Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:24
וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְק֛וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
Und lege seine Hand auf den Kopf des Bockes und schlachte ihn an dem Orte, wo man das Ganzopfer schlachtet vor dem Herrn; ein Sühnopfer ist es.
Sifra
6) (Vayikra 4:24): ("It is a) sin-offering": All of its services must be intended for a "sin-offering." "It (is a sin-offering"): to exclude (from kashruth) an animal that is not slaughtered as such.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
10) "And he slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered." Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north. This, too, is slaughtered in the north. But do I derive this from here? Is it not already written (Vayikra 6:18): "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd"? Why, then, is this specified here? To make it categorical — that if it were not slaughtered in the north, it is pasul.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
13) "sin-offering": All of its services must be intended for a sin-offering. "It": to exclude its being slaughtered without intent (for a sin-offering).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael
(Exodus 20:21) "And you shall slaughter thereon": alongside it (i.e., alongside the top). You say "alongside it, but perhaps it is to be understood literally, i.e., "upon it"? And this would follow, viz.: If the north of the altar, which is not kasher for atonement (i.e., for the sprinkling of the blood [viz. Leviticus 1:5]), is kasher for slaughtering, then the top of the altar, which is kasher for atonement, how much more so should it be kasher for slaughtering! This (a fortiori argument) is refuted by the inner altar, which, though it is kasher for atonement, (the blood of the bullocks for burning being sprinkling upon it) is not kasher for slaughtering, (which is to be performed at the entrance of the tent of meeting.) And this would indicate of the outer altar that though it is kasher for atonement, is not kasher for slaughtering. __ No, this may be true of the inner altar, which does not render (a leper) kasher (to eat of the offerings) and does not render (an offering) permitted (to be eaten), and does not consummate the atonement, (for after the blood was sprinkled on the inner altar, the remnant had to be spilled on the outer altar) — wherefore it is not kasher for slaughtering. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12;27) "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood — upon the altar': "the flesh and the blood upon (i.e., on top of) the altar," and not slaughtering on top of the altar, (but alongside it). R. Assi says: Slaughtering also is on top of the altar. And Scripture supports him, viz. "An altar of earth shall you make for Me and you shall slaughter therein, etc." One verse states "your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings," and, another "And you shall offer your burnt-offerings — the flesh and the blood, etc." How are these two verses to be reconciled? R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: From half the altar northwards is regarded as north, and from half the altar southwards is regarded as south. And this tells me only that the north of the altar is kasher for slaughtering. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the north of the azarah (the Temple court)? From (Leviticus 14:13) "And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he shall slaughter the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place." Let this not be written. (Why is it written?) To render kasher the entire northern side (of the azarah)? "And you shall slaughter therein your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This tells me only of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings/ This tells me (that it is permitted to slaughter on the altar only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) all offerings? From (Ibid. 20:21) "your sheep and your cattle." __ But this would imply that he could slaughter there both offerings and non-offerings! Would you say that? What is the context? That of offerings (and not of non-offerings).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy