레위기 3:1의 미드라쉬

(Lev. 9:1:) AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY…. This text is related (to Eccl. 8:5): WHOEVER OBSERVES A COMMANDMENT SHALL NOT KNOW ANYTHING EVIL. Who is this?¹Tanh., Lev. 3:1; cf. above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:4. Aaron, of whom it is said (in Lev. 8:33, 35): AND YOU (i.e., you and your sons) SHALL NOT GO OUT FROM THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING FOR SEVEN DAYS < …. > AND YOU SHALL REMAIN AT THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING DAY AND NIGHT FOR SEVEN DAYS. Moses said to them: Observe mourning for seven days. (Ibid., cont.:) AND YOU SHALL OBSERVE THE CHARGE OF THE LORD. Moses said to them: Observe THE CHARGE OF THE LORD, for so did the Holy One observe seven days of mourning before he brought the flood. Where is it shown that he mourned? Where it is stated (in Gen. 6:6): THEN THE LORD REGRETTED THAT HE HAD MADE HUMANITY ON THE EARTH, [AND HE WAS GRIEVING IN HIS HEART]. HE WAS GRIEVING can only mean "he mourned," for so it says concerning David (in II Sam. 19:3): AND THE VICTORY [ON THAT DAY] WAS TURNED INTO MOURNING FOR ALL THE PEOPLE BECAUSE [ON THAT DAY THEY HEARD IT BEING SAID:] THE KING WAS GRIEVING OVER HIS SON.²Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:4; Gen. R. 27:4. So also Ezra said to Israel, when they were weeping, each one for his brother and each one for his child (in Neh. 8:10): GO, EAT CHOICE FOODS AND DRINK SWEET DRINKS…. DO NOT BE GRIEVING, FOR THE JOY OF THE LORD IS YOUR STRENGTH. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 6:6): AND HE WAS GRIEVING IN HIS HEART. At that time the Holy One observed the seven days of mourning, before he brought the flood. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 7:10): AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER SEVEN DAYS [THAT THE WATERS OF THE FLOOD CAME UPON THE EARTH]. And so Moses was saying to Aaron the Priest and to his sons: Just as the Holy One mourned over his world before he brought the flood, so < you are to > observe the < required > mourning before he touches (i.e., harms) you. So they observed < the mourning >, but they did not know for what reason they were observing it. Why? (Eccl. 8:5:) WHOEVER OBSERVES A COMMANDMENT SHALL NOT KNOW ANYTHING EVIL; AND A WISE HEART SHALL KNOW < THERE IS > A TIME OF JUDGMENT.

1) (Vayikra 3:1): "And if a sacrifice of peace-offerings (shelamim) is his offering": R. Yehudah says: Whoever brings shelamim brings shalom (peace) to the world. This tells me only of shelamim. Whence do I derive a thanksgiving offering (as bringing peace)? I include it, for it is a variety of shelamim (see Vayikra 7:11-12). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? In include it, for it is brought (in fulfillment of) a vow and (as) a gift. And whence do I derive (offerings of) the first-born, the tithe, and the pesach? I include them (as bringing peace), for they are not brought for sin. And whence do I derive a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? From (the extra) "sacrifice." And whence do I derive (offerings of) fowl, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense and wood? From (the extra) "his offering" — so that all who bring an offering bring peace to the world.

1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock.

2) An additional nuance: (Why are they called) "shelamim"? For all are "at peace" with them: the blood and the devoted portions are for the altar, the breast and the thigh for the Cohanim, the skin and the flesh for the owners.

3) R. Shimon says: One who is whole ("shalem" in his mind) brings shelamim; a mourner does not bring shelamim. This tells me only of shelamim, which are (offerings) of joy. Whence do I derive (the same for) a thanksgiving offering? I include it, for it is brought as a shelamim (offering). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? I include it, for it comes as vow and gift. And whence do I derive first-born, and tithe, and pesach? I include them, for they do not come for (atonement of) sin. And whence do I derive sin-offering and guilt-offering? From "sacrifice." And whence do I derive fowl, meal-offering, wine, frankincense, and wood? From "his offering." So that with all offerings — If he is "shalem," he brings them; if he is a mourner, he does not bring them.

4) (Vayikra 3:1): ("if he offers it from the) herd": to include (as a shelamim offering) the eleventh (in the process of tithing, where he erroneously called the eleventh the tenth); "the herd": to exclude the ninth (as a substitute for the tenth). Why do you see fit to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After Scripture excludes, it includes. From when is hekdesh (i.e., that which is consecrated) susceptible of a "substitute"? Before or after (consecration)? Certainly, after. Therefore, I include (as a substitute) the eleventh, which follows the (naturally) consecrated (tenth), and I exclude the ninth, which precedes it.

5) ("if) he (offers it"): "he": The individual brings shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. For (if not for the exclusion) does it not follow (that the congregation, too, could bring shelamim as a gift-offering), viz.: A beast burnt-offering comes as gift or vow, and shelamim come as gift or vow. Just as a beast burnt-offering which comes as gift or vow can come as a congregational gift-offering, so, shelamim, which come as gift or vow can come as a congregational gift-offering.

5) ("If) he (offers"): The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. If you would ask: But have they (the congregation) not already been excluded by (Vayikra 3:1): "if from the cattle he offers"? (This is no objection,) for I might think that the congregation does not bring shelamim from cattle as a gift-offering because they do not bring their like as a mandatory offering, and that they could bring shelamim from the flock as a gift-offering, because they do bring their like as a mandatory offering (i.e., the Atzereth lambs). It is, therefore, written (here) "he" — The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.

6) This is refuted by the meal-offering, which comes as (individual) gift or vow, but not as a communal gift-offering. — No, this may be so of a meal-offering because it does not come as a gift of two, as opposed to shelamim, which can come as a gift of two. — This is refuted by a burnt-offering of fowl, which can come as a gift of two, but not as a communal gift-offering.

7) — No, this may be so with a burnt-offering of fowl because it does not come as a mandatory communal offering, as opposed to a shelamim, which does come as a mandatory communal offering (the Atzereth lambs, which come with the two loaves). And since they come as a mandatory communal offering, they should likewise come as a communal gift-offering; it is, therefore, written: "he" — the individual brings shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.

8) ("whether) male (or female"): "male" — to include the offspring (of a shelamim [to be offered] as a shelamim); "female" — to include the substitute (temurah, of a shelamim as a shelamim). "male" — to include the offspring. (Why the inclusion clause?) Does it not follow (by kal vachomer that the offspring is offered?) viz.: If a substitute, which does not come from a consecrated animal, is kasher as an offering, how much more so the offspring of a consecrated animal itself! — No, it may be that this is so with a substitute, which obtains with all offerings, but not with offspring, which does not obtain with all offerings, (burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings being male). And since it does not (we would say that) it may not be offered; it is, therefore, written: "male," to include offspring.

9) "female" — to include a substitute. (Why the exclusion clause?) Does it not follow (by kal vachomer that a substitute may be offered?) viz.: If offspring, which do not obtain with all offerings, may be offered — a substitute, which does obtain with all offerings, how much more so should it be kasher as an offering (in this instance)! — No, this may be so with offspring, which come from a consecrated animal, but not with a substitute, which does not. And since it does not, (we would say that) it may not be offered; it is, therefore, written: "female," to include a substitute.

10) This tells me only of (offering) offspring and substitutes of whole animals. Whence do I derive the same for the offspring and substitutes of blemished animals? From "whether male" — to include the offspring of blemished animals; "whether female" — to include the substitutes of blemished animals. Which are considered blemished animals (in this connection)? Those whose consecration preceded their blemish (and which gave birth before they were redeemed). But if their blemish preceded their consecration and they were redeemed, they have the status of property consecration (and not body consecration; their offspring are permitted for mundane purposes, and they are not susceptible of a "substitute"). R. Yehudah says: (Similarly,) it is written (I Samuel 17:36): "Also the lion, also the bear, did your servant smite." This tells me only of the lion and the bear. Whence do I derive (that he smote) their whelps, too? From "also the lion, also the bear, did your servant smite."