Menachot 93bמנחות צ״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 93b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
93bצ״ג ב

דנין יחיד מיחיד ואין דנין יחיד מציבור

The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of another offering of an individual, such as the burnt offering of appearance, and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of a communal offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.

ולמאן דיליף מזקני עדה מאי טעמא לא יליף מעולת ראייה דנין מידי דכתיב ביה סמיכה בגופיה ממידי דכתיב ביה סמיכה בגופיה לאפוקי עולת ראייה דהיא גופה מעולת נדבה גמרה

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the burnt offering of appearance? The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of a matter concerning which the requirement of placing hands is explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, from another matter concerning which placing hands is also explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves to exclude the possibility of deriving the halakhot from those of the burnt offering of appearance, as the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather it itself is derived from the requirement stated with regard to a voluntary burnt offering.

דתני תנא קמיה דרב יצחק בר אבא (ויקרא ט, טז) ויקרב את העולה ויעשה כמשפט כמשפט עולת נדבה לימד על עולת חובה שטעונה סמיכה:

This is as a tanna taught in a baraita in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: “And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordinance” (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: In accordance with the ordinance of a voluntary burnt offering. Accordingly, this verse teaches about every obligatory burnt offering, including the burnt offering of appearance, that it requires placing hands, just as a voluntary burnt offering does.

והעבד והשליח והאשה: תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ד) ידו ולא יד עבדו ידו ולא יד שלוחו ידו ולא יד אשתו

§ The mishna states: A Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, and a woman do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these halakhot, the Sages taught in a baraita: The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. “His hand” (Leviticus 3:2), but not the hand of his Canaanite slave; “his hand” (Leviticus 3:8), but not the hand of his agent; “his hand” (Leviticus 3:13), but not the hand of his wife.

כל הני למה לי צריכא אי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא למעוטי עבד דלאו בר מצות אבל שליח דבר מצוה הוא ושלוחו של אדם כמותו אימא לסמוך

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only a Canaanite slave, as since he is not commanded in mitzvot it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. But with regard to an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and there is a principle that the halakhic status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, one might say that he could place his hands on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent.

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי דלאו כגופיה דמיא אבל אשתו דכגופיה דמיא אימא תיסמך צריכא:

And had the Merciful One taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, as they are not considered like his own flesh. But with regard to his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, one might say that she places her hands on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.

סמיכה שירי מצוה: ת"ר (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך (ויקרא א, ד) ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא לומר לך שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר

§ The mishna states: The requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught in a baraita: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The baraita asks: But does the rite of placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated placing hands as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering atones for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.

ותניא גבי תנופה כי האי גוונא (ויקרא יד, כא) לתנופה לכפר וכי תנופה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא לומר לך שאם עשאה לתנופה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר:

And it is taught in a baraita with regard to waving in this way: “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The baraita asks: Does waving the offering effect atonement? Isn’t atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated waving as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering effects atonement for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.

על הראש: תנו רבנן ידו על הראש ולא ידו על הצואר ידו על הראש ולא ידו על הגביים ידו על הראש ולא ידו על החזה

§ The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:2), but not with his hand on the neck of the animal; with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:8), but not with his hand on the back of the animal; with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:13), but not with his hand on the breast of the animal.

כל הני למה לי צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא חד למעוטי צואר דלא קאי בהדי ראשו אבל גבו דקאי להדי ראשו אימא לא צריכא

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only the animal’s neck, as it is not level with the head of the animal. But with regard to its back, which is level with its head, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back.

ואי אשמעינן הני תרי משום דלא איתרבי לתנופה אבל חזה דאיתרבי לתנופה אימא לא צריכא

And had the Torah taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only the neck and the back, as those parts are not included in the waving of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. But with regard to the animal’s breast, which is included in the waving of the offering, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast.

איבעיא להו ידו על הצדדין מהו תא שמע דתניא אבא ביראה ברבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ידו על ראשו ולא ידו על הצדדין

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one placed his hand on the sides of the animal’s head, what is the halakha; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says that the verse: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand on the top of its head and not with his hand on the sides of its head.

בעי רבי ירמיה מטלית מהו שתחוץ תא שמע ובלבד שלא תהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הזבח:

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one’s hands were wrapped in a cloth, what is the halakha as to whether the cloth is regarded as an interposition between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita, which states: The rite is valid provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering.

ובשתי ידים: מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש דאמר קרא (ויקרא טז, כא) וסמך אהרן את שתי ידו כתיב ידו וכתיב שתי זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר ידו הרי כאן שתים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחת

§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed with two hands. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And Aaron shall place both his hands [yadav] upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word yadav, meaning: His hands, is written without a second yod, and so if read without vowels it reads as: His hand. But it is also written “both,” which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. This established a paradigm that in any place where it is stated in the Torah: His hand, there are here two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies that there is only one.

אזל רבי אלעזר אמרה להא שמעתא בבי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה דריש לקיש שמע ריש לקיש ואיקפד אמר ליה אי סלקא דעתך כל היכא דכתיב ידו תרתי נינהו למה לי למכתב ידיו ידיו

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar went and stated this halakha in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard about this and became angry. He said to Rabbi Elazar: If it enters your mind that wherever it is written: His hand, the meaning is that there are actually two hands, then why do I ever need the Torah to write: His hands, his hands, i.e., yadav in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?

אקשי ליה עשרים וארבע ידיו (ויקרא ז, ל) ידיו תביאנה (דברים לג, ז) ידיו רב לו (בראשית מח, יד) שכל את ידיו אישתיק

Reish Lakish raised objections against him from twenty-four occasions where the Torah writes: His hands, for example: “His own hands [yadav] shall bring the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); “his hands [yadav] shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); “Guiding his hands [yadav] wittingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar was silent, as he had no response.

לבתר דנח דעתיה אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא תימא לי ידיו דסמיכה קאמרי

After Reish Lakish had calmed down, he said to Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that you did not say to me the following: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands. But with regard to other halakhot, when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”

בסמיכה נמי כתיב (במדבר כז, כג) ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו סמיכה דבהמה קאמרי:

The Gemara asks: But also with regard to placing hands it is written, concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: “And he placed his hands [yadav] upon him and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [yadav] instead of: His hand [yado]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands on an animal offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.

ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין תכף לסמיכה שחיטה: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר במקום שסומכין שוחטין שתכף לסמיכה שחיטה:

§ The mishna teaches: And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: In the same location in the Temple that one places hands one slaughters the animal, because immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first.

מתני׳ חומר בסמיכה מבתנופה ובתנופה מבסמיכה שאחד מניף לכל החברים ואין אחד סומך לכל החברים חומר בתנופה שהתנופה נוהגת בקרבנות היחיד ובקרבנות הצבור

MISHNA: There is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to placing hands than there is with regard to waving, and there is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to waving than there is with regard to placing hands. The stringency with regard to placing hands is that if several people are partners in bringing an offering, one of them waves the offering on behalf of all the other partners, but one cannot fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone places hands on behalf of all the other partners; rather, each member must place hands himself. The stringency with regard to waving is that waving is practiced in the cases of both offerings of an individual, e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, and in the cases of communal offerings, e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot, which are waved together with the two loaves;