Sifra 3.0.23

Tzav, Chapter 15

1) (Vayikra 7:21) ("And if a soul touch any thing that is tamei — the tumah of a man, or a beast that is tamei or any abomination that is tamei — and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people.") I might think that in the area of the consecrated what is tamei can impart tumah to one who is clean, through carrying (i.e., by the one carrying the other); it is, therefore, written "And if a soul touch" — He imparts tumah by touching and not by carrying.

2) "any thing that is tamei": even one who is tamei through (having touched) a dead body (and not by reason of tumah issuing from his own body). "the tumah of a man, or a beast that is tamei, or any abomination that is tamei": If the lesser forms (zav, neveilah, and sheretz) are mentioned (as liable to kareth), why mention the graver form (dead-body tumah)? For if the lesser forms were mentioned and not the graver form, I would say that with the lesser forms he is liable (only) for the tumah of the body (that imparts the tumah) and not for the tumah of the flesh (of the offering), and with the graver form he is liable for both. And if the graver form were mentioned and not the lesser forms, I would say that for the graver form he is liable, but not for the lesser forms. Therefore, both the lesser and the graver must be mentioned.

3) "and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people": I might think that there is tumah-kareth liability for peace-offerings alone. Whence do I derive that it obtains for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): "Throughout your generations, every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things (… with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off before Me.") I might think (that there are included) only what is like peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night. Whence do I derive the same for those offerings that are eaten for one day? From (Vayikra 7:21) "of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings." (For without this verse I would say:) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a burnt-offering, whose remnants are not eaten? From "the sacrifice." This tells me only of sacrifices. Whence do I derive for inclusion birds and meal-offerings, which are not kinds of sacrifices, (shechitah not obtaining there), until the inclusion (for tumah-kareth liability) of the log of oil of the leper? From (the generalization): "Every man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things, etc."

4) I might think that tumah-kareth liability obtains only with things for which there is piggul (thought) liability. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression) which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains with only one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was permitted in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only (with offerings) where there are "permitters" (see Chapter 13:5), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding-scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are "permitters." Whence, then, (do we derive tumah-kareth liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no "permitters")? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3): "to (eat) the holy things which they make holy," to include all.

5) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4): "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah-kareth) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters," (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar).

6) Now that we have included (for tumah-kareth liability) things that are like peace-offerings and things that are not like peace-offerings, why are "peace-offerings" mentioned (Vayikra 7:21, "and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings")? — To exclude (the eating of) blood (from tumah-kareth liability. That is, this liability obtains only with what is like peace-offerings, which are not forbidden in themselves — as opposed to blood, which is forbidden in itself.) R. Shimon says: As peace-offerings are characterized by being fit for eating, so, all that are fit for eating (are subject to tumah-kareth liability). To exclude (the eating of) wood, frankincense, and incense, which are not fit for eating.

7) You (the first tanna and R. Shimon) come to say that the intent of the verse ("and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings") is to distinguish between different types of tumah ("blood" and "wood, etc.", respectively). But perhaps its intent is to distinguish between offerings and offerings — to say that lower order offerings (like "peace-offerings") are subject to (tumah-kareth) liability (only) after the sprinkling of the blood, and higher order offerings, both before and after the sprinkling of the blood. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "and he eat the flesh," "and he eat the sacrifice," and (not) "and he eat peace-offerings" (to indicate that not only peace-offerings, but all other offerings are subject to tumah-kareth liability only after the sprinkling of the blood.) (Vayikra 7:21) "and that soul shall be cut off": (see Chapter 14:7).