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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 11, 2018 | 讙壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 93

Which sacrifices need the owner to perform聽smicha? Who is obligated in smicha? What are the laws regarding an heir whose father was obligated to bring a sacrifice? How and where is smicha performed?


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

拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讞讘讬专讜 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讙讜讬 拽专讘谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

if the repeated term 鈥渉is offering鈥 is not needed to counter the a fortiori inferences, why do I need these three verses? The Gemara explains: One instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of another person. Another instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of a gentile. The third instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.

讛讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱

搂 The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then the heir is regarded as the offering鈥檚 owner. Therefore, he places his hands on the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred.

转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讗转 谞住讻讬讜 讜诪讬诪专

Rav 岣nanya taught a baraita in the presence of Rava: An heir does not place hands on an offering he inherited, and an heir cannot substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The heir places his hands on the offering, and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬驻讻讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

Rav 岣nanya said to Rava: Should I reverse the current version of the baraita to have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava said to him: No, as whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: An heir places hands, and an heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands, and an heir cannot effect substitution.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讬诇讬祝 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讗祝 转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He expounds the term 鈥渉is offering鈥 as teaching that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on one鈥檚 father鈥檚 offering that one inherited. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha concerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is the initial stage of consecration, from the halakha concerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is the final stage of consecration: Just as with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place his hands, so too, with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.

讜专讘谞谉 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讜讬诇讬祝 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 讗祝 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱

And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of hamer yamir serving to include the heir as one capable of effecting substitution. And furthermore, they derive the halakha concerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the final stage of consecration, from the halakha concerning who can effect substitution, which is an initial stage of consecration: Just as with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too, with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir places his hands.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讘谞讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讙讜讬 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讞讘讬专讜 拽专讘谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: 鈥淗is offering鈥? The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of a gentile. Another instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of another person. The third instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讞讚 拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讗讬讬转专讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讞讚 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

The Gemara clarifies: And Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one of the mentions serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. Alternatively, if he holds that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must derive that one does not place hands on the offering of a gentile or of another person from the same one mention in the verse, which leaves him two more mentions in the verses. One he expounds to teach that on 鈥渉is offering鈥 he places hands, but not on his father鈥檚 offering that he inherited, and the other mention remains to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讛注谞讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讝讻专 诪讛 住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛诪专 讬诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir]鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it to include a woman among those who can effect substitution. As it is taught in a baraita: Since the entire matter of substitution is stated in the Torah only in the masculine form, what is the reason that we ultimately come to include a woman? The verse states: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir],鈥 using a doubled form.

讜专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 诪讜讗诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讚专讬砖

And as for the Rabbis, they derive that a woman can effect substitution from the term: 鈥淎nd if鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase 鈥渁nd if he shall substitute.鈥 And Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the term 鈥渁nd if鈥 at all.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜住讜诪讗 讜讙讜讬 讜讛注讘讚 讜讛砖诇讬讞 讜讛讗砖讛

MISHNA: Everyone who brings an animal offering places hands upon its head, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, a Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner鈥檚 behalf, and a woman.

讜住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛

And the requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva; therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.

注诇 讛专讗砖 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering with two hands. And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讚注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讜讬诐 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗诇讗 住讜诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor do not place their hands on the offering, as they are not mentally competent. The exclusion of a gentile is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel and say to them鈥 (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that the children of Israel place hands upon their offerings, but gentiles do not place their hands upon their offerings. But with regard to a blind person, what is the reason that he does not place his hands on his offering?

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 住诪讬讻讛 住诪讬讻讛 诪讝拽谞讬 注讚讛

Rav 岣sda and Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi disagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. One said that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the mention of placing hands in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of placing hands stated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed by the Elders of the congregation, i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see Sanhedrin 34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 住诪讬讻讛 住诪讬讻讛 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛

And the other one said that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the mention of placing hands in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of placing hands stated with regard to the burnt offering of appearance brought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see 岣giga 2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪谉 讝拽谞讬 注讚讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the burnt offering of appearance, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation?

讚谞讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诪讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诪爪讬讘讜专

The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of another offering of an individual, such as the burnt offering of appearance, and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of a communal offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪讝拽谞讬 注讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讚谞讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诪诪讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讚讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讙诪专讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the burnt offering of appearance? The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of a matter concerning which the requirement of placing hands is explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, from another matter concerning which placing hands is also explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves to exclude the possibility of deriving the halakhot from those of the burnt offering of appearance, as the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather it itself is derived from the requirement stated with regard to a voluntary burnt offering.

讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讬拽专讘 讗转 讛注诇讛 讜讬注砖讛 讻诪砖驻讟 讻诪砖驻讟 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 住诪讬讻讛

This is as a tanna taught in a baraita in the presence of Rav Yitz岣k bar Abba: With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: 鈥淎nd the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordinance鈥 (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: In accordance with the ordinance of a voluntary burnt offering. Accordingly, this verse teaches about every obligatory burnt offering, including the burnt offering of appearance, that it requires placing hands, just as a voluntary burnt offering does.

讜讛注讘讚 讜讛砖诇讬讞 讜讛讗砖讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讚讜 讜诇讗 讬讚 注讘讚讜 讬讚讜 讜诇讗 讬讚 砖诇讜讞讜 讬讚讜 讜诇讗 讬讚 讗砖转讜

搂 The mishna states: A Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, and a woman do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these halakhot, the Sages taught in a baraita: The term 鈥渉is hand鈥 is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. 鈥淗is hand鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), but not the hand of his Canaanite slave; 鈥渉is hand鈥 (Leviticus 3:8), but not the hand of his agent; 鈥渉is hand鈥 (Leviticus 3:13), but not the hand of his wife.

讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 砖诇讬讞 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜砖诇讜讞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻诪讜转讜 讗讬诪讗 诇住诪讜讱

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only a Canaanite slave, as since he is not commanded in mitzvot it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. But with regard to an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and there is a principle that the halakhic status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, one might say that he could place his hands on the offering of the owner on the owner鈥檚 behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讚诇讗讜 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 讚讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转讬住诪讱 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Merciful One taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, as they are not considered like his own flesh. But with regard to his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, one might say that she places her hands on her husband鈥檚 offering. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.

住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 讜讻讬 住诪讬讻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讜讻讬驻专

搂 The mishna states: The requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). The baraita asks: But does the rite of placing hands effect atonement? Isn鈥檛 atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated with regard to blood: 鈥淔or the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated placing hands as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering atones for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.

讜转谞讬讗 讙讘讬 转谞讜驻讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇转谞讜驻讛 诇讻驻专 讜讻讬 转谞讜驻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇转谞讜驻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讜讻讬驻专

And it is taught in a baraita with regard to waving in this way: 鈥淗e shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to effect atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The baraita asks: Does waving the offering effect atonement? Isn鈥檛 atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated waving as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering effects atonement for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.

注诇 讛专讗砖 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讚讜 注诇 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛爪讜讗专 讬讚讜 注诇 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛讙讘讬讬诐 讬讚讜 注诇 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛讞讝讛

搂 The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal鈥檚 body. Placing hands is performed with 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), but not with his hand on the neck of the animal; with 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 (Leviticus 3:8), but not with his hand on the back of the animal; with 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 (Leviticus 3:13), but not with his hand on the breast of the animal.

讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪讜讗专 讚诇讗 拽讗讬 讘讛讚讬 专讗砖讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讜 讚拽讗讬 诇讛讚讬 专讗砖讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only the animal鈥檚 neck, as it is not level with the head of the animal. But with regard to its back, which is level with its head, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one鈥檚 hands there. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude the animal鈥檚 back.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇转谞讜驻讛 讗讘诇 讞讝讛 讚讗讬转专讘讬 诇转谞讜驻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Torah taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only the neck and the back, as those parts are not included in the waving of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. But with regard to the animal鈥檚 breast, which is included in the waving of the offering, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one鈥檚 hands there. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal鈥檚 breast.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讘讬专讗讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讚讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛爪讚讚讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one placed his hand on the sides of the animal鈥檚 head, what is the halakha; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Bira鈥檃, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, says that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand on the top of its head and not with his hand on the sides of its head.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讟诇讬转 诪讛讜 砖转讞讜抓 转讗 砖诪注 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讝讘讞

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one鈥檚 hands were wrapped in a cloth, what is the halakha as to whether the cloth is regarded as an interposition between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita, which states: The rite is valid provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering.

讜讘砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜住诪讱 讗讛专谉 讗转 砖转讬 讬讚讜 讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 讜讻转讬讘 砖转讬 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讬讚讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖转讬诐 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讞转

搂 The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed with two hands. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall place both his hands [yadav] upon the head of the live goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). The word yadav, meaning: His hands, is written without a second yod, and so if read without vowels it reads as: His hand. But it is also written 鈥渂oth,鈥 which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. This established a paradigm that in any place where it is stated in the Torah: His hand, there are here two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies that there is only one.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 转专转讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讬讚讬讜 讬讚讬讜

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar went and stated this halakha in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard about this and became angry. He said to Rabbi Elazar: If it enters your mind that wherever it is written: His hand, the meaning is that there are actually two hands, then why do I ever need the Torah to write: His hands, his hands, i.e., yadav in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?

讗拽砖讬 诇讬讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讬讚讬讜 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗讬谞讛 讬讚讬讜 专讘 诇讜 砖讻诇 讗转 讬讚讬讜 讗讬砖转讬拽

Reish Lakish raised objections against him from twenty-four occasions where the Torah writes: His hands, for example: 鈥淗is own hands [yadav] shall bring the offerings of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:30); 鈥渉is hands [yadav] shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7); 鈥淕uiding his hands [yadav] wittingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn鈥 (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar was silent, as he had no response.

诇讘转专 讚谞讞 讚注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬 讬讚讬讜 讚住诪讬讻讛 拽讗诪专讬

After Reish Lakish had calmed down, he said to Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that you did not say to me the following: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands. But with regard to other halakhot, when the Torah says 鈥渉is hand鈥 the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say 鈥渉is hands.鈥

讘住诪讬讻讛 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬住诪讱 讗转 讬讚讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜讬爪讜讛讜 住诪讬讻讛 讚讘讛诪讛 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara asks: But also with regard to placing hands it is written, concerning Moses鈥 ordination of Joshua: 鈥淎nd he placed his hands [yadav] upon him and gave him a charge鈥 (Numbers 27:23), using the plural 鈥渉is hands鈥 [yadav] instead of: His hand [yado]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands on an animal offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.

讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 砖转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: In the same location in the Temple that one places hands one slaughters the animal, because immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诪专 讘住诪讬讻讛 诪讘转谞讜驻讛 讜讘转谞讜驻讛 诪讘住诪讬讻讛 砖讗讞讚 诪谞讬祝 诇讻诇 讛讞讘专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讞讚 住讜诪讱 诇讻诇 讛讞讘专讬诐 讞讜诪专 讘转谞讜驻讛 砖讛转谞讜驻讛 谞讜讛讙转 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讘讜专

MISHNA: There is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to placing hands than there is with regard to waving, and there is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to waving than there is with regard to placing hands. The stringency with regard to placing hands is that if several people are partners in bringing an offering, one of them waves the offering on behalf of all the other partners, but one cannot fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone places hands on behalf of all the other partners; rather, each member must place hands himself. The stringency with regard to waving is that waving is practiced in the cases of both offerings of an individual, e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, and in the cases of communal offerings, e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot, which are waved together with the two loaves;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 93

拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讞讘讬专讜 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讙讜讬 拽专讘谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

if the repeated term 鈥渉is offering鈥 is not needed to counter the a fortiori inferences, why do I need these three verses? The Gemara explains: One instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of another person. Another instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of a gentile. The third instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.

讛讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱

搂 The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then the heir is regarded as the offering鈥檚 owner. Therefore, he places his hands on the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred.

转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讗转 谞住讻讬讜 讜诪讬诪专

Rav 岣nanya taught a baraita in the presence of Rava: An heir does not place hands on an offering he inherited, and an heir cannot substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The heir places his hands on the offering, and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬驻讻讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

Rav 岣nanya said to Rava: Should I reverse the current version of the baraita to have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava said to him: No, as whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: An heir places hands, and an heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands, and an heir cannot effect substitution.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讬诇讬祝 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讗祝 转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He expounds the term 鈥渉is offering鈥 as teaching that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on one鈥檚 father鈥檚 offering that one inherited. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha concerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is the initial stage of consecration, from the halakha concerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is the final stage of consecration: Just as with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place his hands, so too, with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.

讜专讘谞谉 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讜讬诇讬祝 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪转讞讬诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 讗祝 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱

And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of hamer yamir serving to include the heir as one capable of effecting substitution. And furthermore, they derive the halakha concerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the final stage of consecration, from the halakha concerning who can effect substitution, which is an initial stage of consecration: Just as with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too, with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir places his hands.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讘谞讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讙讜讬 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讞讘讬专讜 拽专讘谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: 鈥淗is offering鈥? The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of a gentile. Another instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on an offering of another person. The third instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讞讚 拽专讗 谞驻拽讗 讗讬讬转专讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讞讚 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 拽专讘谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

The Gemara clarifies: And Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one of the mentions serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. Alternatively, if he holds that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must derive that one does not place hands on the offering of a gentile or of another person from the same one mention in the verse, which leaves him two more mentions in the verses. One he expounds to teach that on 鈥渉is offering鈥 he places hands, but not on his father鈥檚 offering that he inherited, and the other mention remains to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讛注谞讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讝讻专 诪讛 住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛诪专 讬诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir]鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it to include a woman among those who can effect substitution. As it is taught in a baraita: Since the entire matter of substitution is stated in the Torah only in the masculine form, what is the reason that we ultimately come to include a woman? The verse states: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir],鈥 using a doubled form.

讜专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 诪讜讗诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讚专讬砖

And as for the Rabbis, they derive that a woman can effect substitution from the term: 鈥淎nd if鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase 鈥渁nd if he shall substitute.鈥 And Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the term 鈥渁nd if鈥 at all.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讜住讜诪讗 讜讙讜讬 讜讛注讘讚 讜讛砖诇讬讞 讜讛讗砖讛

MISHNA: Everyone who brings an animal offering places hands upon its head, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, a Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner鈥檚 behalf, and a woman.

讜住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛

And the requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva; therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.

注诇 讛专讗砖 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering with two hands. And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讚注讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讜讬诐 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗诇讗 住讜诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor do not place their hands on the offering, as they are not mentally competent. The exclusion of a gentile is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel and say to them鈥 (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that the children of Israel place hands upon their offerings, but gentiles do not place their hands upon their offerings. But with regard to a blind person, what is the reason that he does not place his hands on his offering?

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 住诪讬讻讛 住诪讬讻讛 诪讝拽谞讬 注讚讛

Rav 岣sda and Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi disagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. One said that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the mention of placing hands in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of placing hands stated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed by the Elders of the congregation, i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see Sanhedrin 34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 住诪讬讻讛 住诪讬讻讛 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛

And the other one said that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the mention of placing hands in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of placing hands stated with regard to the burnt offering of appearance brought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see 岣giga 2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪谉 讝拽谞讬 注讚讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the burnt offering of appearance, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation?

讚谞讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诪讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诪爪讬讘讜专

The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of another offering of an individual, such as the burnt offering of appearance, and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of a communal offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪讝拽谞讬 注讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讚谞讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诪诪讬讚讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 住诪讬讻讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讚讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 诪注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讙诪专讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the burnt offering of appearance? The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of a matter concerning which the requirement of placing hands is explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, from another matter concerning which placing hands is also explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves to exclude the possibility of deriving the halakhot from those of the burnt offering of appearance, as the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather it itself is derived from the requirement stated with regard to a voluntary burnt offering.

讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讬拽专讘 讗转 讛注诇讛 讜讬注砖讛 讻诪砖驻讟 讻诪砖驻讟 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 住诪讬讻讛

This is as a tanna taught in a baraita in the presence of Rav Yitz岣k bar Abba: With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: 鈥淎nd the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordinance鈥 (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: In accordance with the ordinance of a voluntary burnt offering. Accordingly, this verse teaches about every obligatory burnt offering, including the burnt offering of appearance, that it requires placing hands, just as a voluntary burnt offering does.

讜讛注讘讚 讜讛砖诇讬讞 讜讛讗砖讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讚讜 讜诇讗 讬讚 注讘讚讜 讬讚讜 讜诇讗 讬讚 砖诇讜讞讜 讬讚讜 讜诇讗 讬讚 讗砖转讜

搂 The mishna states: A Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, and a woman do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these halakhot, the Sages taught in a baraita: The term 鈥渉is hand鈥 is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. 鈥淗is hand鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), but not the hand of his Canaanite slave; 鈥渉is hand鈥 (Leviticus 3:8), but not the hand of his agent; 鈥渉is hand鈥 (Leviticus 3:13), but not the hand of his wife.

讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪爪讜转 讗讘诇 砖诇讬讞 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜砖诇讜讞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻诪讜转讜 讗讬诪讗 诇住诪讜讱

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only a Canaanite slave, as since he is not commanded in mitzvot it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. But with regard to an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and there is a principle that the halakhic status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, one might say that he could place his hands on the offering of the owner on the owner鈥檚 behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讚诇讗讜 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 讚讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转讬住诪讱 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Merciful One taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, as they are not considered like his own flesh. But with regard to his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, one might say that she places her hands on her husband鈥檚 offering. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.

住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜住诪讱 讜谞专爪讛 讜讻讬 住诪讬讻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讜讻讬驻专

搂 The mishna states: The requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 1:4). The baraita asks: But does the rite of placing hands effect atonement? Isn鈥檛 atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated with regard to blood: 鈥淔or the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated placing hands as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering atones for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.

讜转谞讬讗 讙讘讬 转谞讜驻讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇转谞讜驻讛 诇讻驻专 讜讻讬 转谞讜驻讛 诪讻驻专转 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 讘讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讗诐 注砖讗讛 诇转谞讜驻讛 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讜讻讬驻专

And it is taught in a baraita with regard to waving in this way: 鈥淗e shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to effect atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The baraita asks: Does waving the offering effect atonement? Isn鈥檛 atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated waving as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering effects atonement for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.

注诇 讛专讗砖 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讚讜 注诇 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛爪讜讗专 讬讚讜 注诇 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛讙讘讬讬诐 讬讚讜 注诇 讛专讗砖 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛讞讝讛

搂 The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal鈥檚 body. Placing hands is performed with 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), but not with his hand on the neck of the animal; with 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 (Leviticus 3:8), but not with his hand on the back of the animal; with 鈥渉is hand upon the head鈥 (Leviticus 3:13), but not with his hand on the breast of the animal.

讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪讜讗专 讚诇讗 拽讗讬 讘讛讚讬 专讗砖讜 讗讘诇 讙讘讜 讚拽讗讬 诇讛讚讬 专讗砖讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only the animal鈥檚 neck, as it is not level with the head of the animal. But with regard to its back, which is level with its head, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one鈥檚 hands there. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude the animal鈥檚 back.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇转谞讜驻讛 讗讘诇 讞讝讛 讚讗讬转专讘讬 诇转谞讜驻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Torah taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only the neck and the back, as those parts are not included in the waving of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. But with regard to the animal鈥檚 breast, which is included in the waving of the offering, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one鈥檚 hands there. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal鈥檚 breast.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讘讬专讗讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讚讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜诇讗 讬讚讜 注诇 讛爪讚讚讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one placed his hand on the sides of the animal鈥檚 head, what is the halakha; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Bira鈥檃, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, says that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand on the top of its head and not with his hand on the sides of its head.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讟诇讬转 诪讛讜 砖转讞讜抓 转讗 砖诪注 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讝讘讞

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one鈥檚 hands were wrapped in a cloth, what is the halakha as to whether the cloth is regarded as an interposition between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita, which states: The rite is valid provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering.

讜讘砖转讬 讬讚讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜住诪讱 讗讛专谉 讗转 砖转讬 讬讚讜 讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 讜讻转讬讘 砖转讬 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讬讚讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖转讬诐 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讗讞转

搂 The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed with two hands. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall place both his hands [yadav] upon the head of the live goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). The word yadav, meaning: His hands, is written without a second yod, and so if read without vowels it reads as: His hand. But it is also written 鈥渂oth,鈥 which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. This established a paradigm that in any place where it is stated in the Torah: His hand, there are here two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies that there is only one.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬讚讜 转专转讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讻转讘 讬讚讬讜 讬讚讬讜

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar went and stated this halakha in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard about this and became angry. He said to Rabbi Elazar: If it enters your mind that wherever it is written: His hand, the meaning is that there are actually two hands, then why do I ever need the Torah to write: His hands, his hands, i.e., yadav in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?

讗拽砖讬 诇讬讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讬讚讬讜 讬讚讬讜 转讘讬讗讬谞讛 讬讚讬讜 专讘 诇讜 砖讻诇 讗转 讬讚讬讜 讗讬砖转讬拽

Reish Lakish raised objections against him from twenty-four occasions where the Torah writes: His hands, for example: 鈥淗is own hands [yadav] shall bring the offerings of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:30); 鈥渉is hands [yadav] shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7); 鈥淕uiding his hands [yadav] wittingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn鈥 (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar was silent, as he had no response.

诇讘转专 讚谞讞 讚注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讬 讬讚讬讜 讚住诪讬讻讛 拽讗诪专讬

After Reish Lakish had calmed down, he said to Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that you did not say to me the following: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands. But with regard to other halakhot, when the Torah says 鈥渉is hand鈥 the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say 鈥渉is hands.鈥

讘住诪讬讻讛 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬住诪讱 讗转 讬讚讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜讬爪讜讛讜 住诪讬讻讛 讚讘讛诪讛 拽讗诪专讬

The Gemara asks: But also with regard to placing hands it is written, concerning Moses鈥 ordination of Joshua: 鈥淎nd he placed his hands [yadav] upon him and gave him a charge鈥 (Numbers 27:23), using the plural 鈥渉is hands鈥 [yadav] instead of: His hand [yado]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands on an animal offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.

讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖住讜诪讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 砖转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: In the same location in the Temple that one places hands one slaughters the animal, because immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜诪专 讘住诪讬讻讛 诪讘转谞讜驻讛 讜讘转谞讜驻讛 诪讘住诪讬讻讛 砖讗讞讚 诪谞讬祝 诇讻诇 讛讞讘专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讞讚 住讜诪讱 诇讻诇 讛讞讘专讬诐 讞讜诪专 讘转谞讜驻讛 砖讛转谞讜驻讛 谞讜讛讙转 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讘讜专

MISHNA: There is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to placing hands than there is with regard to waving, and there is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to waving than there is with regard to placing hands. The stringency with regard to placing hands is that if several people are partners in bringing an offering, one of them waves the offering on behalf of all the other partners, but one cannot fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone places hands on behalf of all the other partners; rather, each member must place hands himself. The stringency with regard to waving is that waving is practiced in the cases of both offerings of an individual, e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, and in the cases of communal offerings, e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot, which are waved together with the two loaves;

Scroll To Top