Sifra 3.0.21

Tzav, Section 9

1) (Vayikra 7:19) ("And the flesh (of consecrated peace-offerings) that shall touch anything that is tamei shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh — everyone that is clean may eat the flesh.") I might think one who is tamei makes consecrated flesh tamei by carrying it, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if the ashes of purification (of the red heifer), which a tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime) does not make tamei by touch, makes it tamei by carrying, then consecrated flesh, which a tvul yom does make tamei by touch, does it not follow that he makes it tamei by carrying it! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "that shall touch" — he makes it tamei by touch and not by carrying it.

2) This tells me (as not imparting tumah by carrying) only of the lesser forms of tumah (such as that of a sheretz (a creeping thing) or of carrion, which do not make a man tamei). Whence do I derive the same for graver forms of tumah, such as dead-body tumah, and that of cohabiting with a niddah, and all (forms of tumah) which make a man tamei? From "anything that is tamei" (imparts tumah to consecrated flesh) — even one who is lacking atonement (viz. Vayikra 12:7). R. Yossi said: Whence is it derived that fourth-degree tumah invalidates consecrated offerings, and that it follows a fortiori? (From the following:) If one lacking atonement, who is permitted to eat terumah, invalidates consecrated offerings, then third-degree tumah, which does invalidate terumah, does it not follow that it should invalidate offerings (in rendering it fourth-degree tumah)? We derive, then, (the invalidation of) third-degree tumah from the verse ("and the flesh that shall touch, etc."), and of fourth-degree tumah from the argument a fortiori.

3) "it shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire": We know (from Scripture) as requiring burning only what is tamei and nothar (flesh left over from the offering) and a sin-offering whose blood entered within (the sanctuary). Whence do we derive the same for the other offerings? From (Shemoth 29:34): "And if anything is left over from the flesh of the miluim … until morning, you shall burn what is left over in fire." Let it not be written "what is left over in fire" (i.e., it is redundant). But (we must say, then, that) it is a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 3) (the intent of which is that) all that is nothar (in all offerings) requires burning.

4) This tells me (as requiring burning) only of nothar. Whence do I derive the same for an offering that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one that was slaughtered outside of its time or outside of its place, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was) to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such, and a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned, before its blood was sprinkled, in which case it is like a sacrifice that has become unfit) — (Whence is it derived that all of the above require burning?) From (Shemoth 29:33) "… he shall not eat, for they are holy" — everything that is holy (and that has become unfit) requires burning (see Shemoth 29 verse 34).

5) I might think that they were to be burned even if they had died (after they were separated as an offering) or had miscarried, (in which case the fetus was to be burned), or had become tamei outside (the azarah); it is, therefore, written (to counterindicate this) (Shemoth 29:34): "for it is holy" (excluding the latter, whose unfitness did not take place in "holiness.") R. Yehudah says: I might think that a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned), and chullin (a non-consecrated animal that had been slaughtered in the azarah — (I might think) that they must be burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemoth 29:34): "for it is holy" (excluding the above).

6) ("And the flesh — everyone that is clean may eat flesh.") "And the flesh": (This is redundant) to include as permitted the inner flesh (of a limb that has projected beyond the permitted bounds). For I might reason: Since what is tamei is unfit and what leaves the permitted bounds (yotzei) is unfit, then just as with tamei, if part has become tamei, the whole is tamei, so with yotzei, if part has left (the permitted bounds), then all of it should be unfit; it is, therefore, written "And the flesh," to include the inner flesh as permitted.

7) From this it was ruled: If the limb of a Paschal offering projected beyond the wall (the permitted bound), he cuts until he reaches the bone and strips (the flesh) until he reaches the joint, wherefrom he frees it and cuts it off, (it being forbidden to break the bone of a Paschal offering). And with (other) offerings, he chops it off at any place (including the bone), breaking the bone not being interdicted in the others.

8) (Vayikra 7:19) "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh": What are we taught hereby? Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices (peace-offerings) shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh shall you eat," I might think that only the owner can eat it, a fortiori from the Pesach offering (where only the owner and his appointees eat it), it is, therefore, written "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh." I might think that there is tumah liability (for eating consecrated flesh even) before the sprinkling of the blood; it is, therefore, written "Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh," followed by (Devarim 12:20) "And the soul that eats flesh, etc." — There is tumah liability only for flesh that is permitted to (be eaten by) the clean. But, before the sprinkling of the blood, when the flesh is not permitted to the clean, it does not entail tumah liability. You say that this is the intent of the verse; but perhaps the intent is: For what may be eaten by the clean, there is tumah liability; but if it left (its permitted bounds) after the sprinkling of the blood, since it may not be eaten by the clean, there is no tumah liability. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written (Devarim 12:20): ("the sacrifice of the peace-offerings) which is the L–rd's" — to include (in the kareth interdict for tumah) one that left (its permitted bounds) or abided beyond its prescribed time (for eating, i.e., nothar).

9) Or, I might think to include (in "which is the L–rd's") piggul (thought) as well as nothar; it is, therefore, written "of (and not all of) the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" — an exclusion. Why do you see fit to include yotzei and lan (i.e., nothar) and to exclude piggul (thought)? After Scripture included, it excluded. I include yotzei and lan, where they (the offerings) had a time of fitness (before the sprinkling of the blood), and I exclude piggul, where they did not have a time of fitness.

10) If you say that he became tamei before the blood was sprinkled (and he ate it in a state of tumah after it was sprinkled), why is he liable for tumah-kareth violation) after it was sprinkled? (i.e., the offering never had "a time of fitness" for him!) Because the tzitz (the high-priest's head-plate) "atoned" for him (and the offering is accounted as having been "permitted to the clean" by the sprinkling.)