Sifra 3.0.8

Tzav, Section 4

1) (Vayikra 6:18) ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.") "This is the law of the sin-offering": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): "The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it" and (Vayikra 6:20): "and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed," I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "the law of the sin-offering": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.

2) I would think that the sin-offering of a bird, (that is "pinched") also requires washing (of the blood on the garment, it also being called a "sin-offering"); it is, therefore, written "This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered" (by shechitah) and not by "pinching" (melikah). "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the L–rd.": This is to include every sin-offering for shechitah in the north (of the altar) only. R. Eliezer says: From here we derive that a fixed burnt-offering is to be slaughtered only in the north. "it is holy of holies.": This is to include communal peace-offerings (the Atzereth sheep) for shechitah in the north only. "it is holy of holies": to exclude the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite, (which are lower-order) offerings (from shechitah in the north).

3) (Vayikra 6:19) ("The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it. In a holy lace shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.") "The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it": with the exclusion of one who immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening, and one lacking atonement, and a mourner. "it": a fit (offering) and not one that is unfit, (such as one that went out of the azarah or became tamei). "it": an offering whose blood was applied above (the upper half of the altar), and not one whose blood was applied below. — Now where are you coming from (to assume that it would be fit if its blood were placed below)? — Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh you shall eat," I would assume that a sin-offering whose blood was applied on the lower half was fit. And how would I satisfy "on the horns of the altar"? As being a mitzvah (but not a categorical requirement). For I would think that just as it requires four applications (of blood on the horns of the altar), but if he made (only) one application it atones, so, it would require the application of blood above, but if he did so below it would be fit. And does this not follow, viz.: Blood is applied below (the red line, in the instance of a bird sin-offering, (Vayikra 5:9): "And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar," which is expounded to be the lower wall), and blood is applied above (the red line, in the instance of beast sin-offering, where "horns" is written). Just as (it is derived by exegesis) that if what was to be applied below was applied above, there is no atonement, so, if what was to be applied above, was applied below, there is no atonement. But (this could be countered, viz.:) Why does the lower applied above not atone? Because none of it is to be offered up above. Would you then say (because of this) that the higher applied below does not atone — when part of it is offered below! (So that "it" is required to tell us that it does not atone.) — But this would be countered by the instance of the inner (blood), part of which is offered outside, notwithstanding which if it (the inner blood) was offered outside, it would not atone. (So, the question returns: Why is the "it" exclusion necessary?) (Because it could be countered) Why is it that if the inner blood is applied outside it does not atone? Because the inner altar does not complete the process of atonement, whereas with the higher blood, since the horns do complete the process of atonement, I would say that if it were placed below, it would be fit; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "it" — an offering whose blood was applied above, and not one whose blood was applied below.

5) "In a holy place shall it be eaten": I might think, in the Levite encampment. It is, therefore, written "in the court of the tent of meeting." This tells me only of the court of the tent of meeting? Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the chambers built in a non-sanctified area and opening into the sanctuary? It is, therefore, written (to include these): "In a holy place shall it be eaten."

6) (Vayikra 6:20): "All that touches its flesh shall be sanctified" (see Section 2, Chapter 3:6)