Midrasz do Kapłańska 1:11

1) (Vayikra 1:3-4): "… before the L–rd. And he shall place (his hand on the head of the olah"): There is no semichah on a bamah (a temporary altar, it not being considered " before the L–rd"). (Vayikra 1:11): ("And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar) northward (tzafonah), before the L–rd": There is no tzafon (requirement) on a bamah. Now which measure is greater? That of tzafon or that of semichah? The measure of tzafon is greater. For tzafon obtains both with individual and with communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with individual offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the greater measure, would I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure? (Why, then, is the exclusion verse for bamoth re semichah necessary) Perceived thus, tzafon is the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tzafon the lesser. For semichah obtains with both higher and lower-order offerings, whereas tzafon obtains only with higher-order offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the lesser measure, I would not exclude them from semichah, the greater measure. So that because there obtains with tzafon what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tzafon; it is, therefore, written: "before the L–rd, vesamach" — there is no semichah on a bamah. "tzafonah before the L–rd" — there is no tzafon on a bamah. "before the L–rd vesamach": Even if he performed semichah outside (the azarah), he must return and perform it inside ("before the L–rd").

1) "northward before the L–rd": The north must be empty (so that it is "before the L–rd.") These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. The altar was aligned with half the opening of the heichal (the sanctuary), and opposite one of the doors, extending south. R. Yehudah says: The altar was in the mid-point of the azarah, thirty-two amoth — ten amoth opposite the entrance of the heichal, eleven amoth to the north, and eleven amoth to the south. So that the altar is found to be aligned with the sanctuary and its walls.

2) Which is "north" (for purposes of shechitah of higher-order offerings)? From the northern wall of the altar until the northern wall of the azarah, and opposite (the length of) the altar (from east to west). These are the words of R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon adds: to the west (of the altar) between the ulam (the entrance hall to the heichal) and the altar, until the northern wall of the azarah. Rebbi adds: to the north-east (of the altar), the pathway of the Cohanim, and (continuing northward), the pathway of the Israelites, until the northern wall of the azarah. But all agree that (shechitah) is pasul in front (i.e., to the north) of the "cell of knives" (beth hachalafoth, in the north of the ulam [the altar being obscured from there]).

2) "And the Cohein shall bring it near … and he shall pinch off (malak) its head" — whence we are taught that melikah is performed by a Cohein. (For we would otherwise reason:) Is it not a kal vachomer (that a non-priest could also perform melikah), viz.: If a sheep, for (whose shechitah) "north" was mandated (see Vayikra 1:11), a Cohein was not mandated — melikah, for which north was not mandated, how much more so should a Cohein not be mandated! It is, therefore, written: "the Cohein … umalak" — melikah is performed only by a Cohein.

5) (Vayikra 1:11): "And he shall slaughter it (on the side of the altar northward"): "it" northward, and not a bird northward. (For without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an animal of the flock, for which a Cohein was not stipulated (for shechitah), "northward" was stipulated, then a bird, for which a Cohein was stipulated (for melikah), how much more so should "northward" be stipulated for it! It is, therefore, written "And he shall slaughter it" — "it" northward, and not a bird northward.

R. Phinehas the priest, the son of Hama, declared: A woman who is modest in her home atones for her household, just as the altar brings atonement, as it is said: Thy wife shall be a fruitful vine in the innermost parts of thy house (Ps. 128:3). The word innermost refers here to the altar, as is stated: And he shall kill it on the innermost side of the altar (Lev. 1:11).

6) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: "it" northward, and not the pesach (offering) northward. Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, for which a time for shechitah was not stipulated, a place for shechitah ("northward") was stipulated — pesach, for which a time for shechitah was stipulated (i.e., after midday), how much more so should a place for shechitah be stipulated! It is, therefore, written "And he shall slaughter it" — "it" northward, and not the pesach northward.

7) R. Chiyyah says: "it" northward, but the slaughterer need not stand in the north. For since we find that the receiver (of the blood) must stand in the north and receive in the north, and that if he stood in the south and received in the north it is pasul, we might think that the same is true of the slaughterer; it is, therefore, written "it" — it (must be slaughtered) in the north, but the shochet need not stand with it in the north. (But he may stand southward and slaughter it with a long knife.)

8) (Vayikra 1:11): "And he shall slaughter it at the foot of the altar northward": The foot was in the north. And where was the face? In the south — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south. R. Yehudah says (Ezekiel 43:17): "And its rising turned to the east." One who ascended it, turned to his right, to the east — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south.

9) "And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein": Why "the Cohein"? From "Aaron," do I not know that he is a Cohein? Why is it mentioned? To emphasize "in his priesthood" — to teach that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, his service is pasul. And whence is it derived that if a regular priest officiated in the vestments of the high-priest his service is pasul? From (Vayikra 1:8) "the priests" — in their priesthood. So that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, or a regular priest, in those of a high-priest, their service is pasul.

9) "the altar northward": The entire altar may be considered "northward," so that if he slaughtered higher-order offerings on its top, they are kasher. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Yehudah says: From the midpoint of the altar northward is considered north; from the midpoint southward is considered south.

A sighted person and a blind person were walking together. The sighted person said, "Come and I will be your guide"; which enabled the blind person to walk. When they entered the house, the sighted person said to the blind person, "Go and light the candle for me, and provide me with light, so that you should no longer feel obliged to me for having accompanied you; therefore I said to you to light [the candle]."

... Teach us oh, teacher: A court which sanctified the month, but not at Eintav with witnesses, is it sanctified? R’ Abahu said in the name of R’ Chiya the great: if a court sanctified the month without witnesses, it is sanctified, as it says “…which you shall designate in their appointed time.” (Leviticus 23:4) This means whether it is with witnesses or without. Whether witnesses saw it or not it is sanctified, as it says ‘which you shall designate.’ And why did the court intercalate a month into the calendar at Eintav? Because this was the meeting place for the court. Therefore on Rosh HaShana which fell out on Shabbat the shofar is not blown anywhere except at Eintav, in the place where the court sat and intercalated the years and months. The Holy One said: Zion is the meeting place for the whole world, as it says “…for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:3) Therefore when I redeem Zion and her exiles, as it says “Zion shall be redeemed through justice and her penitent through righteousness,” (Isaiah 1:27) they will come and blow the shofar within her. From where do we learn this? From how the prophet finished his words “Sound a shofar in Zion…” (Yoel 2:15). This is how R’ Tanchuma opened in the name of the House of R’ Aba: “The fairest of branches (nof) , the joy of the entire earth- Mount Zion, by the north side, the city of a great king.” (Psalms 48:3) What does nof mean? A bride (kloninfe). Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches’ R’ Chanina bar Pappa said: The most beautiful in her branches, like the fig whose roots are in the land, rising up with her branches going out in every direction, she is beautiful. This is why Jerusalem is called the fairest of branches, because in the future she will be so “And it became wider and it wound higher and higher…” (Ezekiel 41:7) Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches’ R’ Berachia said: The one who is beautiful through the waving (hanafat) of her omer offering. R’ Yitzchak said: The one who is beautiful because in the future she will wave away the nations of the world. R’ Levi said: the fairest of branches (nof) because everyone beautifies her, praises her and waves (manifim) to her. “Tyre, you said, 'I am the perfection of beauty.'” (Ezekiel 27:3) but everyone praises and says ‘how beautiful’ to Jerusalem “Is this the city that was called the perfection of beauty, the joy of all the earth?” (Lamentations 2:15) Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches’ R’ Levi said: her branches are beautiful through the circling of the altar. Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ R’ Yochanan said: there was a dome of accounting outside of Jerusalem, and they would take their accounts to do them outside of Jerusalem under that dome outside of the city limits. Within the city they would eat, drink and be joyful. Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ Through the dew which comes out from there and causes the grains to wave (m’nafef), gives blessing and makes all the land rejoice. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ R’ Yonatan of Bet Guvrin went into Jerusalem with merchandise in his hands and no one was around. He said: and this is the joy of the entire earth?! He hadn’t finished saying this before he sold everything that was in his hands. “…Mount Zion, by the north side…” (Psalms 48:3) And is Zion located in the north, isn’t it actually in the south? What is ‘the north side’? That her sacrifices were offered “…on the northern side of the altar…” (Leviticus 1:11) And what does “…the city of a great king…” (Psalms 48:3) mean? The city of the Great King. Another explanation. ‘The fairest of branches, the joy of the entire earth’ R’ Levi said: joy comes from Zion, “…and they shall come to Zion with song, with joy of days of yore shall be upon their heads…” (Isaiah 35:10) The blessing comes from there, “Like the dew of Hermon, that comes down upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life forever.” (Psalms 133:3) The Torah comes from Zion “…from out of Zion comes the Torah…” (Isaiah 2:3) Help comes to Israel out Zion, “Send forth your help from the sanctuary, and support you out of Zion.” (Psalms 20:3) Life comes from Zion, “…for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life forever.” (Psalms 133:3) Salvation comes from Zion, as it says “Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion!” (Psalms 14:7) And the shofar blast which will bring near the redemption of Israel comes out of Zion “Blow the shofar in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain; Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the Lord comes, for it is at hand…” (Yoel 2:15)

(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.