Sifra 3.0.28

Tzav, Chapter 18

1) (Vayikra 7:35) ("This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons from the fire-offerings of the L–rd on the day He drew them near to minister to the L–rd.") "This is the anointment": R. Shimon said: I might think that unless Aaron and his sons had been combined with each other they would not have merited the oil of anointment; it is, therefore, written "This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons. Each was worthy of the anointment in his own right. I might think that Aaron and his sons would require (re-anointment with) the oil of anointment in the future (i.e., at the resurrection); it is, therefore, written: "This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons." How, then, are we to understand (Zechariah 4:14): "These are the two sons of the oil who stand before the L–rd of all the earth"? (i.e., Aaron and his sons are three!) The reference is to Aaron (anointed for priesthood) and David (anointed for kingdom). "from the fire-offerings of the L–rd": We are hereby taught that the fire (destined to descend from Heaven upon the altar) also "assisted" (in Aaron and his sons' meriting the oil of anointment). "on the day he drew them near to minister to the L–rd": We are hereby taught that the (holiness of the) day also "assisted."

2) (Vayikra 7:36) ("which the L–rd commanded to give to them on the day He anointed them, from the children of Israel, a statute forever, throughout their generations.") "which the L–rd commanded to give to them": R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that Israel separated the gifts of the priesthood (the breast and the shok of their peace-offerings [and gave them to the first-born]) from Mount Sinai (viz. Shemoth 24:5) and that they did not revert to Aaron and his sons until they were anointed with the oil of anointment? From "which the L–rd commanded to give to them on the day He anointed them." "from the children of Israel": (only) by the consent of (all of) Israel. "a statute forever": for the eternal house (the Temple). "throughout their generations": (The original oil of anointment "holds") for all the generations (even in the absence of the oil of anointment).

3) (Vayikra 7:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the miluim (the offering of investiture of the priesthood), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.": Just as the general rule and the particulars of the miluim were given at Sinai (before the tabernacle was set up, viz. Shemoth, Tetzaveh,), so, the general rules and particulars of all of them (those mentioned in the verse) were given at Sinai.

4) But perhaps, just as the miluim is a communal offering (peace-offerings), so we should derive that only (the general rules and particulars of) communal offerings (were given at Sinai). Whence do I derive the same for an individual offering? From "and of the guilt-offering." But perhaps just as the guilt-offering is an individual offering, so I can derive from it only an individual offering. Whence would I derive the same for communal offerings? From "and of the miluim" (itself)! When you reflect upon this, you can say: "of the burnt-offering": both individual and communal; "of the meal-offering": both individual and communal; "and of the sin-offering": both individual and communal; "and of the sacrifices of the peace-offerings": both individual and communal.

5) (Vayikra 7:38) ("which the L–rd commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to the L–rd in the desert of Sinai.") "to present their offerings to the L–rd": (This is redundant) to include a bechor (a first-born), the tithe, and the Pesach offering (in the comparison to miluim), to include the general rules and particulars of all of these as having been given at Sinai.

6) "which the L–rd commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day that He commanded": From here we derive that all of the offerings are to be sacrificed only in the daytime.

7) R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says (Shemoth 24:6): "And Moses took half of the blood and he placed it in basins": From here we learn that the burnt-offering of Sinai required a vessel.

8) And whence do we derive the same for the burnt-offering of (future) generations? From (Bamidbar 28:6): "a perpetual burnt-offering (like those) offered up (in the days of the investiture) at Mount Sinai." The burnt-offering of (future) generations (i.e., the tamid) is hereby likened to the burnt-offering of Mount Sinai. Just as the burnt-offering of Mount Sinai required a vessel, so the burnt-offering of the generations requires a vessel.

9) This tells me only of the burnt-offering. Whence do we derive the same for all of the offerings? From (Vayikra 2:37): "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the miluim, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" — to include all of them as requiring a vessel.

10) "which the L–rd commanded Moses in Mount Sinai (on the day, etc."): From here we derive that the commands in the desert of Sinai were stated only in the daytime. And whence do we derive that the commands in Egypt were stated only in the daytime? From (Shemoth 6:28): "And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses in the Land of Egypt." And whence is it derived that the commands in the tent of meeting were stated only in the daytime? From (Bamidbar 1:1): ("And the L–rd said to Moses) in the desert of Sinai in the tent of meeting." The commands in the tent of meeting are hereby likened to the commands in the desert of Sinai. Just as the commands in the desert of Sinai were stated only in the daytime, so, the commands in the tent of meeting.