Мидраш к Вайикра 1:3

1) (Vayikra 1:3): ("If his offering is) a burnt-offering": Why need this be written? (i.e., It is clear from the context that we are speaking of a burnt-offering.) I might think that all of these p'sulin (invalidating factors: muktza, ne'evad, rovea, etc.) obtain only with a gift burnt-offering. How would I know that they also obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering? (Therefore, "a burnt-offering" is needed.) — But does it not follow (even without the inclusion clause)? It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a gift burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering!

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").

2) No, in the case of a gift bird-offering he cannot bring a [bird] burnt-offering as a) substitute, whereas in the case of a prescribed burnt-offering he can (sometimes) bring a bird burnt-offering as) a substitute. And since he can bring a substitute (we would say, without the inclusion verse that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain; it is, therefore, written "a burnt-offering" — Whether a gift burnt-offering or a prescribed burnt-offering, all of the p'sulin obtain with them.

2 ["vesamach" ("and he shall place") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim (peace-offerings)] (Vayikra 1:4): "And he shall place his hand" — not the hand of his wife (i.e., women do not perform semichah); "his hand" — not the hand of his bondsman; "his hand" — not the hand of his messenger. (Vayikra 1:4): "his hand on the head" — and not on the back; "his hand on the head" — and not on the throat; "on the head" — and 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.

3) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with a temurah (an animal given in exchange for a consecrated animal). It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought and it is written that a temurah is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a temurah.

3) I might think that only a gift-offering (the subject of the verse) required semichah. Whence do I derive the same for a prescribed burnt-offering? It follows, viz.: It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as a gift burnt-offering requires semichah, so a prescribed burnt-offering requires semichah.

(Lev. 1:1:) THEN <THE LORD> CALLED UNTO MOSES. This text is related (to Prov. 29:23): ONE'S PRIDE WILL BRING HIM LOW, BUT THE LOW IN SPIRIT WILL OBTAIN HONOR. Whenever anyone flees from authority, the authority will pursue him.¹⁵Tanh., Lev. 1:3. Saul fled from authority when he came to reign, as stated (in I Sam. 10:22): SO THEY INQUIRED OF THE LORD AGAIN: HAS ANYONE ELSE COME [HERE]? AND THE LORD SAID: HERE HE IS HIDING AMONG THE BAGGAGE. What does it (the word BAGGAGE) mean? When they came and brought him word of his kingship, he told them: I am not worthy of kingship. Rather inquire by means of Urim and Thummim whether I am worthy; and if not, leave me alone. Immediately (ibid.), THEY INQUIRED OF THE LORD AGAIN (i.e., this second time), <and> immediately he hid himself until they had inquired of Urim and Thummim. (Ibid., cont.:) AND THE LORD SAID: HERE HE IS HIDING AMONG THE BAGGAGE (literally: INSTRUMENTS). Thus have our masters taught: These instruments were Urim and Thummim. This man fled from authority, and it pursued him, as stated (in I Sam. 10:24): DO YOU SEE THE ONE WHOM THE LORD HAS CHOSEN, THAT THERE IS NO ONE LIKE HIM AMONG ALL THE PEOPLES? But Abimelech ben Jerubbaal pursued authority, and it fled from him, as stated (in Jud. 9:1–2, 23): BUT ABIMELECH BEN JERUBBAAL WENT TO SHECHEM <UNTO HIS MOTHER'S BROTHERS >…, <SAYING>: PLEASE SPEAK IN THE EARS OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF SHECHEM…. THEN {THE LORD} [GOD] SENT AN EVIL SPIRIT BETWEEN ABIMELECH <AND THE CITIZENS OF SHECHEM >….

(Prov. 1:21:) AT THE HEAD OF THE ROARING HOSTS⁹So the midrash interprets this difficult word, homiyyot. SHE CALLS (rt.: QR'). [AT¹⁰The bracketed section continues to the end of the section and is followed by a second bracketed section, which includes the whole of section 5. Buber has provided the bracketed material from parallels in the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 1:3; from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34; and from MS 1240 of the De Rossi library in Parma. THE HEAD (R'Sh) OF THE ROARING HOSTS she is the one calling (rt.: QR'). How so? From the beginning (rt.: R'Sh) of Torah how many hosts¹¹Gk. ochloi (“crowds”). does she destroy? The generation of the flood, the generation of the dispersion (i.e., of the Tower of Babel), and the generation of Sodom. Ergo: AT THE HEAD OF THE ROARING HOSTS SHE CALLS.

4) — No, in the instance of a burnt-offering, sanctity does not attach to it in the case of permanent blemish (i.e., if one dedicates an animal with a permanent blemish as a burnt-offering, it becomes chullin ["mundane," for all purposes] when redeemed), as opposed to a temurah, to which sanctity does attach in such a case (i.e., if one redeems a permanently blemished animal which he made a temurah, it does not become chullin (to be shorn or worked with, but only to be eaten). And since sanctity attaches to a temurah with a permanent blemish, we would think that all of these p'sulin do not obtain with it; it is, therefore, written: "if a burnt-offering," to include a temurah.

4) — No, a gift burnt-offering does not allow of a bird substitute to exempt it from semichah, whereas a prescribed burnt-offering (that of a leper) does allow of a bird substitute (in the instance of an impoverished leper) to exempt it (a beast brought by a leper) from semichah — so that it should not require semichah. It is, therefore, written "burnt-offering" — Both a gift burnt-offering and a required burnt-offering require semichah. ...

5) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with peace-offerings? It, indeed, follows that they should, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that peace-offerings are brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so should they obtain with peace-offerings.

[(Vayikra 1:3): "If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle … then he shall place his hand, etc."] This tells me only of a burnt-offering from the cattle. Whence do I derive (that the same holds true for) a burnt-offering from the sheep? It follows, viz.: It is written that an olah from the cattle is brought and that an olah from the sheep is brought. Just as an olah from the cattle requires semichah, so an olah from the sheep requires semichah.

5) (Vayikra 5:8) "and he shall bring them": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). ("And he shall bring them) to the Cohein": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. "And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings:

(Lev. 27:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [AND SAY UNTO THEM]: WHEN ANYONE EXPLICITLY VOWS TO THE LORD THE VALUE (rt.: 'RK) OF HUMAN BEINGS (NPShWT). This text is related (to Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD, [IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS]? The Holy One said: Whoever performs deeds like mine shall be like me.²¹Tanh., Lev. 10:4. R. Levi said: < The matter > is comparable to a king who built a city and lit two lanterns²²Gk.: phanoi, also panoi. within it. The king said: When anyone lights two lanterns like these, I will call him Augustus²³Agustah, from the Lat.: Augusta. and not be jealous of him. Similarly, the Holy One created the heavens and set in them [two lanterns, to give light to the world], the sun and the moon, as stated (in Gen. 1:17): AND GOD SET THEM IN THE FIRMAMENT OF THE HEAVENS TO GIVE LIGHT UPON THE EARTH. The Holy One said: Whoever makes < lights > like these shall be equal to me. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD? These words can only be words < referring to > light, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:4): HE SHALL SET (rt.: 'RK) UP < THE LAMPS > UPON THE UNALLOYED LAMPSTAND. [Ergo²⁴The bracketed section, which extends to the end of this section (6), is missing from Buber’s main Oxford ms. He has added it from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34, and from the traditional published editions of Tanh., Lev. 1:3. (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE (rt.: 'RK) TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? That is what it is written (in Is. 40:25): THEN UNTO WHOM WILL YOU LIKEN ME THAT I SHOULD BE EQUAL? SAYS THE HOLY ONE. < The term > HOLY is applied to him just as HOLY is applied to me.

6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

6) And it is a kal vachomer (that they should so obtain), viz.: Now if these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, which may come from fowl, how much more so should they obtain with peace-offerings, which may not come from fowl! — No, it may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be offered as well as males, but not with peace-offerings, where females may be offered as well as males. And since females may be offered as well as males (we would say that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain with them; it is, therefore, written (the superfluous) "his offering," to include peace-offerings.

6) — No, this may be so with an animal from the cattle, where the libations are greater (in quantity), and not with an animal from the flock, where the libations are less. We might think, since the libations, are less, that it would not require semichah; it is, therefore, written "olah" — Both an olah from the cattle and one from the flock require semichah.

7) (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle": As we have said before (Section 2:10) — to exclude treifah; "a male," and not a female. As for (Vayikra 1:10): "a male," this is to exclude a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite.

7) I might think that a bird burnt-offering also required semichah; it is, therefore, written "the olah" — to exclude a bird burnt-offering.

8) Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If peace-offerings, where female animals are kasher as well as males, tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher — a burnt-offering, where females are not kasher as well as males, should it not follow that tumtum and hermaphrodite not be kasher? (Why, then, is the exclusion clause needed?) — No, this may be so in the case of peace-offerings, where fowl are not kasher (for the altar), but fowl are kasher for burnt-offerings (so that without the exclusion, tumtum and hermaphrodite would also be assumed to be kasher.) — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where fowl are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

9) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male are kasher, as opposed to a burnt-offering, where all species of male are kasher. — This is refuted by a bechor (a first-born male), where all species of male are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.

10) Why need it be written below (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle"? ("If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle, etc.") To exclude treifah (a "torn," ritually unfit animal). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), is pasul for the altar, treifah, which is forbidden for mundane purposes, how much more so should it be pasul for the altar! — This is refuted by cheilev (forbidden fats) and blood, which are forbidden for mundane purposes, yet kasher for the altar! — No (i.e., this is no refutation of the kal vachomer, for) forbidden fats and blood come from a thing (i.e., an animal) which is permitted (for mundane purposes), unlike treifah, which is entirely forbidden (for such purposes)! — This is refuted by melikah ("pinching" a bird's neck [as opposed to shechitah]), which is entirely forbidden (for mundane purposes), yet kasher for the altar! — No, (this is no refutation, for) the very thing that makes it kadosh (holy, for an offering), i.e., melikah, renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), whereas with treifah, it is not the thing that makes it kadosh which renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), and since this is so, it should be pasul for the altar! (Why, then, do we need an exclusion clause for treifah?) — Now that this refutation has been countered (at its origin, [viz., R. Akiva 8) above], so that the kal vachomer stands), what is the thrust of "from" (but not all) the cattle"? To exclude treifah.

10) — No, this may be so with bechor, which is holy from the womb, as opposed to a burnt-offering, which is not holy from the womb. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), which is not holy from the womb, and where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher.

11) — No, ma'aser is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive,) whereas a burnt-offering is "one out of one" (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since it is one out of one, tumtum or hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "male," and not female, and, again, (Ibid. 10), ("male") — to exclude tumtum and hermaphrodite.

12) (Vayikra 1:3): "unblemished": Just as if it is not unblemished it is not acceptable, so if it is not as indicated (i.e., if it is rovea, nirva, ne'evad, etc.) it is not acceptable. "unblemished shall he bring it" — unblemished shall he sanctify it (i.e., it is a positive commandment to sanctify unblemished animals). R. Yossi says: "unblemished shall he offer it (yakrivenu)" — yevakrenu ("He shall examine it" [for blemishes]), veyakrivenu (and he shall offer it). R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one slaughters an unexamined tamid (the offering of the day) on Shabbath he must bring a sin-offering (for having performed a forbidden labor on the Sabbath), and he brings a different tamid.

13) "to the door of the tent of meeting (shall he bring [yakriv] it"): The owner must attend to getting it there (and he cannot say to the Cohein: Since the sacrificial service is yours, you get it there!), it being written "yakriv (enu), yakriv" (the second "yakriv" coming for the above teaching). Whence is it derived that if an olah (a burnt-offering) got mixed up (so that it cannot be identified) with an (other) olah, or with a temurah, or with chullin that it should (still) be sacrificed (with certain pre-conditions)? From "yakriv, yakriv" (— in any event): I might think (that this were true) even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written "yakrivenu" ("he shall offer it") — to exclude an animal that got mixed up with p'sulin, which are not kasher as offerings.

14) Whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even (if it got mixed up) with inner sin-offerings (i.e., where the blood is sprinkled inside the mishkan). — No, such an instance is excluded (i.e., the olah would not be offered in such an instance), for these (the sin-offerings) are inner (as explained), whereas this (the olah) is outer. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with outer sin-offerings? ) — No, in such an instance it is excluded, for this (i.e., the service of the olah) is above (the red line on the outer altar), and (the service of) these (the sin-offerings) below. And whence is it derived that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with a bechor, or ma'aser or pesach? — No, such an instance is excluded, for with this (the olah) there are four (applications of blood on the altar), whereas with the others, there is (only) one. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered even if it got mixed up with peace-offerings or with a thank-offering? — No, such an instance is excluded, for this (the olah) is a higher-order offering (kodshei kodshim), whereas the others are lower-order offerings (kodshim kalim). I might think that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with an asham (a guilt-offering, both being kodshei kodshim); it is, therefore, written "yakrivenu" ("He shall offer it") — he offers only it, alone, and not when it got mixed up with others (like an asham).

15) Why did you choose (to include for offering) an olah that got mixed up with an olah? — It has the same name. An olah that got mixed up with a temurah? — A temurah can be sacrificed as an olah. An olah that got mixed up with chullin? — He can consecrate the chullin and make it an olah. (Ibid.): "yakriv otho" ("he shall bring it"): We are hereby taught that (if he is remiss in bringing his sacrifice) he is compelled to bring it. I might think, even against his will; it is, therefore, written: "of his own volition." How can this be reconciled? — He is compelled until he says: "I will it."

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.