Menachot 19

הכהנים מקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו

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.

וסבר רבי שמעון מקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו והתניא ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו ונתן על קרנת המזבח באצבעו ולקח מלמד שלא תהא קבלה אלא בימין באצבעו ונתן מלמד שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין

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.

אמר רבי שמעון וכי נאמר יד בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמר יד בקבלה קיבל בשמאל כשר

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.

ואמר אביי במקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו קא מיפלגי ורבי שמעון סבר לאחריו נדרש ולפניו אין נדרש

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.

אלא היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון והביאה ויו מוסיף על ענין ראשון

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.

וסבר רבי שמעון ויו מוסיף על ענין ראשון אלא מעתה דכתיב ושחט את בן הבקר והקריבו בני אהרן הכהנים את הדם וזרקו את הדם מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה מלמד על שחיטה שכשירה בזר אי לרבי שמעון ויו מוסיף על ענין ראשון שחיטה הכי נמי בזר תהא פסולה

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.

שאני התם דאמר קרא וסמך ושחט מה סמיכה בזרים אף שחיטה בזרים

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.

אי מה סמיכה בבעלים אף שחיטה בבעלים ההוא לא מצית אמרת קל וחומר ומה זריקה דעיקר כפרה לא בעיא בעלים שחיטה דלאו עיקר כפרה לא כל שכן

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?

וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר גלי רחמנא ביום הכפורים ושחט את פר החטאת אשר לו מכלל דשחיטה בעלמא לא בעינן בעלים

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.

אמר רב כל מקום שנאמר תורה וחוקה אינו אלא לעכב קא סלקא דעתין תרתי בעיא כדכתיב זאת חקת התורה

§ 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).

(סימן נתץ יקמל)

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].

והרי נזיר דלא כתיבא ביה אלא תורה ואמר רב תנופה בנזיר מעכבא שאני התם כיון דכתיב כן יעשה כמאן דכתיבא בהו חוקה דמי

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.

הרי תודה דלא כתיבא ביה אלא תורה ותנן ארבעה שבתודה מעכבין זה את זה שאני תודה דאיתקש לנזיר דכתיב על זבח תודת שלמיו ואמר מר שלמיו לרבות שלמי נזיר

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.

והרי מצורע דלא כתיב ביה אלא תורה ותנן ארבעה מינין שבמצורע מעכבין זה את זה שאני התם כיון דכתיב זאת תהיה תורת המצרע כמאן דכתיב ביה חוקה דמי

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” (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: “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.

והרי יום הכפורים דלא כתיב ביה אלא חוקה ותנן שני שעירי יום הכפורים מעכבין זה את זה אלא או תורה או חוקה

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.

והרי שאר קרבנות דכתיב בהו תורה ולא מעכבי תורה בעיא חוקה וחוקה לא בעיא תורה

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.

והא תורה וחוקה קא אמר הכי קאמר אף על גב דכתיב תורה אי כתיבא חוקה אין ואי לא לא

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.

והרי מנחה דכתיב בה חוקה ואמר רב כל מקום שהחזיר הכתוב בתורת מנחה אינו אלא לעכב החזיר אין לא החזיר לא

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?

שאני התם דכי כתיבא חוקה אאכילה כתיבא

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.

והרי לחם הפנים דכי כתיבא חוקה אאכילה כתיבא ותנן שני סדרים מעכבין זה את זה שני בזיכין מעכבין זה את זה הסדרין והבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה

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.

אלא כל היכא דכתיבא אאכילה אכולא מילתא כתיבא

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.

שאני התם דאמר קרא מגרשה ומשמנה

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,

גרש ושמן מעכבין ואין דבר אחר מעכב

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

גופא אמר רב כל מקום שהחזיר לך הכתוב בתורה מנחה אינו אלא לעכב ושמואל אמר גרש ושמן מעכבין ואין דבר אחר מעכב ולשמואל אף על גב דתנא ביה קרא לא מעכבא ליה

§ 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?

אלא כל היכא דתנא ביה קרא ודאי מעכבא והכא במלא קומצו בקומצו קא מיפלגי דתניא מלא קמצו בקמצו שלא יעשה מדה לקומץ

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.

רב סבר הא נמי תנא ביה קרא דכתיב ויקרב את המנחה וימלא כפו ממנה ושמואל דורות משעה לא ילפינן

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.

ולא יליף שמואל דורות משעה והתנן כלי הלח מקדשין את הלח ומדת יבש מקדשין את היבש ואין כלי הלח מקדשין את היבש ולא מדת יבש מקדשין את הלח

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.

ואמר שמואל לא שנו אלא מדות אבל מזרקות מקדשין דכתיב שניהם מלאים סלת

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.

שאני התם דתנא בה קרא תריסר זימנין

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.

אמרו ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב והרי הגשה דתנא בה קרא ולא מעכבא מאן תנא ביה דכתיב זאת תורת המנחה הקרב אותה בני אהרן לפני 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).

ההוא לקבוע לה מקום הוא דאתא דתניא לפני ה׳ יכול במערב תלמוד לומר אל פני המזבח

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.

אי אל פני המזבח יכול בדרום תלמוד לומר לפני ה׳ הא כיצד מגישה בקרן דרומית מערבית כנגד חודה של קרן ודיו

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.

רבי אליעזר אומר יכול יגישנה למערבה של קרן או לדרומה של קרן אמרת כל מקום שאתה מוצא שתי מקראות אחד מקיים עצמו ומקיים חבירו ואחד מקיים עצמו ומבטל את חבירו מניחין את שמקיים עצמו ומבטל חבירו ותופשין את שמקיים עצמו ומקיים חבירו

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.

שכשאתה אומר לפני ה׳ במערב בטלתה אל פני המזבח בדרום וכשאתה אומר אל פני המזבח בדרום קיימתה לפני 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.”

והיכא קיימתה אמר רב אשי קסבר האי תנא כוליה מזבח בצפון קאי

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.

מתקיף לה רב הונא הרי מלח דלא תנא ביה קרא ומעכבא ביה דתניא ברית מלח עולם הוא שתהא

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