Sifra 3.0.15

Tzav, Section 6

1) Whence is it derived that the time (for eating offerings) of the bamoth (temporary altars, when such altars were permitted), is the same as that of the time (for eating them) in the tent of meeting (i.e., two days and one night for peace-offerings and a day and a night for thank-offerings)? Since Scripture states that lan, an offering that remains overnight (without being eaten in its prescribed time), is to be burnt, and that an offering that becomes tamei is to be burnt — just as tamei is unfit in a bamah, so, lan is unfit in a bamah. Or, go in this direction: lan is unfit, and yotzei (an offering leaving its prescribed bounds) is unfit (in the tent of meeting) — just as yotzei does not obtain in a bamah, (for which there are no prescribed bounds), lan, too, does not obtain in a bamah!

2) But does it not follow a fortiori (that lan obtains in a bamah), viz.: If a bird, which is not rendered unfit (as an offering) by a blemish, is rendered unfit by lan, bamah offerings, which are rendered unfit by a blemish — how much more so should they be rendered unfit by lan! — No, why is it that a bird, even though it is not rendered unfit by a blemish is rendered unfit by lan? Because (sacrifice by) a zar (a non-Cohein) renders it unfit. But would you, therefore, say of bamah offerings that because a blemish renders them unfit, lan should render them unfit? (This is not so,) because a zar does not render them unfit. And because a zar does not render them unfit, lan should not render them unfit! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:11): "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, etc." (i.e., there is one law for all offerings, whether in the tent of meeting or in a bamah) — equating the time (and the lan) factor in a bamah with that in the tent of meeting.

3) "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving he shall offer it": We are hereby taught that a thank-offering may be slaughtered as a thank-offering or as a peace-offering. I might think that a peace-offering, too, may be slaughtered as a peace-offering or as a thank-offering; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "This (is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.")

4) "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving": Just as a peace-offering requires placing of the hands (semichah), and libations, and waving of breast and thigh, so, a thank-offering.

5) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: Because the thank-offering departed (from the general category of peace-offerings) for a new learning (that it required loaves, unlike peace-offerings), I might think that it retains only its new learning (see Hermeneutical Principle 11); it is, therefore, written, (to restore it to its category): "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving" — Just as a peace-offering requires placing of the hands, and libations, and waving of breast and thigh, so, a thank-offering.

6) "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving": Just as peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe [ma'aser], (if he vowed to bring a peace-offering from second-tithe monies), so a thank-offering may be brought from the tithe.

7) If one vowed to bring (a thank-offering) without qualifying (from which monies), I might think that he could bring it from the tithe; it is, therefore, written "the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings" — Just as with peace-offerings if he specified "from the tithe," he brings from the tithe, and if he does not specify "from the tithe," he brings only from chullin (non-consecrated) monies, so, with the thank-offering.

8) Whence is it derived that the loaves of the thank-offering (Vayikra 7:13) may be brought from the tithe? From (the redundant) "which he shall offer (to the L–rd" [Vayikra 7:11]). Just as the peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe, so the loaves may be brought from the tithe.

9) If one vowed to bring a thank-offering from the tithe, but did not specify that its loaves were to be brought from the tithe, I might think that he could bring it and its loaves from the tithe; it is, therefore, written "the peace-offerings which he shall offer": Just as with peace-offerings, if he specified "from the tithe" he brings from the tithe; but if he did not specify "from the tithe," he brings only from chullin, so, with the loaves. If he vowed to bring a thank-offering from chullin and its loaves from the tithe, I might think that since he specified, he could do so; it is, therefore, written "the peace-offerings which he shall offer" — When he says "I vow to bring a thank-offering, it and its loaves from the tithe," he may do so, but when he says "I vow to bring a thank-offering from chullin," even if he specifies "its loaves from the tithe," he brings them only from chullin.

10) I might think that he can bring them from the wheat of the tithe itself; it is, therefore, written "the peace-offerings which he shall offer. Just as peace-offerings are brought (from what is bought with the monies of the tithe, so, the (thanksgiving) loaves.

11) And whence is it derived that if one vowed to bring peace-offerings, he may do so only with chullin? From (Devarim 16:2): "And you shall offer a Pesach-offering to the L–rd your G d, sheep and cattle." Now does the Pesach offering not come only from lambs and kids? Why, then, is it written "sheep and cattle"? To liken everything that comes from sheep and cattle to the Pesach offering, viz.: Just as the Pesach offering is mandatory and comes only from chullin, (there having been no consecrations and no tithe at the time of the exodus from Egypt,) so, everything that is mandatory comes only from chullin — so that if one vowed to bring a thank-offering or a peace-offering, since they are mandatory, (having been vowed), they are to be brought only from chullin; and libations, in all instances, (even if he specified "from the tithe") are to be brought only from chullin, (their not having been likened to peace-offerings, as the thanksgiving loaves were).