레위기 3:2의 미드라쉬

1) (Vayikra 3:2): ["vesamach" ("and he shall place") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim] "And he shall place his hand" — not the hand of his bondsman; "his hand" — not the hand of his messenger; "his hand" — not the hand of his wife. "his hand on the head" — not on the back; "his hand on the head" — not on the throat; "his hand on the head" — not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written "on the head" — and not on the breast.

2) "korbano" ("his offering") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.

(Lev. 9:1:) AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY…. This text is related (to Ps. 75:5 [4]): I SAY TO THE MERRYMAKERS: DO NOT MAKE MERRY….⁴On this translation, See Jastrow, p. 373, s.v., WYNY’. What is the meaning of < the words >, I SAY TO THE MERRYMAKERS (rt.: HLL): DO NOT MAKE MERRY (THWLW, rt.: HLL)?⁵This root can also mean “act with abandon” and is to be taken in that sense here. So also in the parallel, Tanh., Lev. 3:2. For another interpretation of the word, see Lev. R. 20:2. < The verse refers > to whoever sings in a Mahanaim dance (MHWLH),⁶As in Cant. 7:1 [6:13]. In comparing THWLW and MHWLH, the midrash assumes that both words come from the root HLL and ignores the fact that in the first case the H is a he while in the second case the H is a het. And so it says (in Jud. 21:21): TO DANCE (LHWL) IN THE DANCES.

3) "his offering," and not the offering of another; "his offering," and not the offering of a gentile; "his offering," and not the offering of his (deceased) father. These are the words of R. Yehudah, who says that an heir does not perform semichah.

Our Rabbis were taught: Four [depressive] cries did the Temple court utter: First, "Go forth from here ye sons of Eli who have defiled the Temple of God." The second cry the Temple court uttered, "Go forth from here Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, who honors himself but desecrated the holiness of God." What did he do? He used to wrap silk around his hands and perform the divine service. Again the Temple court cried: "Raise your heads, O ye gates and let Ishmael b. Piachi, disciple of Phineas, enter and serve as High-priest." Another cry the Temple court uttered: "Raise your heads, O ye gates, and let Jochanan, the son of Narbai, the disciple of Phinkai, enter and let him fill his stomach with the sacerdotal food of God." It is related of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, that he would consume three hundred calves in his meal, drink three hundred jars of wine, and devour forty Se'ahs of young pigeons as a dessert for his meal. It was related that never during the life of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, was any part [of the sacerdotal] meat left over. What was the end of Issachar, he of the village of Barkai? It is related that at one time the king and the queen had a dispute as to which meat was better; the king said that the meat of a kid is better and the queen said the meat of a sheep. So it was suggested that a decision should be given by the High-priest, who ought to know because of the sacrifices [of every kind] made every day. Thereupon he appeared before them. "If a kid were the best," said he, waving his hand, "it would be used for the daily sacrifices, [and not lambs which are to be used]." So the king said: "Because he showed no respect for the throne [in waving his hand so freely] his right hand shall be cut off." Isaachar, having bribed the executioner, had his left hand taken off, instead. When the king became aware of this, he ordered that the right hand be cut off also [thus Issachar lost both hands]. "Blessed be the Lord," remarked R. Joseph, "who caused Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, to receive his due recompense in this world." R. Ashi said: "Issachar, he of the village Barkai, never learned our Mishnah, for we are taught that R. Simon says: 'Lamb sacrifices are always preferable to other sacrifices of kids.' One might say so because lamb meat is better; therefore, after the kid offering is mentioned it is added (Lev. 4, 33) And if a lamb, etc. From this we infer that they are equal in taste." Rabina said: "He did not even read the Scripture, where it is written (Ib. 3, 2) If a sheep or a kid is his offering, i.e., if he wants to bring a lamb, he may do so; and if he wants to bring a kid he may do so."

4) "his offering" — not a bechor (first-born). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that a bechor should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, which are not consecrated from the womb, require semichah — a bechor, which is consecrated from the womb — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — not a bechor.

5) "his offering" — not ma'aser (the tithe). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that ma'aser should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, which are not required to be brought, require semichah — ma'aser, which is required to be brought — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "his offering" — not ma'aser.

6) "his offering" — not a pesach (offering). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that the pesach offering should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, for which Scripture did not add numerous mitzvoth, require semichah — the pesach, for which Scripture did add numerous mitzvoth — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written: "his offering" — not the pesach.

7) "and he shall slaughter it" "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:8), "and he shall slaughter it" (Vayikra 3:13): Why three times? Because it is written (Devarim 12:21): "If the place be distant from you in which the L–rd your G d shall choose to place His name, (and you will not be able to come and bring peace-offerings every day, as you can now that the mishkan travels with you), then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock … and you shall eat in your gates with all the desire of your soul" — At a distance from the place (i.e., the Temple), you may slaughter (and eat), and not in proximity to the place — to exclude chullin (a non-consecrated animal) from being slaughtered in the azarah.

8) This tells me only of unblemished animals, which are kasher for sacrifice (as being excluded from "mundane" slaughter in the azarah). Whence do I derive the same for blemished animals? I include them (in the exclusion) because they are of the variety of animals that are kasher (for sacrifice). And whence do I derive the same for animals, (which are not kasher for sacrifice [as opposed to beasts])? (I include them) because shechitah obtains with them as it does with beasts. And whence do I derive the same for birds, (for which the severing of only one shechitah sign is sufficient)? From the triple repetition of "and he shall slaughter it."

9) I might think that he may not slaughter it (in the azarah), but that if he does, he may eat it; it is, therefore, written: "If the place be distant from you … then you shall slaughter … and you shall eat." What you slaughter at a distance you may eat, and not what you slaughter in proximity (to the Temple) — to exclude (from eating) chullin that were slaughtered in the azarah.

10) I might think that he may not eat it but that he may feed it to a dog; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 22:30): "To the dog shall you throw it" — You shall throw it (treifah) to the dog, but not chullin which was slaughtered in the azarah.

11) (Vayikra 3:2): "at the door of the tent of meeting," "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:8), "before the tent of meeting" (Vayikra 3:13) — to permit all the sides (of the azarah as slaughtering sites). It goes without saying that the north side (is permitted), viz.: If the other sides, which were not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, were permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings — the north side, which was permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, how much more so should it be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! R. Eliezer says: "before the tent of meeting" — to permit the north side.

12) For (without the permitting clause), does it not follow (that it should be forbidden?), viz.: If the slaughtering sites of shelamim, which may be slaughtered on all sides, are not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, then the slaughtering site of a burnt-offering, which may be slaughtered only in the north — how much more so should it not be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "before the tent of meeting," to permit (slaughtering of lower-order offerings in) the north.

13) "and Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of the bullock of the sin-offering.": We find that Aaron and his sons perform semichah (the placing of the hands) on all of their offerings. But because they do so because they are their offerings, the offerings of partners are compared to their offerings, viz.: Just as their offerings require semichah for each of the participants, so the offerings of partners require semichah for each partner.

(Bamidbar 6:18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting": Scripture here speaks of peace-offerings (i.e., that the Nazirite shaves after the sacrifice of the peace-offerings), it being written of them (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting." You say this, but perhaps the verse is to be taken literally, (i.e., that he shaves at the door of the tent of meeting. If you say this, this is demeaning. Scripture states (Shemot 20:23): "Do not go up by steps, (but by a smooth ramp) upon My altar, so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it (by your having to take relatively long strides) — how much more so should he not shave (at the door of the tent of meeting)! What, then, is the intent of "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting"? Scripture refers here to the sacrifice of the peace-offerings (as above). R. Yitzchak says: Scripture speaks of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. You say this? Perhaps it refers to (shaving at) the door of the tent of meeting, literally. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism, etc." In the place (the room) where he cooks it (the peace-offerings), there shall he shave. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting." If the door was not open, he would not shave. "and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism and he shall place it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." This tells me only of the peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (that he can do the same) under the sin-offering and under the guilt-offering? From "under the sacrifice" — in any event. This tells me only of (his shaving his hair in) the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for (his doing so) outside it? From "and he shall place it on the fire" — in any event.

(Bamidbar 10:8) "And the sons of Aaron the Cohanim shall blow on the trumpets": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 3) "And they shall blow with them," I would think that Israelites, too, may do so; it is, therefore, written "the sons of Aaron." "the Cohanim": whether whole or blemished. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: whole, not blemished, viz.: It is written here "Cohanim," and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 3:2) "Cohanim." Just as there, whole, not blemished; here, too, whole, not blemished. R. Tarfon: Akiva, how long will you pile up words against us! May I lose my sons if I did not see Shimon, my mother's brother, who was lame in one leg, standing and blowing the trumpets! R. Akiva: Might it be that you saw this on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year? R. Tarfon: I swear that you have not erred! Happy are you Abraham our father, from whose loins Akiva came forth! Tarfon saw and forgot (the day). Akiva expounded of himself and seconded the halachah. Anyone who departs from you departs from his life! (Ibid.) "And they (the trumpets) shall be to you for a statute forever": What is the intent of this? From "Make for yourself two silver trumpets," I would understand that once he made them they would be a heirloom for (all) the generations. It is, therefore, written "to you for a statute forever." They have been given as a statute and not for (all) the generations. From here they said: All the implements that Moses made in the desert were kasher for all of the generations, except the trumpets.

This tells me only of unblemished animals (that they may not be slaughtered in the azarah [lest they be confused with offerings]). Whence do I derive (the same for) blemished animals? From (Vayikra 3:2) "and he shall slaughter it" (implying an offering only [and not chullin of any kind]) at the entrance of the tent of meeting" (i.e., the azarah.) Whence do I derive (the same for) animals and birds, (which cannot be confused with offerings)? From (Ibid. 8) "and he shall slaughter it (a sheep) before the tent of meeting" — it, and not animals and birds.

(Bamidbar 18:15) "All that opens the womb of all flesh": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written "which they offer to the L-rd" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This ("which they offer") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written ("in man) and in beast" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). "in man and in beast"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) "And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices," then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written "in man and in beast." Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) "but redeem shall you redeem": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, "but redeem shall you redeem, etc." You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. "and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) "And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep." The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) "the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) ("And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) "And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem." The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). "And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem": "money, five shekalim" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From "And his redemption, etc." I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written "And his redemption" — general; "money, five shekalim" — particular. "general-particular." (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., "money," literally). "you shall redeem" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first "general" (viz. Shemot 13:13) "And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem," (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that "general.") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is twenty gerah": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] "Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From "it shall be." I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written "shall be." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "But the first-born of an ox": It must look like an ox. "a sheep": It must look like a sheep. "a goat": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). "you shall not redeem": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written "They are consecrated." R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this ("they are consecrated") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] "Consecrate unto Me every first-born") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) "and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of "They are consecrated"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). "Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) "And the Cohanim" shall sprinkle … roundabout" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of "Their blood shall you sprinkle"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and their fats shall you smoke": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand "and their fats shall you smoke"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. "a fire-offering": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. "a sweet savor to the L-rd": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) "And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; "and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast." Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: "And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast." There is no need to add (Ibid.) "for you shall it be." It ("for you shall it be') is adding another "being" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: "And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc." Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) "for you shall it be"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year," which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. "have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. "It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things.