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 relating to sacrifices are absolutely necessary?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Menachot 19
הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.
the priests,” the verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. Before mentioning the priests, the verse states the halakha of pouring the oil on the meal offering, and after mentioning the priests, it states the halakha of the removal of the handful. Therefore, a priest is required for each of these rites.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְלָקַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַבָּלָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נְתִינָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין.
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). The term “with his finger” is interpreted as referring to the term “and the priest shall take.” This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term “finger,” when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term “with his finger” is also interpreted as referring to the term “and put it.” This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: But is the term hand stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the term hand is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, only with regard to the placement of the blood, then even if the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).
And Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. The Rabbis hold that the term “with his finger” is referring to both to the term “and the priest shall take” that precedes it, and the term “and put it” that succeeds it. And Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that succeeds it, but is not interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it. In that case, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase “Aaron’s sons, the priests” should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous matter, demonstrating that the rite of the pouring of the oil is to be performed by Aaron’s sons, the priests.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מְלַמֵּד עַל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר; אִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁחִיטָה הָכִי נָמֵי בְּזָר תְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon hold that the letter vav adds to the previous matter? If that is so, then this would pose a problem with regard to that which is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood” (Leviticus 1:5). The Sages infer from here that from the stage of the sacrificing of the blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward, it is the mitzva exclusively of members of the priesthood. By inference, this teaches that the slaughter of the offering, which is performed earlier, is valid when performed by a non-priest. If according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the letter vav adds to the previous matter, if the slaughter of the offering is performed by a non-priest, it should also be unfit.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ … וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5), associating the placing of the hands on the head of an offering, which is performed by the owner of the animal, with the slaughter of the offering. Therefore, just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed by non-priests, so too, the slaughter of the offering is performed by non-priests.
אִי: מָה סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְעָלִים? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זְרִיקָה דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּעָלִים, שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
The Gemara asks: If there is a juxtaposition of the placing of the hands and the slaughter of the animals, why not also say that just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed only by the owner of the animal, so too, the slaughter of the offering may be performed only by the owner of the animal? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood: And just as the sprinkling of the blood, which is the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, does not require the owner to perform it, as the priests perform this rite on his behalf, with regard to the slaughter of the offering, which is not the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, is it not all the more so clear that it does not need to be performed by the owner?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.
And if you would say that one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, and the owner may not sprinkle the blood as he is not a priest, but he may still be obligated to slaughter the animal, as this rite may be performed by a non-priest, the Merciful One revealed in the Torah in the context of the Yom Kippur service with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). By inference, from the fact that the verse specifies that here the High Priest, who is the owner of the offering, must perform the slaughter, it is clear that usually the slaughter does not require the participation of the owner.
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.
§ Apropos the mishna’s list of rites that are not indispensable for the meal offering, the Gemara explains that Rav says: With regard to any sacrificial rite where the term law and statute are stated, they are stated only to teach that the absence of the performance of that rite invalidates the offering. The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say that the two terms are both required for this principle to be in effect, as it is written with regard to a red heifer: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).
(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)
Before continuing its discussion of this principle, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the questions that follow: Nun, tav, tzadi; yod, kuf, mem, lamed. They represent: Nazirite; thanks offering [toda]; leper [metzora]; Yom Kippur; offerings [korbanot]; meal offering [minḥa]; shewbread [leḥem hapanim].
וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), and yet Rav says that the lack of waving of the offering by a nazirite invalidates the offering? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written in the continuation of the verse: “So he must do,” and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, since it is juxtaposed in the Torah to the offering of a nazirite; as it is written in a verse describing the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.
וַהֲרֵי מְצוֹרָע, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper, i.e., cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper.” Due to the added emphasis of the term “shall be,” it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.
The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only “statute,” as the verse states: “And it shall be a statute for you forever” (Leviticus 16:29), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other? Rather, it must be that Rav meant that wherever either the term law or the term statute is employed, this signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.
וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav’s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term “law” is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The Gemara answers: When the term law appears, it is still necessary for the term statute to appear, in order to teach that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering. But when the term statute appears, it is not necessary for the term law to appear as well. The term statute is sufficient.
וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn’t Rav say: Wherever the terms law and statute appear? Apparently, both are necessary for his principle to apply. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav is saying: Even in a context where the term law is written, if the term statute is written as well, then yes, failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering; but if the term statute does not accompany the term law, then failure to perform the rites does not invalidate the offering.
וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term “statute” is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever” (Leviticus 6:11), and yet Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the law of the meal offering that the verse repeats, as the details of the meal offering are discussed in Leviticus, chapter 2, and again in Leviticus, chapter 6, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering? Doesn’t this demonstrate that where the verse repeated the command, then yes, failure to perform the rite invalidates the offering; but if the verse did not repeat it, then failure to perform the rite does not invalidate the offering, whether or not the term statute appears?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the meal offering rather than with regard to the sacrificial rites.
וַהֲרֵי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara asks: But what of the shewbread, where when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the shewbread, as the verse states: “And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 24:9), and we learn in the mishna (27a): With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.
Rather, it must be that anywhere that the term statute is written with regard to eating, it is written with regard to the entire matter, i.e., all the halakhot of the offering, and teaches that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the meal offering, it is different, and it is only the rites that are repeated that are indispensable, as the verse states: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,
גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב.
teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה מִנְחָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא לֵיהּ?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the meal offering that the verse in the Torah repeats, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering. And Shmuel says: Only the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable. The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, is it true that even though a rite of the meal offering is repeated in another verse he does not deem it indispensable?
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא וַדַּאי מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָכָא בִּ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ.
Rather, Shmuel must agree that wherever the verse repeats a rite it is certainly understood to be indispensable; and here, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the expressions “his handful” (Leviticus 2:2) and “with his hand” (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall remove his handful,” and elsewhere it states: “And he shall take up from it with his hand.” The change in terminology between the two verses teaches that the priest should not use a utensil to measure an amount for the handful of a meal offering, but should use his hand.
רַב סָבַר: הָא נָמֵי תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל: דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.
Rav holds that this halakha of using one’s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron’s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: “And he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17), demonstrating that the handful is removed by hand and not with a utensil. And Shmuel holds that we do not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation. Therefore, using one’s hand is not indispensable, as the general requirements of the rites of the meal offering cannot be derived from a verse referring to the meal offering that was sacrificed during the consecration of the Tabernacle.
וְלָא יָלֵיף שְׁמוּאֵל דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה? וְהָתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): Service vessels used for the liquids sanctify only the liquids placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances sanctify only the dry substances that are placed in them. But service vessels used for the liquids do not sanctify the dry substances placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances do not sanctify the liquids placed in them.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשִׁין, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת״!
And Shmuel says concerning this mishna: They taught that halakha only with regard to service vessels used to measure liquids, e.g., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry substances placed in them as well, as it is written with regard to the offerings of the princes during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry substance. In this case, Shmuel does derive the general halakha from a temporary situation, in this case the offerings of the princes.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנִין.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the offering of the princes, it is different, as the verse is repeated twelve times, once with regard to each and every prince. Therefore, Shmuel derives a halakha for all generations from it. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the halakha for all generations cannot be derived from a temporary situation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: וַהֲרֵי הַגָּשָׁה, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא, וְלָא מְעַכְּבָא! מַאן תְּנָא בֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara returns to discussing Rav’s statement that a rite is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But what of bringing the meal offering to the corner of the altar, which is repeated in the verse, as it is stated: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); and it is not indispensable, as stated in the mishna (18a)? The Gemara elaborates: Where is it repeated? As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).
הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara answers: That verse is not a repetition of the mitzva for the priest to bring the meal offering to the corner of the altar; rather, it comes only to establish the place for the meal offering and describe where it should be brought. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the meal offering must be brought on the western side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary and is therefore “before the Lord.” Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse had merely stated: In front of the altar, one might have thought that the meal offering is brought only on the southern side of the altar, as just mentioned. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The baraita answers: The priest brings it near on the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that will suffice for him.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the verse presents the priest with the option that he may bring it on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. You say the following principle: Any time you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, and one of which fulfills itself and negates the other, we set aside the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and we seize the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.
שֶׁכְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering “before the Lord,” which indicates that it shall be brought on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “in front of the altar,” which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering “in front of the altar” and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “before the Lord.”
וְהֵיכָא קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the entire altar stood in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, opposite the Holy of Holies, directly before the Lord. In any event, it can be seen in this baraita that the purpose of the verse: “The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא: הֲרֵי מֶלַח, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, וּמְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא
The Gemara cites another objection to Rav’s statement that a rite of the meal offering is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Huna objects to this: But what of the placement of the salt on the handful of the meal offering before it is burned, which is not repeated in the verse, and yet it is still indispensable in its sacrifice? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
What Does Interest Have to Do With Fear of God? – On Second Thought
05.08.2024 | ל׳ בניסן תשפ״ד
Shabbat 126: Hanging Doors, Container Covers, and Cleaning Up for Guests
07.10.2020 | י״ח בתמוז תש״פ
Zevahim 66: Procedure, Intent, and Consecration – for Bird Offerings
11.19.2025 | כ״ח בחשון תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me.
After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
Menachot 19
הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.
the priests,” the verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. Before mentioning the priests, the verse states the halakha of pouring the oil on the meal offering, and after mentioning the priests, it states the halakha of the removal of the handful. Therefore, a priest is required for each of these rites.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְלָקַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַבָּלָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נְתִינָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין.
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). The term “with his finger” is interpreted as referring to the term “and the priest shall take.” This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term “finger,” when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term “with his finger” is also interpreted as referring to the term “and put it.” This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: But is the term hand stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the term hand is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, only with regard to the placement of the blood, then even if the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).
And Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. The Rabbis hold that the term “with his finger” is referring to both to the term “and the priest shall take” that precedes it, and the term “and put it” that succeeds it. And Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that succeeds it, but is not interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it. In that case, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase “Aaron’s sons, the priests” should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous matter, demonstrating that the rite of the pouring of the oil is to be performed by Aaron’s sons, the priests.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מְלַמֵּד עַל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר; אִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁחִיטָה הָכִי נָמֵי בְּזָר תְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon hold that the letter vav adds to the previous matter? If that is so, then this would pose a problem with regard to that which is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood” (Leviticus 1:5). The Sages infer from here that from the stage of the sacrificing of the blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward, it is the mitzva exclusively of members of the priesthood. By inference, this teaches that the slaughter of the offering, which is performed earlier, is valid when performed by a non-priest. If according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the letter vav adds to the previous matter, if the slaughter of the offering is performed by a non-priest, it should also be unfit.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ … וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5), associating the placing of the hands on the head of an offering, which is performed by the owner of the animal, with the slaughter of the offering. Therefore, just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed by non-priests, so too, the slaughter of the offering is performed by non-priests.
אִי: מָה סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְעָלִים? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זְרִיקָה דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּעָלִים, שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
The Gemara asks: If there is a juxtaposition of the placing of the hands and the slaughter of the animals, why not also say that just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed only by the owner of the animal, so too, the slaughter of the offering may be performed only by the owner of the animal? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood: And just as the sprinkling of the blood, which is the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, does not require the owner to perform it, as the priests perform this rite on his behalf, with regard to the slaughter of the offering, which is not the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, is it not all the more so clear that it does not need to be performed by the owner?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.
And if you would say that one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, and the owner may not sprinkle the blood as he is not a priest, but he may still be obligated to slaughter the animal, as this rite may be performed by a non-priest, the Merciful One revealed in the Torah in the context of the Yom Kippur service with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). By inference, from the fact that the verse specifies that here the High Priest, who is the owner of the offering, must perform the slaughter, it is clear that usually the slaughter does not require the participation of the owner.
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.
§ Apropos the mishna’s list of rites that are not indispensable for the meal offering, the Gemara explains that Rav says: With regard to any sacrificial rite where the term law and statute are stated, they are stated only to teach that the absence of the performance of that rite invalidates the offering. The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say that the two terms are both required for this principle to be in effect, as it is written with regard to a red heifer: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).
(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)
Before continuing its discussion of this principle, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the questions that follow: Nun, tav, tzadi; yod, kuf, mem, lamed. They represent: Nazirite; thanks offering [toda]; leper [metzora]; Yom Kippur; offerings [korbanot]; meal offering [minḥa]; shewbread [leḥem hapanim].
וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), and yet Rav says that the lack of waving of the offering by a nazirite invalidates the offering? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written in the continuation of the verse: “So he must do,” and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, since it is juxtaposed in the Torah to the offering of a nazirite; as it is written in a verse describing the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.
וַהֲרֵי מְצוֹרָע, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper, i.e., cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper.” Due to the added emphasis of the term “shall be,” it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.
The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only “statute,” as the verse states: “And it shall be a statute for you forever” (Leviticus 16:29), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other? Rather, it must be that Rav meant that wherever either the term law or the term statute is employed, this signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.
וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav’s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term “law” is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The Gemara answers: When the term law appears, it is still necessary for the term statute to appear, in order to teach that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering. But when the term statute appears, it is not necessary for the term law to appear as well. The term statute is sufficient.
וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn’t Rav say: Wherever the terms law and statute appear? Apparently, both are necessary for his principle to apply. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav is saying: Even in a context where the term law is written, if the term statute is written as well, then yes, failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering; but if the term statute does not accompany the term law, then failure to perform the rites does not invalidate the offering.
וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term “statute” is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever” (Leviticus 6:11), and yet Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the law of the meal offering that the verse repeats, as the details of the meal offering are discussed in Leviticus, chapter 2, and again in Leviticus, chapter 6, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering? Doesn’t this demonstrate that where the verse repeated the command, then yes, failure to perform the rite invalidates the offering; but if the verse did not repeat it, then failure to perform the rite does not invalidate the offering, whether or not the term statute appears?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the meal offering rather than with regard to the sacrificial rites.
וַהֲרֵי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara asks: But what of the shewbread, where when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the shewbread, as the verse states: “And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 24:9), and we learn in the mishna (27a): With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.
Rather, it must be that anywhere that the term statute is written with regard to eating, it is written with regard to the entire matter, i.e., all the halakhot of the offering, and teaches that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the meal offering, it is different, and it is only the rites that are repeated that are indispensable, as the verse states: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,
גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב.
teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה מִנְחָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא לֵיהּ?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the meal offering that the verse in the Torah repeats, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering. And Shmuel says: Only the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable. The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, is it true that even though a rite of the meal offering is repeated in another verse he does not deem it indispensable?
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא וַדַּאי מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָכָא בִּ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ.
Rather, Shmuel must agree that wherever the verse repeats a rite it is certainly understood to be indispensable; and here, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the expressions “his handful” (Leviticus 2:2) and “with his hand” (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall remove his handful,” and elsewhere it states: “And he shall take up from it with his hand.” The change in terminology between the two verses teaches that the priest should not use a utensil to measure an amount for the handful of a meal offering, but should use his hand.
רַב סָבַר: הָא נָמֵי תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל: דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.
Rav holds that this halakha of using one’s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron’s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: “And he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17), demonstrating that the handful is removed by hand and not with a utensil. And Shmuel holds that we do not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation. Therefore, using one’s hand is not indispensable, as the general requirements of the rites of the meal offering cannot be derived from a verse referring to the meal offering that was sacrificed during the consecration of the Tabernacle.
וְלָא יָלֵיף שְׁמוּאֵל דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה? וְהָתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): Service vessels used for the liquids sanctify only the liquids placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances sanctify only the dry substances that are placed in them. But service vessels used for the liquids do not sanctify the dry substances placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances do not sanctify the liquids placed in them.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשִׁין, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת״!
And Shmuel says concerning this mishna: They taught that halakha only with regard to service vessels used to measure liquids, e.g., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry substances placed in them as well, as it is written with regard to the offerings of the princes during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry substance. In this case, Shmuel does derive the general halakha from a temporary situation, in this case the offerings of the princes.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנִין.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the offering of the princes, it is different, as the verse is repeated twelve times, once with regard to each and every prince. Therefore, Shmuel derives a halakha for all generations from it. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the halakha for all generations cannot be derived from a temporary situation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: וַהֲרֵי הַגָּשָׁה, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא, וְלָא מְעַכְּבָא! מַאן תְּנָא בֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara returns to discussing Rav’s statement that a rite is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But what of bringing the meal offering to the corner of the altar, which is repeated in the verse, as it is stated: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); and it is not indispensable, as stated in the mishna (18a)? The Gemara elaborates: Where is it repeated? As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).
הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara answers: That verse is not a repetition of the mitzva for the priest to bring the meal offering to the corner of the altar; rather, it comes only to establish the place for the meal offering and describe where it should be brought. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the meal offering must be brought on the western side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary and is therefore “before the Lord.” Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse had merely stated: In front of the altar, one might have thought that the meal offering is brought only on the southern side of the altar, as just mentioned. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The baraita answers: The priest brings it near on the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that will suffice for him.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the verse presents the priest with the option that he may bring it on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. You say the following principle: Any time you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, and one of which fulfills itself and negates the other, we set aside the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and we seize the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.
שֶׁכְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering “before the Lord,” which indicates that it shall be brought on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “in front of the altar,” which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering “in front of the altar” and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “before the Lord.”
וְהֵיכָא קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the entire altar stood in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, opposite the Holy of Holies, directly before the Lord. In any event, it can be seen in this baraita that the purpose of the verse: “The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא: הֲרֵי מֶלַח, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, וּמְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא
The Gemara cites another objection to Rav’s statement that a rite of the meal offering is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Huna objects to this: But what of the placement of the salt on the handful of the meal offering before it is burned, which is not repeated in the verse, and yet it is still indispensable in its sacrifice? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be
Follow
