This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon on whether pouring of the oil of a meal offering requires a kohen is based on different ways of interpreting the verses in Vayikra 2:1-2. The Rabbis maintain that the requirement for a kohen is only mentioned from the act of scooping, or kemitza, allowing a non-kohen to handle the pouring and mixing of the oil. Rabbi Shimon, however, views the connective language in the verse as a link that binds the entire process together, necessitating a kohen for every stage. At first the Gemara suggested that Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning was based on “a phrase can relate to both the upcoming and previous action,” but after showing that in a different issue, Rabbi Shimon did not employ that principle, they explain the “vav”(“and”) connects the previous section to the kohen.
Rav explains that if the words torah and chukka appear in a verse, that signifies that a failure to perform a detail exactly as described invalidates the entire offering. Through a series of challenges involving the nazir, the metzora, and the service of Yom Kippur, the Gemara refines this: if either term is employed, it indicates it is an essential detail. However, after raising a difficulty from all sacrifices, Rav’s statement is further refined: the term chukka is the primary indicator of indispensability, whereas torah on its own is not.
Repetition serves as another marker of necessity in the eyes of Rav, who argues that when the Torah returns to a subject multiple times, it is to emphasize that the detail is essential. This leads to a clash with Shmuel about whether or not is it essential that the scooping (kemitza) be performed by hand. Rav considers the method essential because it is repeated in the context of the Tabernacle’s inauguration. Shmuel, however, holds that a one-time historical event is not a binding source for future generations.
A difficulty is raised against the principle of Rav that if something is repeated, it is indispensable, as the act of hagasha, bringing the mincha offering to the Altar, is repeated and yet is listed in the Mishna as not essential. The Gemara responds by explaining that the second mention is needed for a different purpose – to pinpoint the exact location on the Altar where the mincha offering is to be brought.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rena Kurs in loving memory of her father, Asher Aryeh ben Ephraim and Esther on his 9th yahrzeit.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Blima Sturchein Slotzki in loving memory of Yitzhak Tzvi ben Blima and Chaim Shimon.
Menachot 19
הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.
the priests,” the verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. Before mentioning the priests, the verse states the halakha of pouring the oil on the meal offering, and after mentioning the priests, it states the halakha of the removal of the handful. Therefore, a priest is required for each of these rites.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְלָקַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַבָּלָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נְתִינָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין.
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). The term “with his finger” is interpreted as referring to the term “and the priest shall take.” This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term “finger,” when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term “with his finger” is also interpreted as referring to the term “and put it.” This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: But is the term hand stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the term hand is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, only with regard to the placement of the blood, then even if the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).
And Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. The Rabbis hold that the term “with his finger” is referring to both to the term “and the priest shall take” that precedes it, and the term “and put it” that succeeds it. And Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that succeeds it, but is not interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it. In that case, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase “Aaron’s sons, the priests” should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous matter, demonstrating that the rite of the pouring of the oil is to be performed by Aaron’s sons, the priests.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מְלַמֵּד עַל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר; אִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁחִיטָה הָכִי נָמֵי בְּזָר תְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon hold that the letter vav adds to the previous matter? If that is so, then this would pose a problem with regard to that which is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood” (Leviticus 1:5). The Sages infer from here that from the stage of the sacrificing of the blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward, it is the mitzva exclusively of members of the priesthood. By inference, this teaches that the slaughter of the offering, which is performed earlier, is valid when performed by a non-priest. If according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the letter vav adds to the previous matter, if the slaughter of the offering is performed by a non-priest, it should also be unfit.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ … וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5), associating the placing of the hands on the head of an offering, which is performed by the owner of the animal, with the slaughter of the offering. Therefore, just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed by non-priests, so too, the slaughter of the offering is performed by non-priests.
אִי: מָה סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְעָלִים? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זְרִיקָה דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּעָלִים, שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
The Gemara asks: If there is a juxtaposition of the placing of the hands and the slaughter of the animals, why not also say that just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed only by the owner of the animal, so too, the slaughter of the offering may be performed only by the owner of the animal? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood: And just as the sprinkling of the blood, which is the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, does not require the owner to perform it, as the priests perform this rite on his behalf, with regard to the slaughter of the offering, which is not the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, is it not all the more so clear that it does not need to be performed by the owner?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.
And if you would say that one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, and the owner may not sprinkle the blood as he is not a priest, but he may still be obligated to slaughter the animal, as this rite may be performed by a non-priest, the Merciful One revealed in the Torah in the context of the Yom Kippur service with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). By inference, from the fact that the verse specifies that here the High Priest, who is the owner of the offering, must perform the slaughter, it is clear that usually the slaughter does not require the participation of the owner.
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.
§ Apropos the mishna’s list of rites that are not indispensable for the meal offering, the Gemara explains that Rav says: With regard to any sacrificial rite where the term law and statute are stated, they are stated only to teach that the absence of the performance of that rite invalidates the offering. The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say that the two terms are both required for this principle to be in effect, as it is written with regard to a red heifer: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).
(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)
Before continuing its discussion of this principle, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the questions that follow: Nun, tav, tzadi; yod, kuf, mem, lamed. They represent: Nazirite; thanks offering [toda]; leper [metzora]; Yom Kippur; offerings [korbanot]; meal offering [minḥa]; shewbread [leḥem hapanim].
וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), and yet Rav says that the lack of waving of the offering by a nazirite invalidates the offering? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written in the continuation of the verse: “So he must do,” and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, since it is juxtaposed in the Torah to the offering of a nazirite; as it is written in a verse describing the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.
וַהֲרֵי מְצוֹרָע, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper, i.e., cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper.” Due to the added emphasis of the term “shall be,” it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.
The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only “statute,” as the verse states: “And it shall be a statute for you forever” (Leviticus 16:29), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other? Rather, it must be that Rav meant that wherever either the term law or the term statute is employed, this signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.
וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav’s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term “law” is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: “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 consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The Gemara answers: When the term law appears, it is still necessary for the term statute to appear, in order to teach that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering. But when the term statute appears, it is not necessary for the term law to appear as well. The term statute is sufficient.
וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn’t Rav say: Wherever the terms law and statute appear? Apparently, both are necessary for his principle to apply. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav is saying: Even in a context where the term law is written, if the term statute is written as well, then yes, failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering; but if the term statute does not accompany the term law, then failure to perform the rites does not invalidate the offering.
וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term “statute” is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever” (Leviticus 6:11), and yet Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the law of the meal offering that the verse repeats, as the details of the meal offering are discussed in Leviticus, chapter 2, and again in Leviticus, chapter 6, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering? Doesn’t this demonstrate that where the verse repeated the command, then yes, failure to perform the rite invalidates the offering; but if the verse did not repeat it, then failure to perform the rite does not invalidate the offering, whether or not the term statute appears?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the meal offering rather than with regard to the sacrificial rites.
וַהֲרֵי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara asks: But what of the shewbread, where when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the shewbread, as the verse states: “And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 24:9), and we learn in the mishna (27a): With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.
Rather, it must be that anywhere that the term statute is written with regard to eating, it is written with regard to the entire matter, i.e., all the halakhot of the offering, and teaches that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the meal offering, it is different, and it is only the rites that are repeated that are indispensable, as the verse states: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,
גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב.
teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה מִנְחָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא לֵיהּ?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the meal offering that the verse in the Torah repeats, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering. And Shmuel says: Only the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable. The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, is it true that even though a rite of the meal offering is repeated in another verse he does not deem it indispensable?
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא וַדַּאי מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָכָא בִּ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ.
Rather, Shmuel must agree that wherever the verse repeats a rite it is certainly understood to be indispensable; and here, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the expressions “his handful” (Leviticus 2:2) and “with his hand” (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall remove his handful,” and elsewhere it states: “And he shall take up from it with his hand.” The change in terminology between the two verses teaches that the priest should not use a utensil to measure an amount for the handful of a meal offering, but should use his hand.
רַב סָבַר: הָא נָמֵי תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל: דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.
Rav holds that this halakha of using one’s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron’s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: “And he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17), demonstrating that the handful is removed by hand and not with a utensil. And Shmuel holds that we do not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation. Therefore, using one’s hand is not indispensable, as the general requirements of the rites of the meal offering cannot be derived from a verse referring to the meal offering that was sacrificed during the consecration of the Tabernacle.
וְלָא יָלֵיף שְׁמוּאֵל דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה? וְהָתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): Service vessels used for the liquids sanctify only the liquids placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances sanctify only the dry substances that are placed in them. But service vessels used for the liquids do not sanctify the dry substances placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances do not sanctify the liquids placed in them.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשִׁין, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת״!
And Shmuel says concerning this mishna: They taught that halakha only with regard to service vessels used to measure liquids, e.g., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry substances placed in them as well, as it is written with regard to the offerings of the princes during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry substance. In this case, Shmuel does derive the general halakha from a temporary situation, in this case the offerings of the princes.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנִין.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the offering of the princes, it is different, as the verse is repeated twelve times, once with regard to each and every prince. Therefore, Shmuel derives a halakha for all generations from it. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the halakha for all generations cannot be derived from a temporary situation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: וַהֲרֵי הַגָּשָׁה, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא, וְלָא מְעַכְּבָא! מַאן תְּנָא בֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara returns to discussing Rav’s statement that a rite is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But what of bringing the meal offering to the corner of the altar, which is repeated in the verse, as it is stated: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); and it is not indispensable, as stated in the mishna (18a)? The Gemara elaborates: Where is it repeated? As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).
הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara answers: That verse is not a repetition of the mitzva for the priest to bring the meal offering to the corner of the altar; rather, it comes only to establish the place for the meal offering and describe where it should be brought. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the meal offering must be brought on the western side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary and is therefore “before the Lord.” Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse had merely stated: In front of the altar, one might have thought that the meal offering is brought only on the southern side of the altar, as just mentioned. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The baraita answers: The priest brings it near on the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that will suffice for him.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the verse presents the priest with the option that he may bring it on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. You say the following principle: Any time you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, and one of which fulfills itself and negates the other, we set aside the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and we seize the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.
שֶׁכְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering “before the Lord,” which indicates that it shall be brought on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “in front of the altar,” which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering “in front of the altar” and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “before the Lord.”
וְהֵיכָא קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the entire altar stood in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, opposite the Holy of Holies, directly before the Lord. In any event, it can be seen in this baraita that the purpose of the verse: “The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא: הֲרֵי מֶלַח, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, וּמְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא
The Gemara cites another objection to Rav’s statement that a rite of the meal offering is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Huna objects to this: But what of the placement of the salt on the handful of the meal offering before it is burned, which is not repeated in the verse, and yet it is still indispensable in its sacrifice? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Menachot 19
הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.
the priests,” the verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. Before mentioning the priests, the verse states the halakha of pouring the oil on the meal offering, and after mentioning the priests, it states the halakha of the removal of the handful. Therefore, a priest is required for each of these rites.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְלָקַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַבָּלָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נְתִינָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין.
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). The term “with his finger” is interpreted as referring to the term “and the priest shall take.” This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term “finger,” when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term “with his finger” is also interpreted as referring to the term “and put it.” This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: But is the term hand stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the term hand is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, only with regard to the placement of the blood, then even if the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).
And Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. The Rabbis hold that the term “with his finger” is referring to both to the term “and the priest shall take” that precedes it, and the term “and put it” that succeeds it. And Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that succeeds it, but is not interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it. In that case, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase “Aaron’s sons, the priests” should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous matter, demonstrating that the rite of the pouring of the oil is to be performed by Aaron’s sons, the priests.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מְלַמֵּד עַל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר; אִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁחִיטָה הָכִי נָמֵי בְּזָר תְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon hold that the letter vav adds to the previous matter? If that is so, then this would pose a problem with regard to that which is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood” (Leviticus 1:5). The Sages infer from here that from the stage of the sacrificing of the blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward, it is the mitzva exclusively of members of the priesthood. By inference, this teaches that the slaughter of the offering, which is performed earlier, is valid when performed by a non-priest. If according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the letter vav adds to the previous matter, if the slaughter of the offering is performed by a non-priest, it should also be unfit.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ … וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5), associating the placing of the hands on the head of an offering, which is performed by the owner of the animal, with the slaughter of the offering. Therefore, just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed by non-priests, so too, the slaughter of the offering is performed by non-priests.
אִי: מָה סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְעָלִים? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זְרִיקָה דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּעָלִים, שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
The Gemara asks: If there is a juxtaposition of the placing of the hands and the slaughter of the animals, why not also say that just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed only by the owner of the animal, so too, the slaughter of the offering may be performed only by the owner of the animal? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood: And just as the sprinkling of the blood, which is the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, does not require the owner to perform it, as the priests perform this rite on his behalf, with regard to the slaughter of the offering, which is not the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, is it not all the more so clear that it does not need to be performed by the owner?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.
And if you would say that one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, and the owner may not sprinkle the blood as he is not a priest, but he may still be obligated to slaughter the animal, as this rite may be performed by a non-priest, the Merciful One revealed in the Torah in the context of the Yom Kippur service with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). By inference, from the fact that the verse specifies that here the High Priest, who is the owner of the offering, must perform the slaughter, it is clear that usually the slaughter does not require the participation of the owner.
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.
§ Apropos the mishna’s list of rites that are not indispensable for the meal offering, the Gemara explains that Rav says: With regard to any sacrificial rite where the term law and statute are stated, they are stated only to teach that the absence of the performance of that rite invalidates the offering. The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say that the two terms are both required for this principle to be in effect, as it is written with regard to a red heifer: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).
(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)
Before continuing its discussion of this principle, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the questions that follow: Nun, tav, tzadi; yod, kuf, mem, lamed. They represent: Nazirite; thanks offering [toda]; leper [metzora]; Yom Kippur; offerings [korbanot]; meal offering [minḥa]; shewbread [leḥem hapanim].
וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), and yet Rav says that the lack of waving of the offering by a nazirite invalidates the offering? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written in the continuation of the verse: “So he must do,” and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, since it is juxtaposed in the Torah to the offering of a nazirite; as it is written in a verse describing the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.
וַהֲרֵי מְצוֹרָע, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper, i.e., cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper.” Due to the added emphasis of the term “shall be,” it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.
The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only “statute,” as the verse states: “And it shall be a statute for you forever” (Leviticus 16:29), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other? Rather, it must be that Rav meant that wherever either the term law or the term statute is employed, this signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.
וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav’s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term “law” is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: “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 consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The Gemara answers: When the term law appears, it is still necessary for the term statute to appear, in order to teach that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering. But when the term statute appears, it is not necessary for the term law to appear as well. The term statute is sufficient.
וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn’t Rav say: Wherever the terms law and statute appear? Apparently, both are necessary for his principle to apply. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav is saying: Even in a context where the term law is written, if the term statute is written as well, then yes, failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering; but if the term statute does not accompany the term law, then failure to perform the rites does not invalidate the offering.
וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term “statute” is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever” (Leviticus 6:11), and yet Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the law of the meal offering that the verse repeats, as the details of the meal offering are discussed in Leviticus, chapter 2, and again in Leviticus, chapter 6, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering? Doesn’t this demonstrate that where the verse repeated the command, then yes, failure to perform the rite invalidates the offering; but if the verse did not repeat it, then failure to perform the rite does not invalidate the offering, whether or not the term statute appears?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the meal offering rather than with regard to the sacrificial rites.
וַהֲרֵי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara asks: But what of the shewbread, where when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the shewbread, as the verse states: “And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 24:9), and we learn in the mishna (27a): With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.
Rather, it must be that anywhere that the term statute is written with regard to eating, it is written with regard to the entire matter, i.e., all the halakhot of the offering, and teaches that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the meal offering, it is different, and it is only the rites that are repeated that are indispensable, as the verse states: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,
גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב.
teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה מִנְחָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא לֵיהּ?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the meal offering that the verse in the Torah repeats, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering. And Shmuel says: Only the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable. The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, is it true that even though a rite of the meal offering is repeated in another verse he does not deem it indispensable?
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא וַדַּאי מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָכָא בִּ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ.
Rather, Shmuel must agree that wherever the verse repeats a rite it is certainly understood to be indispensable; and here, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the expressions “his handful” (Leviticus 2:2) and “with his hand” (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall remove his handful,” and elsewhere it states: “And he shall take up from it with his hand.” The change in terminology between the two verses teaches that the priest should not use a utensil to measure an amount for the handful of a meal offering, but should use his hand.
רַב סָבַר: הָא נָמֵי תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל: דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.
Rav holds that this halakha of using one’s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron’s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: “And he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17), demonstrating that the handful is removed by hand and not with a utensil. And Shmuel holds that we do not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation. Therefore, using one’s hand is not indispensable, as the general requirements of the rites of the meal offering cannot be derived from a verse referring to the meal offering that was sacrificed during the consecration of the Tabernacle.
וְלָא יָלֵיף שְׁמוּאֵל דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה? וְהָתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): Service vessels used for the liquids sanctify only the liquids placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances sanctify only the dry substances that are placed in them. But service vessels used for the liquids do not sanctify the dry substances placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances do not sanctify the liquids placed in them.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשִׁין, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת״!
And Shmuel says concerning this mishna: They taught that halakha only with regard to service vessels used to measure liquids, e.g., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry substances placed in them as well, as it is written with regard to the offerings of the princes during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry substance. In this case, Shmuel does derive the general halakha from a temporary situation, in this case the offerings of the princes.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנִין.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the offering of the princes, it is different, as the verse is repeated twelve times, once with regard to each and every prince. Therefore, Shmuel derives a halakha for all generations from it. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the halakha for all generations cannot be derived from a temporary situation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: וַהֲרֵי הַגָּשָׁה, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא, וְלָא מְעַכְּבָא! מַאן תְּנָא בֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara returns to discussing Rav’s statement that a rite is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But what of bringing the meal offering to the corner of the altar, which is repeated in the verse, as it is stated: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); and it is not indispensable, as stated in the mishna (18a)? The Gemara elaborates: Where is it repeated? As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).
הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara answers: That verse is not a repetition of the mitzva for the priest to bring the meal offering to the corner of the altar; rather, it comes only to establish the place for the meal offering and describe where it should be brought. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the meal offering must be brought on the western side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary and is therefore “before the Lord.” Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse had merely stated: In front of the altar, one might have thought that the meal offering is brought only on the southern side of the altar, as just mentioned. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The baraita answers: The priest brings it near on the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that will suffice for him.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the verse presents the priest with the option that he may bring it on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. You say the following principle: Any time you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, and one of which fulfills itself and negates the other, we set aside the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and we seize the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.
שֶׁכְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering “before the Lord,” which indicates that it shall be brought on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “in front of the altar,” which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering “in front of the altar” and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “before the Lord.”
וְהֵיכָא קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the entire altar stood in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, opposite the Holy of Holies, directly before the Lord. In any event, it can be seen in this baraita that the purpose of the verse: “The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא: הֲרֵי מֶלַח, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, וּמְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא
The Gemara cites another objection to Rav’s statement that a rite of the meal offering is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Huna objects to this: But what of the placement of the salt on the handful of the meal offering before it is burned, which is not repeated in the verse, and yet it is still indispensable in its sacrifice? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be
