Midrash su Levitico 19:7
וְאִ֛ם הֵאָכֹ֥ל יֵאָכֵ֖ל בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֑י פִּגּ֥וּל ה֖וּא לֹ֥א יֵרָצֶֽה׃
E se viene mangiato del tutto il terzo giorno, è una cosa vile; non deve essere accettato.
Sifra
2) — Now if (piggul) thought invalidates outside of its prescribed time, which (invalidation) obtains in a bamah (a temporary altar), should it also invalidate outside of its prescribed bound, which (invalidation) does not obtain in a bamah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:7): "And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected (piggul); it shall not be accepted." Let this not be stated, (for it is already written here). If it is not needed for (piggul invalidation) outside of its time, learn it as applying to (piggul invalidation) outside of its place. I might think that it (piggul thought outside of its place) entails kareth liability); it is, therefore, written in respect to peace-offerings (Vayikra 7:18) ("And the soul that eats of it) shall bear its sin" — Outside of its time entails kareth, and not outside of its place. I might think that even one who slaughters for gentiles or for those who are tamei (to eat it or to offer up the devoted portions) should come under (Vayikra 7:18) "It shall not be accepted"; it is, therefore, written ("It shall not be accepted; he that offers) it." It (burning the devoted portions after they have become invalidated by piggul thought) comes under the interdict, but not slaughtering for gentiles or for those who are tamei.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
2) (Vayikra 20:7) "And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy": This is the holiness of separation from idolatry. You say that it is the holiness of separation from idolatry, but perhaps it is the holiness of (performing) all of the mitzvoth! — "Holy shall you be" (Vayikra 19:2) already speaks of the holiness of all the mitzvoth. "And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy," then, must refer to the holiness of separation from idolatry. (Vayikra 19:7) "For I am the L–rd your G d": I am the Judge, exacting (punishment) and trusted to reward.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifra
3) I might think that one is in violation of "It shall not be accepted" only (for an offering) that was slaughtered outside of its time and place. Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such (— Whence is it derived for all of these that if one transgressed and sacrificed them he receives stripes by reason of "It shall not be accepted")? From (the redundant) "it shall not be accepted" and "it shall not be reckoned." I might think that these entail kareth liability. It is, therefore, written ("He that offers) it." He (one who thinks to eat it outside of its time) and its eaters are subject to kareth, and not the others.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy