is not in accord with this Tanna; for it was taught, Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the sages did not differ regarding limbs of a sin offering mixed with limbs of a burnt offering, that they should be offered, nor regarding a beast that mounted or was mounted, that they should not be offered. About what did they differ? About limbs of an unblemished burnt offering mixed with limbs of a blemished burnt offering, where Rabbi Eliezer says, let him place them above, and I regard the blemished limbs as though they were wood; and the sages say, they shall not be offered. And Rabbi Eliezer: what is different about the mounting beast that it is unfit; the blemished one too is unfit. Rabbi Eliezer's reasoning is that the Merciful One limited with "a blemish in them" (Leviticus 22:25): it is "a blemish in them" that shall not be accepted, but by means of a mixture they shall be accepted. And the sages: "a blemish in them" is what shall not be accepted, but once their blemish has passed they shall be accepted. "The altar": I have only the altar; from where to include the ramp? Scripture teaches by saying "and to the altar they shall not go up." One might think whether for service or not for service; Scripture teaches "for a pleasing aroma": one who offers up for service is liable, not for service he is exempt. (Leviticus 2:13) Had it said "every offering with salt," I would understand even wood and blood, which are called offering; Scripture teaches "meal offering," just as a meal offering is distinctive in that other things come as an obligation for it, so all for which other things come as an obligation. If so, just as a meal offering is distinctive in that it renders permitted, so all that renders permitted, and I would bring blood, which renders permitted; Scripture teaches "upon your meal offering," and not upon your blood. One might think the whole meal offering requires salt; Scripture teaches "offering": the offering requires salt but not the whole meal offering requires salt. And I have only the handful; from where to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense, since it comes with it in a single vessel. From where to include frankincense that comes by itself, and frankincense that comes in the dishes, and the meal offering of priests, and the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering of drink offerings, the sacrificial portions of a sin offering, of a guilt offering, of the most holy offerings, of the lesser holy offerings, the limbs of a burnt offering, and the bird burnt offering? Scripture teaches by saying "upon every offering of yours you shall offer salt." Master said: I have only the handful; from where to include the frankincense? I include the frankincense since it comes with it in a single vessel; but did you not say, just as a meal offering is distinctive in that others come as an obligation for it? This is what it means: say "offering" is the general, "meal offering" the specific; in a general followed by a specific, the general includes only what is in the specific; meal offering yes, nothing else. Then it returned and said "upon every offering of yours," it generalized again; a general, a specific, and a general, you may infer only what is like the specific; just as the specific is something for which others come as an obligation, so all for which others come as an obligation, and what is that? Wood. Master said: "upon your meal offering" and not upon your blood; but say "upon your meal offering" and not upon your limbs? It is reasonable that the limbs should be included, for like it, others come as an obligation, like it they go to the fires, like it offered outside, like it as leftover, like it regarding impurity, like it regarding misappropriation. On the contrary, the blood should be included, for like it it renders permitted, like it disqualified at sunset. Those are more numerous. Master said: I would understand even wood and blood that are called offering; this accords with the Tanna, for it was taught, Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says, just as the specific is explicit, a thing that receives impurity and goes up to the fires and is on the outer altar, so all and so on; wood is excluded, which does not receive impurity; blood and wine are excluded, which do not go up to the fires; incense is excluded, which is not on the outer altar. Rather the reason is that the verse limited the blood, for otherwise I would have said blood requires salt, and once one salts it, it leaves the category of blood, as Ze'iri said in the name of Rabbi Chanina, blood that one has cooked, one does not transgress on its account; and Rav Yehuda himself said, limbs that one roasted and offered up have no quality of a pleasing aroma in them. You might think one casts a bit of salt upon it merely as a precept; it teaches us otherwise. And this is not in accord with Rabbi; for it was taught, "offering" teaches that one may donate wood, and how much, two logs; and so it says "and we cast lots for the wood offering" (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi says, wood is an offering and requires salt and requires bringing near. And Rava said, according to Rabbi, wood requires the taking of a handful. And Rav Papa said, according to Rabbi, wood requires wood. "A covenant of salt forever it is" (Leviticus 2:13): that the covenant spoken of should be with salt; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says, it says here "a covenant of salt," and it says there "a covenant of eternal priesthood"; just as offerings are impossible without priesthood, so offerings are impossible without salt. "With salt": one might think you should soak it; Scripture teaches "you shall salt." If "you shall salt," one might think with salt water; Scripture teaches "with salt." "You shall not let the salt cease" (Leviticus 2:13): bring salt that does not cease, and which is that? Sodomite salt. And from where that if one did not find Sodomite salt he brings rock salt? Scripture teaches "you shall offer": you shall offer any kind; you shall offer from any place; you shall offer even on the Sabbath; you shall offer even in impurity. What is "you shall season it"? Rabbah bar Ulla said: thus it means, one might think he shall mix it in like straw in clay; Abaye said to him, if so it should have said "he shall season it." Rather Abaye said, one might think he shall make it like a building; Rava said to him, if so it should have said "he shall build it." Rather Rava said, one might think "you shall season it," what is "you shall season it"? Rav Ashi said: one might think he shall give it the taste of discernment; Scripture teaches "you shall salt." How does one do it? He brings the limb and places salt upon it and turns it over and places salt upon it and offers it up. Abaye said: and so for a cooking pot. One might think that one who says "behold upon me a meal offering" should bring salt from his own house, just as he brings frankincense from his own house. And it is a logical inference: it says bring a meal offering, bring frankincense, and just as the frankincense is from his house, so the salt. Or go this way: it says bring a meal offering, bring wood; just as the wood is from the public, so the salt. Let us see which it resembles: we derive a thing that applies to all sacrifices from a thing that applies to all sacrifices, and let frankincense, which does not apply to all sacrifices, not prove otherwise. Or go this way: we derive a thing that comes with it in a single vessel from a thing that comes with it in a single vessel, and let wood, which does not come with it in a single vessel, not prove otherwise; Scripture teaches by saying "a covenant of salt forever," and it says there "from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8); just as there it is from the public, so here from the public.

(Leviticus 2:14) "And if you bring a meal offering of firstfruits." It is written "and the LORD God formed the man, dust from the ground" (Genesis 2:7), and it says "an altar of earth you shall make for Me" (Exodus 20:24). Man was created from the place of his atonement. So long as the Temple stands, the altar within it is atonement for Israel; outside the Land, the sages and their disciples are atonement for Israel, as it says "and if you bring a meal offering of firstfruits." And it says "and a man came from Baal-shalishah and brought to the man of God" (II Kings 4:42) and so on. But was there neither Jerusalem nor Temple there? Rather, there was Elisha the prophet and his disciples. From this you have learned that whoever attaches himself to the sages and their disciples, Scripture credits it to him as though he performs the will of his Father in heaven. He said to him: Rabbi, why is it that the nations of the world eat in this present time? I said to him: as a reward, because the Holy One, blessed be He, set Israel apart from among them. A parable: to what may the matter be compared? To a king who found one man from a lowly family, and that man would do his will; the king sent many gifts to the members of that family for his sake. Even if a man has in his hand neither Scripture nor Mishnah, but sits and reads all day long "and the sister of Lotan was Timna" (Genesis 36:22), the reward of Torah is in his hand. "And if you bring" is an obligation. (Rabbi Yishmael says) "and if you bring a meal offering of firstfruits," Scripture speaks of the Omer meal offering. From what does it come? From barley. Or is it only from wheat? Rabbi Eliezer says: "aviv" is said regarding Egypt, and "aviv" is said for the generations; just as the "aviv" stated regarding Egypt was barley, so the "aviv" stated for the generations is barley. Rabbi Akiva says: we find that an individual brings his obligation from wheat and his obligation from barley, and the community brings its obligation from wheat and its obligation from barley; if you say the Omer comes from wheat, we would not find a community that brings its obligation from barley.

Another interpretation: if you say the Omer comes from wheat, then the two loaves are not firstfruits. "And if you bring": what does Scripture teach? Since the commandment of the Omer is to bring from the standing grain, from where that if one did not find from the standing grain he may bring from the sheaves? Scripture teaches by saying "you shall bring."

Another interpretation: since its commandment is to bring from the moist, from where that if one did not find from the moist he may bring from the dried? Scripture teaches by saying "you shall bring."

Another interpretation: Why is "you shall offer" stated? Because the commandment is to reap it at night, from where do we learn that if it was reaped by day it is valid, and that it overrides the Sabbath? Scripture teaches, "you shall offer." "You shall offer" - whatever its condition. "You shall offer" - from any place. "You shall offer" - even on the Sabbath. "You shall offer" - even in a state of ritual impurity. But have we not learned in the Mishnah, "All the night is valid for reaping the omer," and so on - which implies that what pertains to the day does not pertain to the night, so likewise what pertains to the night should not pertain to the day? Rava said: This is not difficult. This Mishnah follows Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, for it was taught: If one was standing and offering the omer meal-offering and became impure, if there is another, he is told, "Bring another in its place"; and if not, he is told, "Be clever and keep silent" - the words of Rabbi [Judah the Prince]. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: In either case he is told, "Be clever and keep silent," for any omer reaped not according to its commandment is invalid.

"And if you offer a meal-offering of firstfruits" (Leviticus 2:14). Rabbi Judah said: The firstfruits meal-offering is destined to cease and to return, and so it says, "And if there will be the Jubilee" (Numbers 36:4) - the Jubilee is destined to cease and to return. Rabbi Shimon says: "And if you offer" - this is a meal-offering that comes as an obligation. Or could it be voluntary? When it says, "You shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest" (Leviticus 23:10), this teaches that it comes only as an obligation. If so, why is "if" stated? To say: if you bring it willingly, I credit it to you as though you had brought it as a freewill gift; and if you do not offer it willingly, I credit it to you as though you had not offered it except for your own need. And so it says, "You shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh ears" (Leviticus 23:14), and so on. Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: One might think he may bring it from spelt, oats, and rye. And there is a logical argument: if wheat, which is fit for other meal-offerings, was not fit for the omer meal-offering, then spelt, oats, and rye, which are not fit for other meal-offerings, surely should not be fit for the omer meal-offering. Barley will prove otherwise, for it was not fit for other meal-offerings yet was fit for the omer meal-offering. No: if you have said this of barley, from which the meal-offering of the suspected wife comes, will you say it of spelt, oats, and rye, from which no meal-offering of the suspected wife comes? Wheat is excluded by the written text, while spelt, oats, and rye are excluded by an argument from the lighter to the heavier case. [Our Rabbis taught] (Rabbi Ishmael says): "Ripe ears parched with fire" (Leviticus 2:14). "Ripe ears" - this means ripe ears. "Parched with fire" - this teaches that they would singe it in the fire so as to fulfill in it the commandment of parching, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: "Parched" means nothing other than something else. Another version: "Parched" means nothing other than a light thing; how so? A perforated tube belonging to the parchers was there, pierced like a sieve, so that the fire would have power over all of it. "Ripe ears parched (with fire), crushed grits" - I do not know whether it is the ripe ears that are parched or the grits that are parched; when it says "with fire," it interrupts the matter. "Fresh" (karmel) means tender and easily rubbed. And so it says, "And a man came from Baal-shalishah" (II Kings 4:42), and so on.

All public and individual offerings may come from inside the Land and from outside the Land, from new produce and from old. Except for the omer and the two loaves, which come only from new produce, only from the Land, and only from the choicest. Our Mishnah does not follow this teacher, for it was taught: An omer brought from old grain is valid; two loaves brought from old grain are valid, except that one has fallen short of the commandment. The omer, as it is written, "You shall offer the meal-offering of your firstfruits" - even from the storehouse. The two loaves, as it is written, "From your dwellings you shall bring" (Leviticus 23:17) - and not from outside the Land; "from your dwellings" - even from the storehouse. But you have already used that verse! Scripture said, "You shall bring," meaning even from the storehouse. But that is needed to teach that whatever you bring from elsewhere shall be like this. If so, let the verse write "you shall bring" in the singular. What is "you shall bring" in the plural? Learn from it two things. But it is written "first"! That is for the commandment. But it is written "new"! That is needed for what was taught: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Akiva say, Two loaves that come from old grain are valid; how then do I uphold "new"? That it shall be new for all the meal-offerings. They differ only regarding new grain, but as to the Land they do not differ, that the omer and two loaves come from the Land - yes, from outside the Land - no. According to whom? Not according to this teacher, for it was taught: Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says, The omer may come from outside the Land; and how do I uphold "when you come into the Land" (Leviticus 23:10)? That they were not obligated before they entered the Land. He holds that the law of new grain outside the Land is from the Torah, as it is written "from your dwellings" - meaning every place where you dwell; and "when you come" indicates the time of obligation, and since it is from the Torah we also offer it. Rami bar Chama posed a contradiction to Rav Chisda: We learned that those who guard the aftergrowth take their wages from the chamber's contribution. But against this is written, "for eating" (Leviticus 25:6) - and not for burning! He said to him: The Merciful One said "for your generations," yet you say it should be abolished? He said to him: Did I say it should be abolished? Let it come from last year's grain. Scripture said "fresh ripe grain," and there is none. Let it come from last year's fresh grain. Scripture said "fresh ripe grain you shall offer" - we require fresh ripe grain at the moment of offering, and there is none. Rabbi Yochanan said: "Fresh ripe grain you shall offer." Rabbi Elazar says: "The first of your harvest" (Leviticus 23:10), and not the last of your harvest. Rabbah objected: "And if you offer" was said of the omer meal-offering, and so on - this shows it is because of firstfruits. This is a refutation.

"Your firstfruits" - the firstfruits of each and every individual, to say that it comes only from communal funds, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: It says here "firstfruits to the LORD," and it says elsewhere "firstfruits to the LORD"; just as the firstfruits stated elsewhere come from communal funds, so the firstfruits stated here come from communal funds. And if you say this one is from an individual's funds and the other from communal funds - you would say no: if this is "firstfruits to the LORD," then this omer is not the first of the harvest, and if it is the first of the harvest, then it is not "firstfruits to the LORD." The matters lacking here, Scripture stated elsewhere. "And you shall put oil upon it" (Leviticus 2:15) - oil upon it, and not oil upon the showbread. For one might think, is it not a logical argument: if the meal-offering of libations, which does not require frankincense, requires oil, then the showbread, which requires frankincense, surely should require oil? Scripture teaches "upon it" - oil upon it, and not oil upon the showbread. "Upon it" - frankincense, and not frankincense upon the meal-offering of libations. For one might think, is it not a logical argument: if the showbread, which does not require oil, requires frankincense, then the meal-offering of libations, which requires oil, surely should require frankincense? Scripture teaches "upon it" - frankincense upon it, and not frankincense upon the meal-offering of libations. "Meal-offering" - to include the eighth-day meal-offering for frankincense. "It" - to exclude the two loaves, that they require neither oil nor frankincense. The master said: "oil upon it, and not oil upon the showbread." But say rather: oil upon it, and not oil upon the priests' meal-offering? It stands to reason that the priests' meal-offering should be the one included, since it shares a tenth-measure, a vessel, being prepared outside, having a set form, requiring presentation, and being burned on the fire. On the contrary, the showbread should be included, since it is communal, an obligation, eaten by the impure, subject to disqualification, and offered on the Sabbath. It stands to reason from "a soul" (Leviticus 2:1). "It" excludes the two loaves. But is this not a logical argument? If I exclude them from oil, which applies to the libation meal-offering, shall I not exclude them from frankincense, which does not apply to the libation meal-offering? Scripture teaches "it" - to exclude the two loaves, which require neither oil nor frankincense.

"And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings" (Leviticus 3:1). Rabbi Judah said: Everyone who brings peace-offerings (shelamim) brings peace (shalom) to the world. I have only peace-offerings; from where do I include the thanksgiving-offering? I would include the thanksgiving-offering, since it comes as a peace-offering. From where do I include the burnt-offering? I would include the burnt-offering, since it comes by vow and freewill gift. From where do I include the firstborn, the tithe, and the Passover-offering? I would include the firstborn, the tithe, and the Passover-offering, since they do not come on account of sin. From where do I include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? Scripture teaches "sacrifice." From where do I include the birds, the meal-offerings, the wine, the frankincense, and the wood? Scripture teaches "his offering." Peace-offerings - thus everyone who brings peace-offerings brings peace to the world.

Another interpretation: "peace-offerings" (shelamim) - that all are made whole (meshulamim) through them: the blood and the fats go to the altar, the breast and the thigh to the priests, the hide and the flesh to the owners.

Rabbi Shimon says: One who is whole brings peace-offerings, and the acute mourner does not bring peace-offerings. I have only peace-offerings, which are a kind of rejoicing; from where do I include the thanksgiving-offering? I would include the thanksgiving-offering, since it comes as a peace-offering. From where do I include the burnt-offering? I would include the burnt-offering, since it comes by vow and freewill gift. From where do I include the firstborn, the tithe, and the Passover-offering? I would include the firstborn, the tithe, and the Passover-offering, since they do not come on account of sin. From where do I include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? Scripture teaches "sacrifice." From where do I include the birds, the meal-offerings, the wine, the frankincense, and the wood? Scripture teaches "peace-offerings, his offering." Thus every offering that one brings, he brings when he is whole; when he is an acute mourner, he does not bring it.

From where do we know that we require slaughtering for its own sake? Because Scripture says, "And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings" - that the slaughter be for the sake of peace-offerings. But perhaps this is merely their name? From the fact that it is written "the one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings," "the one who dashes the blood of the peace-offerings" (Leviticus 7:14), and it does not write "sacrifice," whereas here it does write "sacrifice" - learn from it that the slaughter must be for the sake of peace-offerings. We have found this for slaughter; from where do we learn the other services? And if you say, let us learn from slaughter - what of slaughter, which is disqualified when not done for the sake of those who eat the Passover-offering? Rather Scripture says, "the one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings" - that the receiving of the blood be for the sake of peace-offerings. Let the Merciful One write it regarding receiving and let us learn slaughter from all of them - because one could refute: what of receiving, which is disqualified when performed by a non-priest? We have found slaughter and receiving; from where do we learn the dashing of blood? And if you say, let us learn from these - what of these, which require the north and apply to the inner sin-offering? Rather Scripture says, "the one who dashes the blood of the peace-offerings" - that the dashing be for the sake of peace-offerings. We have found all of these; from where do we learn the carrying? And if you say, let us learn from all of them - what of all of them, which are services that cannot be dispensed with, whereas carrying can be dispensed with? Rather Scripture says, "and the priest shall offer the whole," and the master said this is the carrying of the limbs to the ramp; and it was taught, "and the sons of Aaron shall offer the blood" - this is the receiving of the blood. Carrying it is, yet Scripture expressed it in the language of receiving, to say that carrying is not excluded from the category of receiving. We have found a change of sanctity; from where do we learn a change of owners? Scripture says, "and the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings" - that the slaughter be for the sake of the thanksgiving-offering, for the sake of peace-offerings; if it is not needed for a change of sanctity, which is derived elsewhere, apply it to a change of owners. This verse comes for this purpose - but it is needed for what was taught: "and the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings." Abba Chanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer said it comes to teach about a thanksgiving-offering that one slaughtered for the sake of peace-offerings, that it is valid, while peace-offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering are invalid. What is the difference between this and that? A thanksgiving-offering is called peace-offerings, but peace-offerings are not called a thanksgiving-offering. Rather Rava said, it is derived from the ram of the Nazirite, as it is written, "and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the LORD" (Numbers 6:17) - that the slaughter be for the sake of peace-offerings; if it is not needed for a change of sanctity, apply it to a change of owners. We have found the Nazirite's ram; from where do we learn the rest of the peace-offerings? And if you say, let us learn from the Nazirite - what of the Nazirite's ram, which has other moneys with it? If so, let it write "his peace-offerings"; what is "peace-offerings"? To include all peace-offerings. We have found peace-offerings; from where do we learn the rest of the holy offerings? And if you say, let us learn from peace-offerings - what of peace-offerings, which require laying-on of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh? Rather Scripture says, "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering" and so on (Leviticus 7:37) - they are likened to peace-offerings: just as peace-offerings, whether by change of sanctity or by change of owners, we require it for its own sake, so all, whether by change of owners or by change of sanctity, we require it for its own sake. One might say, where one slaughtered them not for their own sake they should be disqualified; Scripture says, "that which goes out of your lips you shall keep... a freewill offering" (Deuteronomy 23:24) - it is a vow; rather, if you did as you vowed it is a vow, and if not it shall be a freewill gift. And it was necessary to write "that which goes out of your lips," and necessary to write "This is the law," for had the Merciful One written only "that which goes out of your lips" I would say I do not know in what manner; so the Merciful One wrote "This is the law." And had the Merciful One written only "This is the law" I would say they should be disqualified; so the Merciful One wrote "that which goes out of your lips." "The herd" - to include the eleventh as a peace-offering. One might think I should include the ninth; you said: does sanctity sanctify before it or after it? You must say it sanctifies after it. "The herd" - to include the eleventh. "Of the herd" - to exclude the ninth. And what did you see to include the eleventh and exclude the ninth? After Scripture included and excluded: when does consecration produce a substitute, before it or after it? You must say after it; I include the eleventh, which is after the consecration, and I exclude the ninth, which is before the consecration. The individual brings peace-offerings as a freewill gift, but the community does not bring peace-offerings as a freewill gift. Is this not a logical argument? An animal burnt-offering comes by vow and freewill gift, and peace-offerings come by vow and freewill gift; just as the animal burnt-offering comes as a communal freewill gift, so peace-offerings, which come by vow and freewill gift, should come as a communal freewill gift. The meal-offering will prove otherwise, for it comes by vow and freewill gift yet does not come as a communal freewill gift. No: if you said this of the meal-offering, which does not come as a freewill gift of two partners, will you say it of peace-offerings, which do come as a freewill gift of two partners? The bird burnt-offering will prove otherwise, for it comes as a freewill gift of two yet does not come as a communal freewill gift. No: if you said this of the bird burnt-offering, which does not come as a communal obligation, will you say it of peace-offerings, which do come as a communal obligation; since they come as a communal obligation, let them come as a communal freewill gift? Scripture teaches "it" - the individual brings peace-offerings as a freewill gift, and the community does not bring peace-offerings as a freewill gift.

"And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offerings, if he offer it of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish" (Leviticus 3:1). "Male" comes to include the offspring; "female" comes to include the substitute. Now is this not an argument from logic? If the substitute, which is not growth of the consecrated animal, is offered, then the offspring, which is growth of the consecrated animal, surely should be offered! One may refute this: what of the substitute, which applies to every kind of consecrated animal, while you cannot say the same of the offspring, which does not apply to every kind? Since it does not apply to every kind, perhaps it should not be offered. Therefore Scripture teaches "male" to include the offspring. "Female" comes to include the substitute. And is this not an argument from logic? If the offspring, which does not apply to every kind of consecrated animal, is offered, then the substitute, which applies to every kind, surely should be offered! One may refute this: what of the offspring, which is growth of the consecrated animal, while you cannot say the same of the substitute, which is not such growth? Therefore Scripture teaches "female" to include the substitute. I would know only the offspring of unblemished animals and the substitute of unblemished animals; whence the offspring of blemished animals and the substitute of blemished animals? When it says "and if a male" it includes the offspring of blemished animals, and "and if a female" it includes the substitute of blemished animals. For what legal purpose? Samuel said: that it be offered, following Rabbi Eliezer. You might have thought Rabbi Eliezer said this only of a burnt-offering, where the name of burnt-offering rests upon its mother, but these offspring are not offered; therefore it teaches us otherwise. Rav Pappa said: it is for pasturing, and according to all opinions. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: say rather that "male" includes the substitute. He said to him: it is reasonable that "offspring" carries a male sense and "substitute" carries a female sense. And this teacher derives it from here, as it was taught: "only your holy things" (Deuteronomy 12:26), these are the substitutes; "which you have," these are the offspring; "and your vows," this is the vow; "you shall take and come." I might hear that one brings them into the Chosen House and withholds from them water and food so that they die; therefore Scripture teaches "and you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood" (ibid.). Just as you act with a burnt-offering, so you act with its substitute; and just as you act with peace-offerings, so you act with the offspring of peace-offerings and the substitute of peace-offerings. I might think the offspring of every consecrated animal is treated so; therefore it teaches "only," the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: it is not needed, for it says "it is a guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:5), it is offered but its substitute is not offered. The master said: one brings them into the Chosen House and withholds water and food so they die; therefore Scripture teaches "and you shall offer." From where would such a notion come? It is a received tradition that five sin-offerings are left to die. You might have supposed that those five are put to death by hand, but these die only through deprivation, by hand no; therefore it teaches "and you shall offer." Whose offspring is meant? If of a burnt-offering, that is male and does not bear young; if of a sin-offering, it is a received law that it goes to death; if of a guilt-offering, it is a received law that it goes to pasture, for whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a guilt-offering pastures. Rather the verse is needed for the case where one transgressed and offered it, that he has fulfilled a positive command. Rabbi Akiva says it is not needed, for it says "it is a guilt-offering"; the verse serves the teaching of Rav Huna in the name of Rav: a guilt-offering set aside for pasture which he slaughtered without specification is valid as a burnt-offering. Set aside, yes; not set aside, no. What is the reason? The verse says "it," let it remain in its being. Rabbi Judah says: it says "your servant smote both the lion and the bear" (1 Samuel 17:36). I would know only lion and bear; whence to include a lion together with a bear and a bear together with a lion? Therefore Scripture teaches "your servant smote both the lion and the bear."

"And he shall lay his hand" (Leviticus 3:2), and not his son's hand, and not his servant's hand (this is written in hint 438). "His offering," and not the firstborn. For one might suppose, is this not an argument from logic? If peace-offerings, whose sanctity is not from the womb, require the laying on of hands, then the firstborn, whose sanctity is from the womb, surely should require the laying on of hands. But there is room to refute: what of peace-offerings, which require the laying on of hands and libations and the breast and the thigh? Now the proof from logic is merely a supporting allusion. Then why are the verses needed? "His offering," and not his fellow's offering; "his offering," and not a gentile's offering; "his offering," to include all owners of an offering for the laying on of hands. It was taught: an heir lays on hands, an heir makes a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: an heir does not lay on hands, an heir does not make a substitute. What is Rabbi Judah's reason? It is written "his offering," and not his father's offering, and he derives the start of consecration from the end of consecration: just as at the end an heir does not lay on hands, so at the start an heir does not make a substitute. And the Sages? "He shall surely exchange" (Leviticus 27:10) includes the heir, and they derive the end from the start: just as at the start an heir makes a substitute, so at the end an heir lays on hands. And the Sages, what do they do with "his offering"? "His offering," not a gentile's; "his offering," not his fellow's; "his offering," to include all owners of an offering for the laying on of hands. And Rabbi Judah, what does he do with "he shall surely exchange"? He needs it to include the woman, for it was taught: since the whole matter speaks only in the masculine, how in the end do we include the woman? Therefore it teaches "he shall surely exchange." And the Sages derive the woman from "and if," while Rabbi Judah does not expound "and if." "His offering, his offering, his offering" includes all owners of an offering. And is this not an argument from logic? If the wave-offering, which applies to living and slaughtered animals, is diminished when partners join, then the laying on of hands, which applies only to living animals, surely should be diminished with partners; therefore Scripture teaches "his offering, his offering, his offering" to include all owners of an offering. "His offering," and not the firstborn; for is this not logic? If peace-offerings, whose sanctity is not from the womb, require hands, then the firstborn, whose sanctity is from the womb, surely should; therefore it teaches "his offering," and not the firstborn. "His offering," and not the tithe of animals; for if peace-offerings, which are not in the category of "stand and bring," require hands, then the tithe, which is in the category of "stand and bring," surely should; therefore it teaches "his offering," and not the tithe. "His offering," and not the Passover-offering; for if peace-offerings, upon which Scripture has not heaped extra commands, require hands, then the Passover-offering, upon which Scripture has heaped extra commands, surely should; therefore it teaches "his offering," and not the Passover-offering.

"And he shall slaughter it" (Leviticus 3:2), "and he shall slaughter it" (verse 8), "and he shall slaughter it" (verse 13). What does Scripture teach? Since it is said "when the place is far from you, then you shall slaughter" (Deuteronomy 12:21), at a distant place you slaughter ordinary food, and you do not slaughter at a near place; this excludes ordinary animals, that they not be slaughtered in the courtyard. I would know only that unblemished animals fit to be offered are excluded; whence to include blemished animals? I include blemished animals, since they are of a kind fit to be offered. Whence to include a wild animal? I include the wild animal, since it is slaughtered like a domestic beast. Whence to include birds? Therefore Scripture teaches "and he shall slaughter it," "and he shall slaughter it," "and he shall slaughter it." One might think one may not eat it but may feed it to a dog; therefore it teaches "it" (Exodus 22:30): that you may cast to the dog, but you may not cast to the dog ordinary food slaughtered in the courtyard. "And he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Leviticus 3:2), "before the Tent of Meeting" (verses 8, 13), to render fit all directions for offerings of lesser holiness, and all the more the north. For if offerings of highest holiness, which were not made fit in all directions, were made fit in the north, then offerings of lesser holiness, which were made fit in all directions, surely should be made fit in the north. Rabbi Eleazar says: the verse comes only to render the north fit by a fortiori argument: if offerings of lesser holiness, made fit in all directions, were not made fit in the place beside offerings of highest holiness, then offerings of highest holiness, made fit only in the north, surely should not be made fit in the place beside offerings of lesser holiness; therefore Scripture teaches "and he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." Wherein do they differ? The Sages hold three verses are written: one for the body of the tent, that one make an entrance of the Tent of Meeting; one to render the north fit; and one to render the sides fit. The sides of the sides need no verse. Why does it write here "the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" and there "and he shall slaughter it before the Tent of Meeting"? As Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: peace-offerings slaughtered before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened are invalid, as it says "and he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting," when it is open and not when it is shut; and so in the Tabernacle, before the Levites set up the Tabernacle, and after they dismantled it, they are invalid. Rabbi Yochanan said: peace-offerings slaughtered within the Sanctuary itself are valid, as it says "at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting," and the subordinate place should not be stricter than the principal. They objected: Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says, whence that if gentiles surrounded the whole courtyard, the priests may enter the Sanctuary and eat there offerings of highest holiness and the remnants of meal-offerings? Scripture teaches "in the most holy place you shall eat it." And why not say here too "in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it," and the subordinate should not be stricter than the principal? It is not so: there it is service, and service performed in the master's place we say the subordinate should not be stricter than the principal; but eating, since a person does not eat in his master's presence, the verse's reason applies, and otherwise we would not say the subordinate should not be stricter than the principal.

There we learned: an alleyway higher than twenty cubits, one must lower it. Rabbi Judah says: it is not necessary. And both expounded a single verse: "and he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Leviticus 3:2). The Sages hold the sanctity of the Sanctuary is one thing and the sanctity of the vestibule is another; and Rabbi Judah holds the Sanctuary and the vestibule are a single sanctity. And when it writes "the entrance of the Tent of Meeting," it is written about both of them. But when it is written, this is written about the Tabernacle! We find that the Tabernacle is called a sanctuary and the sanctuary is called a Tabernacle. For if you do not say so, that which Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel, that peace-offerings slaughtered before the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary are invalid, since it says "and he shall slaughter it at the entrance," at the time it is open and not at the time it is shut, but that verse is written about the Tabernacle! Rather, the sanctuary is called a Tabernacle.

"And he shall offer of the sacrifice" (Leviticus 3:3-4), even though he slaughtered them not for their own sake, the peace-offerings; even though he did not lay hands upon them. "An offering made by fire to the LORD": for the sake of fire-offerings, for the sake of the One who spoke and the world came into being. From here they said: for the sake of six things the sacrifice is offered. For the sake of the sacrifice, for the sake of the one offering, for the sake of the Name, for the sake of the fire-offering, for the sake of the aroma, for the sake of the pleasing savor; and the sin-offering and the guilt-offering for the sake of the sin-offering. Rabbi Yose said: one who had in his heart none of all these, it is valid, for it is a stipulation of the court, since the thought follows only after the one performing the service.

"The fat that covers the innards" (Leviticus 3:3): what does Scripture teach? Since it is said "all fat is the LORD's" (verse 16), "all fat and all blood you shall not eat," "for whoever eats fat shall be cut off" (Leviticus 7:25), one might think even the fat of the flanks is included; therefore it teaches "the fat that covers the innards." One might think it is not in the category of punishment but is in the category of prohibition; therefore it teaches "the fat that covers the innards." I would exclude the fat of consecrated animals but not exclude the fat of ordinary animals; therefore it teaches "the fat that covers the innards." One might think it is not in the category of punishment but is in the category of prohibition; therefore it teaches "the fat that covers the innards." I would exclude all of them but not exclude the fat of a fetus that covers its innards; therefore it teaches "fat and the two kidneys." One might think it is not in the category of punishment but is in the category of prohibition; therefore it teaches "fat and the two kidneys." One might think it is not in the category of prohibition but must still be offered; therefore it teaches "the fat of the two kidneys" (Leviticus 7:4). In the case of the guilt-offering, there is no need for Scripture to teach this, for it is a fortiori argument: if peace-offerings, not every kind of which requires the fat-tail, require the fat and the two kidneys, then the guilt-offering, every kind of which requires the fat-tail, surely should require the fat and the two kidneys. If so, why is "the fat of the two kidneys" stated regarding the guilt-offering? To learn from it, to tell you: just as the fat and the two kidneys stated regarding the guilt-offering exclude the fetus from the category, so the fat and the two kidneys stated here exclude the fetus from the category.

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachman said in the name of Rav Hoshaya: the fat upon the stomach, the priests treat it as permitted, following Rabbi Ishmael, who said it in the name of his forefathers. And your sign is: "a priest supports priests." What is "a priest supports priests"? As it was taught, "thus shall you bless the children of Israel," and so on. "Who said it in the name of his forefathers," what is this? As it was taught: "and all the fat that is upon the innards" comes to bring in the fat upon the small intestines, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: it comes to bring in the fat upon the stomach. And they raised a contradiction: "and all the fat," Rabbi Ishmael says, just as the fat covering the innards is membrane and peels off, so all that is membrane and peels off; Rabbi Akiva says, just as the fat covering the innards is a spread-out membrane and peels off, so all that is a spread-out membrane and peels off. Rava sent in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: thus is the arrangement of the Mishnah, and reverse the first statement. And what did you see to reverse the first and not reverse the latter? Here it is different, since it teaches "just as," it teaches it precisely. If so, it is according to Rabbi Ishmael; rather it is according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak said: he said it in the name of his forefathers, though he himself does not hold this view.

Rav Achadboi bar Ami asked: is a missing internal organ counted as a missing limb, or is a missing internal organ not counted as a missing limb? With regard to slaughtering it and redeeming it, we do not ask; where we do ask is with regard to disqualifying it: what is the law? "It shall be perfect to be accepted" (Leviticus 22:21), the Merciful One said "perfect" for the altar, perfect yes, lacking no; or perhaps "it shall be perfect to be accepted, no blemish shall be in it": just as a blemish is external, so a lack must be external. Come and hear: "and the two kidneys," and not one that has a single kidney, and not one that has three kidneys; and it was taught elsewhere: "he shall remove it," to include one that has a single kidney. They supposed that all hold there is no creature created with one kidney, since that would be a missing organ. Is it not that they differ in this, that one holds a lack within is called a lack and the other holds it is not called a lack? No. All hold there is a creature created with one kidney, and a lack within is called a lack, and there is no difficulty: here, where it was created with two and they were lost; there, where it was created with one from the start. And this is comparable to the three the teaching speaks of: just as three is from the start, so one is from the start. Rather, they differ over whether there is a creature created with one: one master holds there is a creature created with one, and the other holds there is not. And Rabbi Yochanan said: all hold there is no creature created with one, and a lack within is called a lack; rather, here, where they were lost before the receiving of the blood; there, where they were lost after the receiving of the blood. And after receiving, before the sprinkling of the blood, it is permitted? But it was taught: "a lamb perfect, a male, in its first year" (Exodus 12:5), that it be perfect and in its first year at the time of slaughter; and whence at the receiving, the carrying, and the sprinkling? Scripture teaches "it shall be," that all its states be perfect and in its first year. Interpret it regarding being in its first year. So too it is reasonable, for it was taught: Rabbi Joshua says, all the sacrifices in the Torah from which an olive's bulk of flesh or an olive's bulk of fat remained, one sprinkles the blood. Learn from this. And is there anything that at the time of slaughter is in its first year and at the receiving, carrying, and sprinkling is in its second year? Rava said: this tells us that hours disqualify in consecrated animals.

"And the fat that is upon them" (Leviticus 3:4) and not the flesh that is upon them; "which is upon the flanks" - this is the fat upon the soft membrane, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: this comes to include the fat upon the rump. "And the lobe upon the liver" (Leviticus 3:4) - the matter is balanced: shall he take from the lobe along with the liver, or from the liver along with the lobe? When it says, "And the lobe from the liver, from the sin-offering, he turned to smoke upon the altar" (Leviticus 9:10), this teaches that he takes from the lobe along with part of the liver and not from the liver along with the lobe. He removes the lobe even though there are no kidneys; he removes the kidneys even though there is no lobe; he removes it even if there is only one kidney. "And they shall turn it to smoke" (Leviticus 3:5); "and he shall turn it to smoke"; "and he shall turn them to smoke" (Leviticus 3:16). What does "and they shall turn it to smoke" teach? That it must be fit and not unfit. "And he shall turn it to smoke" - that he shall not mix the fats of one offering with the fats of another. "And he shall turn them to smoke" - all of them as one. Here it says "a fire-offering" but not "bread," and below it says "bread" (Leviticus 3:11) but not "a pleasing aroma," and below it says "a pleasing aroma" but not "to the LORD." From where do we apply what is said of all of them to each one? Scripture says "a fire-offering," "a fire-offering," for a verbal analogy [gezeira shava - the repeated term links the verses]. "Peace-offerings from the flock" (Leviticus 3:6-7): what does Scripture teach by also saying "peace-offerings from the herd" (Leviticus 3:1)? Because there is in the herd-animal what is not in the flock-animal, and in the flock-animal what is not in the herd-animal. The flock-animal is lessened regarding libations; the flock-animal is increased regarding the public; and the herd-animal is lessened regarding the public. So because there is in the herd-animal what is not in the flock-animal, and in the flock-animal what is not in the herd-animal, Scripture must say "peace-offerings from the herd" and must say "peace-offerings from the flock." Our Rabbis taught: a Passover-offering in its proper time, offered for its own sake, is fit; not for its own sake, it is unfit. And during the rest of the days of the year, for its own sake it is unfit; not for its own sake it is fit. From where are these matters? The father of Samuel said: Scripture says, "And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings is from the flock" (Leviticus 3:6) - a thing that comes from the flock shall be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. And from where do we know this is written about the surplus of the Passover-offering? Perhaps it is written about the surplus of the guilt-offering. Rava said: Scripture says "from the flock" - a thing common to all of the flock. [And it is asked:] everywhere "from" comes to exclude, yet here "from" comes to include? Rabbi Mani said: here too "from" comes to exclude - that it is not two years old and not a female. And can you say so, that when this was written it was written about the surplus of the Passover-offering? Since it is written "if a lamb" (Leviticus 3:7) and "and if a goat" (Leviticus 3:12), it is not written about the surplus of the Passover-offering. That verse is needed for what was taught: "lamb" comes to include the Passover-offering as to its fat tail; when it says "if a lamb," this comes to bring the Passover-offering whose year has passed, and the peace-offerings that come on account of the Passover-offering, to all the commandments of peace-offerings - that they require laying-on of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh. When it says "and if a goat," it interrupted the matter, teaching about the goat that it does not require a fat tail. But does this matter come from here? It comes from the teaching of the father of Samuel, "and if his offering is from the flock" - a thing that comes from the flock shall be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. And still, does it not come from Rav? From where that the surplus of the Passover-offering is offered as peace-offerings? As it says, "And you shall slaughter the Passover-offering to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd" (Deuteronomy 16:2) - yet surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs and goats; from here, that the surplus of the Passover-offering shall be for a thing that comes from the flock and from the herd, and what is that? Peace-offerings. Rather, three verses are written: one for where its time has passed and its year has passed; one for where its time has passed but its year has not passed; and one for where neither its time nor its year has passed. And they are all necessary. For if the Merciful One had written only one, I would have said: where its time and its year have passed, since it is wholly rejected from being a Passover-offering, it becomes peace-offerings; but where its time has passed and not its year, since it is still fit to be a Passover-offering, say it does not. And if the Merciful One had written these two, I would have said it is because they were rejected from their function; but where neither its time nor its year has passed, since it is fit to be a Passover-offering, say it does not. Therefore Scripture teaches us all three.

"Male or female" (Leviticus 3:1) - a definite male and a definite female, and not one of indeterminate sex nor an androgyne. But could this not be derived by logic? If the burnt-offering, which is fit to come from a bird, is not fit to come from an indeterminate or androgynous animal, then peace-offerings, which are not fit to come from a bird, surely should not be fit to come from an indeterminate or androgynous animal. No: if you have said this of the burnt-offering, which is not fit to come as a female like a male, will you say it of peace-offerings, which are fit to come as a female like a male? Let the sin-offering prove the point, for it is fit to come as a female like a male, and yet is not fit to come from an indeterminate or androgynous animal. No: if you have said this of the sin-offering, which is not fit to come from every kind of male and every kind of female, will you say it of peace-offerings, which are fit to come from every kind of male and every kind of female? Let the tithe prove the point, for it is fit to come from every kind of male and every kind of female, and yet is not fit to come from an indeterminate or androgynous animal. No: if you have said this of the tithe, which is one out of ten, will you say it of peace-offerings, which are one out of one? Since the peace-offering is one out of one, perhaps an indeterminate or androgynous animal should be fit to come. Therefore Scripture says "male or female" - a definite male, a definite female, and not an indeterminate or androgynous animal. "A lamb" - why is it said? "A lamb" comes to include the Passover-offering as to its fat tail. When it says "if a lamb," it comes to include the Passover-offering whose year has passed, and the peace-offerings that come on account of the Passover-offering, with all the commandments of peace-offerings - that they require laying-on of hands, libations, and the waving of breast and thigh. But they may be eaten only for a day and a night, like the rule of their original consecration. Ben Azzai says: they may be eaten only at night, and may be eaten only roasted (this is written in Remez 499).

"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).

"And if his offering is a goat" (Leviticus 3:12-15) - it interrupted the matter, so that the goat would not require a fat tail. "And he shall offer from it" - from that which is still attached. "His offering, a fire-offering to the LORD, the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is upon the entrails" - what does this teach? That one might think it is lessened from all of them. And it is a logical argument: just as we find with the flock-animal, which was increased regarding the fat tail and increased regarding all of them, but the goat, which is lessened regarding the fat tail - since it is lessened regarding the fat tail, it should be lessened from all of them. Let the herd-animal prove the point, for it is lessened regarding the fat tail and yet increased regarding all of them. No: if you have said this of the herd-animal, which is increased regarding libations, will you say it of the goat, which is lessened regarding libations? Since it is lessened regarding libations, it should be lessened from all of them. Therefore Scripture says "the fat that covers the entrails" - to include all of them. "And the priest shall turn them to smoke" (Leviticus 3:16) - all of them as one. "Bread, a fire-offering for a pleasing aroma; all fat is the LORD's" - to make one liable for misappropriating the fat. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: from the general statement, where it is said, "But the firstling of an ox or the firstling of a lamb or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy; their blood you shall dash upon the altar and their fat you shall turn to smoke" (Numbers 18:17), we have learned of the firstborn that it requires the placing of blood upon the altar. From where do we learn this for the tithe and the Passover-offering? Scripture says, "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 12:27). I have only the blood; from where the fats? Scripture says "all fat is the LORD's." "An eternal statute" (Leviticus 3:17) - for the everlasting House. "Throughout your generations" - that they shall practice the matter through the generations. "In all your dwellings" - in the Land and outside the Land.