Sifra 3.0.7

Tzav, Chapter 5

1) (Vayikra 6:15) ("And the Cohein that is anointed in his place from his sons shall offer it, a statute forever for the L–rd; it shall be entirely smoked.") "anointed": This tells me only of the (high-priest) anointed with the anointing oil. Whence do I derive the same (that he brings a griddle meal-offering every day) for the many-vestmented priest (see Shemoth 29:30)? From "and the Cohein that is anointed." I might think that I include also the priest anointed for war. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "in his place from his sons." Only one whose son stands in his place brings the tenth of an ephah — to exclude the priest anointed for war, whose son does not stand in his place. And whence is it derived that his son does not stand in his place? From (Shemoth, Ibid.): "Seven days shall he clothe himself in them, his son that is priest in his place, who comes to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place." Only the son of one "who comes to the tent of meeting, etc." stands in his place — to exclude (the son of) the priest anointed for war, who does not come to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place.

2) "… from his sons shall offer it": We are hereby taught that his son takes precedence to all others. I might think that this is so even when he cannot fill his father's place (in wisdom and in fear of Heaven). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 16:32): "… who shall fill his place": When he is qualified to fill his father's place, he takes precedence to all others. If he is not qualified to do so, let another come and serve in his stead.

3) Whence is it derived that if the high-priest died and another Cohein had not been anointed in his stead that his meal-offering is offered up by his heirs? From "… from his sons shall offer it." (even if he has not been appointed as high-priest). I might think that they could bring it by halves (as he does). It is, therefore, written "it" — I have spoken of its whole and not of its parts. (All of it is to be sacrificed with the morning tamid.) These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: It is offered only by the congregation, it being written: "a statute olam": It should come from the olam (lit., the world, i.e., the congregation). "all of it shall be smoked": All of it is for smoking (and not parts of it when it is brought by the congregation).

4) (Vayikra 6:16) ("And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entirely (smoked); it shall not be eaten.") The meal-offering of a Cohein is not eaten. The meal-offering of the daughter of a Cohein is eaten. This tells me only of his required meal-offering (above, the griddle meal-offering). Whence do I derive the same for his gift meal-offering? From "every meal-offering of a Cohein." This tells me (that he transgresses only if he eats) all of it. Whence do I derive the same for (his eating) part of it? From "shall it be" — even part of it. This tells me only that the above (Vayikra 6:15) (the griddle meal-offering) comes under "it shall be entirely smoked" and that the lower (Vayikra 6:16) (the gift meal-offering comes under "it shall not be eaten" Whence do I derive that the upper (also) comes under "it shall not be eaten" and the lower under "it shall be entirely smoked"? From the identity of "entire" (kalil, in both instances, so that what applies to one applies to the other). R. Eliezer says: "It shall be entirely (kalil) smoked; it shall not be eaten" — "All that comes under kalil" (even a burnt-offering and devoted portions, which are to be entirely consumed) — if he eats them, he transgresses a negative commandment.