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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 29, 2018 | 讬状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 Torah聽relating to sacrifices are absolutely necessary?


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

讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜

the priests,鈥 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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讚诐 讛讞讟讗转 讘讗爪讘注讜 讜谞转谉 注诇 拽专谞转 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讗爪讘注讜 讜诇拽讞 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽讘诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬谉 讘讗爪讘注讜 讜谞转谉 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 谞转讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬谉

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:34). The term 鈥渨ith his finger鈥 is interpreted as referring to the term 鈥渁nd the priest shall take.鈥 This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term 鈥渇inger,鈥 when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term 鈥渨ith his finger鈥 is also interpreted as referring to the term 鈥渁nd put it.鈥 This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讬讚 讘拽讘诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讬讚 讘拽讘诇讛 拽讬讘诇 讘砖诪讗诇 讻砖专

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.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讗讞专讬讜 谞讚专砖 讜诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专砖

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 鈥渨ith his finger鈥 is referring to both to the term 鈥渁nd the priest shall take鈥 that precedes it, and the term 鈥渁nd put it鈥 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鈥檚 opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase 鈥淎aron鈥檚 sons, the priests鈥 should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests鈥 (Leviticus 2:1鈥2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction 鈥渁nd,鈥 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鈥檚 sons, the priests.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诪诇诪讚 注诇 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讝专 转讛讗 驻住讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood鈥 (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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜住诪讱 讜砖讞讟 诪讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讝专讬诐 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专讬诐

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 1:4鈥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.

讗讬 诪讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝专讬拽讛 讚注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘注诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜砖讞讟 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚砖讞讬讟讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讘注诇讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 转讜专讛 讜讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注讻讘 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 转专转讬 讘注讬讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讞拽转 讛转讜专讛

搂 Apropos the mishna鈥檚 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: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2).

(住讬诪谉 谞转抓 讬拽诪诇)

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 [min岣]; shewbread [le岣m hapanim].

讜讛专讬 谞讝讬专 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 转谞讜驻讛 讘谞讝讬专 诪注讻讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讬注砖讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讜 讞讜拽讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only 鈥渓aw,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (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: 鈥淪o he must do,鈥 and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

讛专讬 转讜讚讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讜转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讝讘讞 转讜讚转 砖诇诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖诇诪讬讜 诇专讘讜转 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only 鈥渓aw,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (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: 鈥淲ith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving鈥 (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term 鈥渉is peace offerings鈥 serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.

讜讛专讬 诪爪讜专注 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讜转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讘诪爪讜专注 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛诪爪专注 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only 鈥渓aw,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (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: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper.鈥 Due to the added emphasis of the term 鈥渟hall be,鈥 it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

讜讛专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讜拽讛 讜转谞谉 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗诇讗 讗讜 转讜专讛 讗讜 讞讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only 鈥渟tatute,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be a statute for you forever鈥 (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.

讜讛专讬 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 转讜专讛 讘注讬讗 讞讜拽讛 讜讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 转讜专讛

The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav鈥檚 statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term 鈥渓aw鈥 is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (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.

讜讛讗 转讜专讛 讜讞讜拽讛 拽讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 转讜专讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讞讜拽讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞讝讬专 讛讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注讻讘 讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讞讝讬专 诇讗

The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 is written with regard to it, as the verse states: 鈥淓very male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever鈥 (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鈥檛 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?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讻转讬讘讗

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.

讜讛专讬 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讻转讬讘讗 讜转谞谉 砖谞讬 住讚专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛住讚专讬谉 讜讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讗讻讜诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻转讬讘讗

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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讙专砖讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛

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: 鈥淥f its groats, and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,

讙专砖 讜砖诪谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪注讻讘

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

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞讝讬专 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注讻讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讙专砖 讜砖诪谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪注讻讘 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诇讬讛

搂 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?

讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜讚讗讬 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讘拽讜诪爪讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讘拽诪爪讜 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讚讛 诇拽讜诪抓

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 鈥渉is handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:2) and 鈥渨ith his hand鈥 (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall remove his handful,鈥 and elsewhere it states: 鈥淎nd he shall take up from it with his hand.鈥 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.

专讘 住讘专 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽专讘 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讜讬诪诇讗 讻驻讜 诪诪谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讜专讜转 诪砖注讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

Rav holds that this halakha of using one鈥檚 hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron鈥檚 service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讜专讜转 诪砖注讛 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇讬 讛诇讞 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞 讜诪讚转 讬讘砖 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛讬讘砖 讜讗讬谉 讻诇讬 讛诇讞 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛讬讘砖 讜诇讗 诪讚转 讬讘砖 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 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.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讚讜转 讗讘诇 诪讝专拽讜转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讗讬诐 住诇转

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: 鈥淥ne 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鈥 (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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚转谞讗 讘讛 拽专讗 转专讬住专 讝讬诪谞讬谉

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讜讛专讬 讛讙砖讛 讚转谞讗 讘讛 拽专讗 讜诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛诪谞讞讛 讛拽专讘 讗讜转讛 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮

The Gemara returns to discussing Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to the altar鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7).

讛讛讜讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讘诪注专讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞

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: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: 鈥淏efore the Lord,鈥 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 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n front of the altar,鈥 which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.

讗讬 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讬讻讜诇 讘讚专讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讙讬砖讛 讘拽专谉 讚专讜诪讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讻谞讙讚 讞讜讚讛 砖诇 拽专谉 讜讚讬讜

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: 鈥淏efore the Lord,鈥 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬讙讬砖谞讛 诇诪注专讘讛 砖诇 拽专谉 讗讜 诇讚专讜诪讛 砖诇 拽专谉 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖转讬 诪拽专讗讜转 讗讞讚 诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪拽讬讬诐 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讞讚 诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪讘讟诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 砖诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪讘讟诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜转讜驻砖讬谉 讗转 砖诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪拽讬讬诐 讞讘讬专讜

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.

砖讻砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讘诪注专讘 讘讟诇转讛 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讚专讜诐 讜讻砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讚专讜诐 拽讬讬诪转讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮

He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering 鈥渂efore the Lord,鈥 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 鈥渋n front of the altar,鈥 which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering 鈥渋n front of the altar鈥 and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥

讜讛讬讻讗 拽讬讬诪转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讘爪驻讜谉 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: 鈥淏efore the Lord鈥? 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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讬 诪诇讞 讚诇讗 转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜诪注讻讘讗 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讬转 诪诇讞 注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗

The Gemara cites another objection to Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淚t is an everlasting covenant of salt鈥 (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜

the priests,鈥 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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讚诐 讛讞讟讗转 讘讗爪讘注讜 讜谞转谉 注诇 拽专谞转 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讗爪讘注讜 讜诇拽讞 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽讘诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬谉 讘讗爪讘注讜 讜谞转谉 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 谞转讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬谉

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:34). The term 鈥渨ith his finger鈥 is interpreted as referring to the term 鈥渁nd the priest shall take.鈥 This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term 鈥渇inger,鈥 when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term 鈥渨ith his finger鈥 is also interpreted as referring to the term 鈥渁nd put it.鈥 This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讬讚 讘拽讘诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讬讚 讘拽讘诇讛 拽讬讘诇 讘砖诪讗诇 讻砖专

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.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讗讞专讬讜 谞讚专砖 讜诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专砖

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 鈥渨ith his finger鈥 is referring to both to the term 鈥渁nd the priest shall take鈥 that precedes it, and the term 鈥渁nd put it鈥 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鈥檚 opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase 鈥淎aron鈥檚 sons, the priests鈥 should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests鈥 (Leviticus 2:1鈥2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction 鈥渁nd,鈥 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鈥檚 sons, the priests.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诪诇诪讚 注诇 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讗讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讝专 转讛讗 驻住讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood鈥 (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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜住诪讱 讜砖讞讟 诪讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讝专讬诐 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讝专讬诐

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 1:4鈥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.

讗讬 诪讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讝专讬拽讛 讚注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘注诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 讻驻专讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜砖讞讟 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚砖讞讬讟讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讘注诇讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 转讜专讛 讜讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注讻讘 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 转专转讬 讘注讬讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讞拽转 讛转讜专讛

搂 Apropos the mishna鈥檚 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: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2).

(住讬诪谉 谞转抓 讬拽诪诇)

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 [min岣]; shewbread [le岣m hapanim].

讜讛专讬 谞讝讬专 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 转谞讜驻讛 讘谞讝讬专 诪注讻讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讬注砖讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讜 讞讜拽讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only 鈥渓aw,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (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: 鈥淪o he must do,鈥 and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

讛专讬 转讜讚讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讜转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讝讘讞 转讜讚转 砖诇诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖诇诪讬讜 诇专讘讜转 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only 鈥渓aw,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (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: 鈥淲ith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving鈥 (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term 鈥渉is peace offerings鈥 serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.

讜讛专讬 诪爪讜专注 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 转讜专讛 讜转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讘诪爪讜专注 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛诪爪专注 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only 鈥渓aw,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (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: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper.鈥 Due to the added emphasis of the term 鈥渟hall be,鈥 it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.

讜讛专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讜拽讛 讜转谞谉 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗诇讗 讗讜 转讜专讛 讗讜 讞讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only 鈥渟tatute,鈥 as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be a statute for you forever鈥 (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.

讜讛专讬 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 转讜专讛 讘注讬讗 讞讜拽讛 讜讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 转讜专讛

The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav鈥檚 statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term 鈥渓aw鈥 is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (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.

讜讛讗 转讜专讛 讜讞讜拽讛 拽讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 转讜专讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛专讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讞讜拽讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞讝讬专 讛讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注讻讘 讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讞讝讬专 诇讗

The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 is written with regard to it, as the verse states: 鈥淓very male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever鈥 (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鈥檛 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?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讻转讬讘讗

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.

讜讛专讬 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讻转讬讘讗 讜转谞谉 砖谞讬 住讚专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛住讚专讬谉 讜讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 讗讗讻讬诇讛 讗讻讜诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻转讬讘讗

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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讙专砖讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛

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: 鈥淥f its groats, and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,

讙专砖 讜砖诪谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪注讻讘

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

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讞讝讬专 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇注讻讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讙专砖 讜砖诪谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪注讻讘 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诇讬讛

搂 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?

讗诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜讚讗讬 诪注讻讘讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讘拽讜诪爪讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 讘拽诪爪讜 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讚讛 诇拽讜诪抓

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 鈥渉is handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:2) and 鈥渨ith his hand鈥 (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall remove his handful,鈥 and elsewhere it states: 鈥淎nd he shall take up from it with his hand.鈥 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.

专讘 住讘专 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬拽专讘 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讜讬诪诇讗 讻驻讜 诪诪谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讜专讜转 诪砖注讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

Rav holds that this halakha of using one鈥檚 hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron鈥檚 service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

讜诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讜专讜转 诪砖注讛 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇讬 讛诇讞 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞 讜诪讚转 讬讘砖 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛讬讘砖 讜讗讬谉 讻诇讬 讛诇讞 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛讬讘砖 讜诇讗 诪讚转 讬讘砖 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 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.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讚讜转 讗讘诇 诪讝专拽讜转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 砖谞讬讛诐 诪诇讗讬诐 住诇转

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: 鈥淥ne 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鈥 (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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚转谞讗 讘讛 拽专讗 转专讬住专 讝讬诪谞讬谉

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讜讛专讬 讛讙砖讛 讚转谞讗 讘讛 拽专讗 讜诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛诪谞讞讛 讛拽专讘 讗讜转讛 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮

The Gemara returns to discussing Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to the altar鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7).

讛讛讜讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讘诪注专讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞

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: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: 鈥淏efore the Lord,鈥 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 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n front of the altar,鈥 which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.

讗讬 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讬讻讜诇 讘讚专讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讙讬砖讛 讘拽专谉 讚专讜诪讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讻谞讙讚 讞讜讚讛 砖诇 拽专谉 讜讚讬讜

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: 鈥淏efore the Lord,鈥 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬讙讬砖谞讛 诇诪注专讘讛 砖诇 拽专谉 讗讜 诇讚专讜诪讛 砖诇 拽专谉 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖转讬 诪拽专讗讜转 讗讞讚 诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪拽讬讬诐 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讞讚 诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪讘讟诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 砖诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪讘讟诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜转讜驻砖讬谉 讗转 砖诪拽讬讬诐 注爪诪讜 讜诪拽讬讬诐 讞讘讬专讜

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.

砖讻砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讘诪注专讘 讘讟诇转讛 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讚专讜诐 讜讻砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讚专讜诐 拽讬讬诪转讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮

He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering 鈥渂efore the Lord,鈥 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 鈥渋n front of the altar,鈥 which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering 鈥渋n front of the altar鈥 and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥

讜讛讬讻讗 拽讬讬诪转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讘爪驻讜谉 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: 鈥淏efore the Lord鈥? 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: 鈥淭he sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讬 诪诇讞 讚诇讗 转谞讗 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讜诪注讻讘讗 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讘专讬转 诪诇讞 注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗

The Gemara cites another objection to Rav鈥檚 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: 鈥淚t is an everlasting covenant of salt鈥 (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be

Scroll To Top