Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 29, 2018 | ื™ืดื— ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Menachot 19

Shiur sponsored in memory of Herzl Zvi Shlomo ben Pesach and Dina Sarah. Based on what principles can we determine that the details given by Torahย relating to sacrifices are absolutely necessary?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืงืจื ื ื“ืจืฉ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืœืื—ืจื™ื•

the priests,โ€ 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.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืงืจื ื ื“ืจืฉ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื“ื ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ื ืชืŸ ืขืœ ืงืจื ืช ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ืœืงื— ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืงื‘ืœื” ืืœื ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ื ืชื™ื ื” ืืœื ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ

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 isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 4:34). The term โ€œwith his fingerโ€ is interpreted as referring to the term โ€œand the priest shall take.โ€ This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term โ€œfinger,โ€ when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term โ€œwith his fingerโ€ is also interpreted as referring to the term โ€œand put it.โ€ This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ื ืืžืจ ื™ื“ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืœื ื ืืžืจ ื™ื“ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื›ืฉืจ

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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืžืงืจื ื ื“ืจืฉ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ื ื“ืจืฉ ื•ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจืฉ

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 โ€œwith his fingerโ€ is referring to both to the term โ€œand the priest shall takeโ€ that precedes it, and the term โ€œand put itโ€ 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 Shimonโ€™s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase โ€œAaronโ€™s sons, the priestsโ€ should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.

ืืœื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaronโ€™s sons, the priestsโ€ (Leviticus 2:1โ€“2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction โ€œand,โ€ 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 Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ื“ื ื•ื–ืจืงื• ืืช ื”ื“ื ืžืงื‘ืœื” ื•ืื™ืœืš ืžืฆื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžืœืžื“ ืขืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ื–ืจ ืื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื–ืจ ืชื”ื ืคืกื•ืœื”

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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the bloodโ€ (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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืกืžืš ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืžื” ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื‘ื–ืจื™ื ืืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ื–ืจื™ื

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: โ€œAnd 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 Lordโ€ (Leviticus 1:4โ€“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.

ืื™ ืžื” ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืขื™ืงืจ ื›ืคืจื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืœืื• ืขื™ืงืจ ื›ืคืจื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

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?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืžืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ืคืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื

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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himselfโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืขื›ื‘ ืงื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ื—ืงืช ื”ืชื•ืจื”

ยง Apropos the mishnaโ€™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: โ€œThis is the statute of the lawโ€ (Numbers 19:2).

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื ืชืฅ ื™ืงืžืœ)

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 [minแธฅa]; shewbread [leแธฅem hapanim].

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชื ื•ืคื” ื‘ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืขื›ื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื”ื• ื—ื•ืงื” ื“ืžื™

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only โ€œlaw,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œThis 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 naziriteshipโ€ (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: โ€œSo he must do,โ€ and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

ื”ืจื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืื ื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ื“ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ืช ืฉืœืžื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืฉืœืžื™ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only โ€œlaw,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the sacrifice of peace offeringsโ€ (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: โ€œWith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgivingโ€ (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term โ€œhis peace offeringsโ€ serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืžืฆืจืข ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ื“ืžื™

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only โ€œlaw,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œThis shall be the law of the leperโ€ (Numbers 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: โ€œThis shall be the law of the leper.โ€ Due to the added emphasis of the term โ€œshall be,โ€ it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืืœื ืื• ืชื•ืจื” ืื• ื—ื•ืงื”

The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only โ€œstatute,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œAnd it shall be a statute for you foreverโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืชื•ืจื”

The Gemara questions this understanding of Ravโ€™s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term โ€œlawโ€ is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: โ€œThis 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 offeringsโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ืงื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื—ื•ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ ืœื ืœื

The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesnโ€™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.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืžื ื—ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืขื›ื‘ ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืœื

The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term โ€œstatuteโ€ is written with regard to it, as the verse states: โ€œEvery male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute foreverโ€ (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? Doesnโ€™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?

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื—ื•ืงื” ืืื›ื™ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื

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.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื—ื•ืงื” ืืื›ื™ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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: โ€œAnd 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 statuteโ€ (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.

ืืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืืื›ื™ืœื” ืื›ื•ืœื ืžื™ืœืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื

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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžื’ืจืฉื” ื•ืžืฉืžื ื”

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: โ€œOf its groats, and of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,

ื’ืจืฉ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืขื›ื‘

teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืขื›ื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื’ืจืฉ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืขื›ื‘ ื•ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื ืœื™ื”

ยง 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?

ืืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขื›ื‘ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืœื ืงื•ืžืฆื• ื‘ืงื•ืžืฆื• ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžืœื ืงืžืฆื• ื‘ืงืžืฆื• ืฉืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื“ื” ืœืงื•ืžืฅ

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 โ€œhis handfulโ€ (Leviticus 2:2) and โ€œwith his handโ€ (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall remove his handful,โ€ and elsewhere it states: โ€œAnd he shall take up from it with his hand.โ€ 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.

ืจื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืงืจื‘ ืืช ื”ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื™ืžืœื ื›ืคื• ืžืžื ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืฉืขื” ืœื ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ

Rav holds that this halakha of using oneโ€™s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaronโ€™s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: โ€œAnd he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from itโ€ (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 oneโ€™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.

ื•ืœื ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืฉืขื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืœื— ื•ืžื“ืช ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ื•ืœื ืžื“ืช ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืœื—

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Zevaแธฅim 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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื“ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืžื–ืจืงื•ืช ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืœืื™ื ืกืœืช

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: โ€œOne silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offeringโ€ (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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื” ืงืจื ืชืจื™ืกืจ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื’ืฉื” ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื” ืงืจื ื•ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืžื ื—ื” ื”ืงืจื‘ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ

The Gemara returns to discussing Ravโ€™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: โ€œAnd he shall bring it to the altarโ€ (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: โ€œAnd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 6:7).

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื‘ื•ืข ืœื” ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื—

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: โ€œAnd this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: โ€œBefore the Lord,โ€ 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 โ€œbefore the Lord.โ€ Therefore, the verse states: โ€œIn front of the altar,โ€ which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.

ืื™ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžื’ื™ืฉื” ื‘ืงืจืŸ ื“ืจื•ืžื™ืช ืžืขืจื‘ื™ืช ื›ื ื’ื“ ื—ื•ื“ื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื“ื™ื•

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: โ€œBefore the Lord,โ€ 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื’ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืžืขืจื‘ื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ ืื• ืœื“ืจื•ืžื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ ืืžืจืช ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื” ืžื•ืฆื ืฉืชื™ ืžืงืจืื•ืช ืื—ื“ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžืงื™ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ืฉืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืชื•ืคืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ืฉืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžืงื™ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•

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.

ืฉื›ืฉืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ ื‘ื˜ืœืชื” ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ื•ื›ืฉืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืงื™ื™ืžืชื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ

He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering โ€œbefore the Lord,โ€ 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 โ€œin front of the altar,โ€ which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering โ€œin front of the altarโ€ and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it โ€œbefore the Lord.โ€

ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืงื™ื™ืžืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืงืื™

The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: โ€œBefore the Lordโ€? 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: โ€œThe sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altarโ€ is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืจื™ ืžืœื— ื“ืœื ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื•ืžืขื›ื‘ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื— ืขื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ืฉืชื”ื

The Gemara cites another objection to Ravโ€™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: โ€œIt is an everlasting covenant of saltโ€ (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 19

ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืงืจื ื ื“ืจืฉ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืœืื—ืจื™ื•

the priests,โ€ 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.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืงืจื ื ื“ืจืฉ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื“ื ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ื ืชืŸ ืขืœ ืงืจื ืช ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ืœืงื— ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืงื‘ืœื” ืืœื ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ื ืชื™ื ื” ืืœื ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ

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 isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 4:34). The term โ€œwith his fingerโ€ is interpreted as referring to the term โ€œand the priest shall take.โ€ This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term โ€œfinger,โ€ when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term โ€œwith his fingerโ€ is also interpreted as referring to the term โ€œand put it.โ€ This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ื ืืžืจ ื™ื“ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืœื ื ืืžืจ ื™ื“ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื›ืฉืจ

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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืžืงืจื ื ื“ืจืฉ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื—ืจื™ื• ื ื“ืจืฉ ื•ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจืฉ

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 โ€œwith his fingerโ€ is referring to both to the term โ€œand the priest shall takeโ€ that precedes it, and the term โ€œand put itโ€ 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 Shimonโ€™s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase โ€œAaronโ€™s sons, the priestsโ€ should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.

ืืœื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaronโ€™s sons, the priestsโ€ (Leviticus 2:1โ€“2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction โ€œand,โ€ 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 Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests.

ื•ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ื“ื ื•ื–ืจืงื• ืืช ื”ื“ื ืžืงื‘ืœื” ื•ืื™ืœืš ืžืฆื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžืœืžื“ ืขืœ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ื–ืจ ืื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื™ื• ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื–ืจ ืชื”ื ืคืกื•ืœื”

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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the bloodโ€ (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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืกืžืš ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืžื” ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื‘ื–ืจื™ื ืืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ื–ืจื™ื

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: โ€œAnd 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 Lordโ€ (Leviticus 1:4โ€“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.

ืื™ ืžื” ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืขื™ืงืจ ื›ืคืจื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืœืื• ืขื™ืงืจ ื›ืคืจื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

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?

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืžืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ืคืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื

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: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himselfโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืขื›ื‘ ืงื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ื—ืงืช ื”ืชื•ืจื”

ยง Apropos the mishnaโ€™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: โ€œThis is the statute of the lawโ€ (Numbers 19:2).

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื ืชืฅ ื™ืงืžืœ)

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 [minแธฅa]; shewbread [leแธฅem hapanim].

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชื ื•ืคื” ื‘ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืขื›ื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื”ื• ื—ื•ืงื” ื“ืžื™

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only โ€œlaw,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œThis 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 naziriteshipโ€ (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: โ€œSo he must do,โ€ and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

ื”ืจื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืื ื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ื“ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ืช ืฉืœืžื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืฉืœืžื™ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only โ€œlaw,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the sacrifice of peace offeringsโ€ (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: โ€œWith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgivingโ€ (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term โ€œhis peace offeringsโ€ serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืžืฆืจืข ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ื“ืžื™

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only โ€œlaw,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œThis shall be the law of the leperโ€ (Numbers 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: โ€œThis shall be the law of the leper.โ€ Due to the added emphasis of the term โ€œshall be,โ€ it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืืœื ืื• ืชื•ืจื” ืื• ื—ื•ืงื”

The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only โ€œstatute,โ€ as the verse states: โ€œAnd it shall be a statute for you foreverโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืชื•ืจื”

The Gemara questions this understanding of Ravโ€™s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term โ€œlawโ€ is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: โ€œThis 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 offeringsโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื—ื•ืงื” ืงื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื—ื•ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ ืœื ืœื

The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesnโ€™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.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืžื ื—ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ื—ื•ืงื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืขื›ื‘ ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืœื

The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term โ€œstatuteโ€ is written with regard to it, as the verse states: โ€œEvery male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute foreverโ€ (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? Doesnโ€™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?

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื—ื•ืงื” ืืื›ื™ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื

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.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื“ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื—ื•ืงื” ืืื›ื™ืœื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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: โ€œAnd 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 statuteโ€ (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.

ืืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืืื›ื™ืœื” ืื›ื•ืœื ืžื™ืœืชื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื

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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžื’ืจืฉื” ื•ืžืฉืžื ื”

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: โ€œOf its groats, and of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,

ื’ืจืฉ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืขื›ื‘

teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืœืขื›ื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ื’ืจืฉ ื•ืฉืžืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืžืขื›ื‘ ื•ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื ืœื™ื”

ยง 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?

ืืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขื›ื‘ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืœื ืงื•ืžืฆื• ื‘ืงื•ืžืฆื• ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžืœื ืงืžืฆื• ื‘ืงืžืฆื• ืฉืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื“ื” ืœืงื•ืžืฅ

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 โ€œhis handfulโ€ (Leviticus 2:2) and โ€œwith his handโ€ (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall remove his handful,โ€ and elsewhere it states: โ€œAnd he shall take up from it with his hand.โ€ 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.

ืจื‘ ืกื‘ืจ ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืงืจื‘ ืืช ื”ืžื ื—ื” ื•ื™ืžืœื ื›ืคื• ืžืžื ื” ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืฉืขื” ืœื ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ

Rav holds that this halakha of using oneโ€™s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaronโ€™s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: โ€œAnd he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from itโ€ (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 oneโ€™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.

ื•ืœื ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืฉืขื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืœื— ื•ืžื“ืช ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ื•ืœื ืžื“ืช ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืœื—

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Zevaแธฅim 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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื“ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืžื–ืจืงื•ืช ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืœืื™ื ืกืœืช

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: โ€œOne silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offeringโ€ (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.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื” ืงืจื ืชืจื™ืกืจ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื’ืฉื” ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื” ืงืจื ื•ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืžื ื—ื” ื”ืงืจื‘ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ

The Gemara returns to discussing Ravโ€™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: โ€œAnd he shall bring it to the altarโ€ (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: โ€œAnd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 6:7).

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื‘ื•ืข ืœื” ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื—

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: โ€œAnd this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: โ€œBefore the Lord,โ€ 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 โ€œbefore the Lord.โ€ Therefore, the verse states: โ€œIn front of the altar,โ€ which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.

ืื™ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžื’ื™ืฉื” ื‘ืงืจืŸ ื“ืจื•ืžื™ืช ืžืขืจื‘ื™ืช ื›ื ื’ื“ ื—ื•ื“ื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื“ื™ื•

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: โ€œBefore the Lord,โ€ 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื’ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืžืขืจื‘ื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ ืื• ืœื“ืจื•ืžื” ืฉืœ ืงืจืŸ ืืžืจืช ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื” ืžื•ืฆื ืฉืชื™ ืžืงืจืื•ืช ืื—ื“ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžืงื™ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื ื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ืฉืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืชื•ืคืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ืฉืžืงื™ื™ื ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžืงื™ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•

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.

ืฉื›ืฉืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ ื‘ื˜ืœืชื” ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ื•ื›ืฉืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ื“ืจื•ื ืงื™ื™ืžืชื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ

He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering โ€œbefore the Lord,โ€ 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 โ€œin front of the altar,โ€ which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering โ€œin front of the altarโ€ and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it โ€œbefore the Lord.โ€

ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืงื™ื™ืžืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืžื–ื‘ื— ื‘ืฆืคื•ืŸ ืงืื™

The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: โ€œBefore the Lordโ€? 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: โ€œThe sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altarโ€ is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืจื™ ืžืœื— ื“ืœื ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื•ืžืขื›ื‘ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื— ืขื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ืฉืชื”ื

The Gemara cites another objection to Ravโ€™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: โ€œIt is an everlasting covenant of saltโ€ (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be

Scroll To Top