Sifra 1.0.17

Vayikra Dibbura DeNedavah, Chapter 10

1) (Vayikra 2:1): "a meal-offering" — What obtains here (in our section) obtains with all (other) meal-offerings, and what obtains with all (other) meal-offerings obtains here. "soleth" (fine flour): Just as soleth elsewhere (Shemoth 29:2) is of wheat, so, here. (It could have been written) "soleth, his offering" (instead of) "soleth shall be (his offering"), the implication being that he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat. (For without the limiting clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that an individual may bring a meal-offering of barley)? viz.: The congregation brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat (i.e., the libation meal-offering, the two loaves, and the show bread), and an individual brings a gift meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat, brings a prescribed meal-offering of barley (e.g., the meal-offering of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a gift-offering of wheat, may bring a gift-offering of barley. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "soleth, his offering," "soleth shall it be" — he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat.

2) So that if one said: "I vow a meal-offering of barley," he brings one of wheat; "of kemach" (first flour), he brings one of soleth (fine flour); "without oil and frankincense," he brings oil and frankincense with it;" "a half-issaron," he brings a full issaron; "an issaron and a half," he brings two. R. Shimon (in the above instances) exempts him, his not having donated in the customary manner.

3) "his offering" — the individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not partners. (For without the exclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that a gift meal-offering may be brought in partnership)? viz.: A beast burnt-offering is brought in vow or gift, and a meal-offering is brought in vow or gift. Just as the first may be brought by two, so, the second may be brought by two.

4) — No, this may be true in the case of a beast burnt-offering, which comes as a communal gift-offering, but not in that of a meal-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering. — This is refuted by the instance of a bird burnt-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering, yet does come as a gift of two.

5) — So that you should not wonder if a meal-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering, does come as a gift of two. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "his offering" — the individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not partners.

6) Just as two do not bring a gift meal-offering, so they do not bring wine or frankincense or wood. But they can donate a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, and, with (a) fowl (-offering), even one bird.

7) "And he shall pour oil upon it" — upon all of it; "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it. Why do you see fit to say this" (i.e., to make this distinction). — For there is no inclusion ("upon it") after inclusion (upon it") in the Torah except for limitation.

8) Another rendering: "And he shall pour oil upon it" — upon all of it, because it (the oil) is mixed with it, and the fistful is taken with it. "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it, because it (the frankincense) is not mixed with it, and the fistful is not taken with it.

9) "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it, I do not know how much. I, therefore, reason: It (the meal-offering) requires kemitzah (the taking of the fistful), and it requires frankincense. Just as kemitzah is a full fist (Ibid. 2), so the frankincense requires a full fist. R. Yehudah says: If the frankincense (on the meal-offering) was diminished (from a fistful after kemitzah), it is kasher.

10) "And he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it, and he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim": The implication is that all men (i.e., even non-Cohanim) may do the pouring and the mixing.