Menachot — Daf 56a

לרבות שעירי עבודת כוכבים לסמיכה

מתקיף לה רבינא תינח לרבי יהודה לרבי שמעון מאי איכא למימר

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא לרבי יהודה נמי מאי דאיתרבי איתרבי מאי דלא איתרבי לא איתרבי

וכי תימא אי לא מעטיה קרא הוה אמינא תיתי בבנין אב סמיכה גופה לישתוק קרא מיניה ותיתי בבנין אב אלא שעה מדורות לא ילפינן הכא נמי שעה מדורות לא ילפינן

אלא אותו טעון צפון ואין השוחט עומד בצפון

מדרבי אחייה נפקא דתניא רבי אחייה אומר (ויקרא א, יא) ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה מה ת"ל

לפי שמצינו במקבל שעומד בצפון ומקבל בצפון ואם עמד בדרום וקיבל בצפון פסול יכול אף זה כן ת"ל אותו אותו בצפון ולא השוחט צריך להיות עומד בצפון

אלא אותו בצפון ואין בן עוף בצפון סלקא דעתך אמינא ליתי בק"ו מבן צאן ומה בן צאן שלא קבע לו כהן קבע לו צפון בן עוף שקבע לו כהן אינו דין שנקבע לו צפון

מה לבן צאן שכן קבע לו כלי

אלא אותו בצפון ואין פסח בצפון פסח מדר"א בן יעקב נפקא

דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר יכול יהא הפסח טעון צפון ודין הוא ומה עולה שלא קבע לה זמן בשחיטתה קבע לה צפון פסח שקבע לו זמן לשחיטתו אינו דין שקבע לו צפון

מה לעולה שכן כליל

מחטאת מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות

מאשם מה לאשם שכן קדשי קדשים מכולהו נמי שכן קדשי קדשים

אלא לעולם כדקאמרינן מעיקרא אותו בצפון ואין השוחט בצפון ודקא קשיא לך מדר' אחייה נפקא דר' אחייה לאו למעוטי שוחט בצפון הוא דאתא אלא הכי קאמר אין השוחט בצפון אבל מקבל בצפון

מקבל מלקח ולקח נפקא לקח ולקח לא משמע ליה:

וחייב על לישתה ועל עריכתה ועל אפייתה: אמר רב פפא אפאה לוקה שתים אחת על עריכתה ואחת על אפייתה והא אמרת מה אפייה מיוחדת שהיא מעשה יחידי וחייבין עליה בפני עצמה

לא קשיא הא דעריך הוא ואפה הוא הא דעריך חבריה ויהיב ליה ואפה

ת"ר בכור שאחזו דם מקיזין אותו את הדם במקום שאין עושין בו מום ואין מקיזין את הדם במקום שעושין בו מום דברי ר"מ

וחכ"א יקיז אף במקום שעושין בו מום ובלבד שלא ישחוט [על אותו מום] ר"ש אומר

It includes the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry for the requirement of the laying on of hands.1 Rabina demurred, [saying], It is well according to R. Judah's view,2 but what is to be said if R. Simeon's view is followed?3 Thereupon Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina, But even according to R. Judah should we not say that that which is expressly included4 is included, and that which is not included5 is not included? And if you retort that without a verse to exclude it5 you would have included it by virtue of the general principle,6 then with regard to the requirement of laying on of hands Scripture should have been silent concerning it since it would have been included by virtue of the general principle. But [you would answer that] we may not derive [the regulations applicable, to] a temporary enactment7 from a permanent law, then with regard to this,5 too, we may not derive a temporary enactment from a permanent law!8 — This then is the interpretation: ‘It’ must be [slaughtered] on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand at the north side.9 But is not this to be derived from R. Ahiyah's teaching? For it was taught: R. Ahiyah says, Wherefore does the text state, And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward?10 It is because concerning the receiving [of the blood] we know that [the priest] must stand on the north side and receive [the blood] on the north side, and if he stood on the south side and received [the blood] on the north side the offering is invalid;11 now I might have thought that it is the same here [with regard to the slaughtering], Scripture therefore stated ‘it’, signifying that ‘it’ must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand on the north side!12 — Rather [then interpret it thus]: ‘It’ must be on the north side but [the killing of] a bird-offering need not be on the north side. For I might have argued [that this was essential] by an a fortiori argument from a lamb-offering thus: if [the slaughtering of] a lamb-offering, which does not require the services of a priest, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that [the killing of] a bird-offering, which requires the services of a priest, shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so13 with a lamb-offering because it requires an instrument [for the slaughtering]!14 — Rather then [we must interpret it as follows]: ‘It’ must be on the north side, but the slaughtering of the Passover-offering need not be on the north side. But is not the [exclusion of the] Passover-offering derived from the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? For it was taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, One might think that the Passover-offering requires slaughtering on the north side by reason of this a fortiori argument: if the slaughtering of a burnt-offering, which has no fixed time for the slaughtering, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that the slaughtering of the Passover-offering, which has a fixed time for the slaughtering thereof,15 shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so13 with a burnt-offering because it is wholly burnt! — One can argue the case from the sin-offering. But surely [one can retort that] this is so with the sin-offering because it effects atonement for those that are liable to the penalty of kareth! — One can argue the case from the guilt-offering. But surely this is so with the guilt-offering because it is a Most Holy offering.16 And if one were to argue the case from all these offerings, [one could retort that] this is so with all these mentioned because they are all Most Holy offerings! — Rather [we must say that the interpretation] is indeed as stated previously: ‘It’ must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not be on the north side; and as for your objection ‘Is not this to be derived from R. Ahiyah's teaching?’ [I say that] R. Ahiyah comes [not to teach] that the slaughterer need not be on the north side; he teaches rather that, in contradistinction from the slaughterer who need not be on the north side,17 the receiver of the blood must be on the north side. But is not this rule regarding the receiver of the blood derived from [the fact that Scripture states], ‘And he shall take’18 and not ‘he shall take’?19 — He [R. Ahiyah] does not base any exposition on the fact that Scripture states ‘And he shall take’ and not ‘he shall take’. ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING. R. Papa said, If a man baked [the meal-offering leavened], he has incurred stripes on two counts, once for shaping it [while leavened] and again for baking it.20 But have you not said above21 ‘As the baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it’? — This is no difficulty, for in the one case he shaped it and also baked it,22 but in the other case another shaped it and he baked it.23 Our Rabbis taught: If a firstling24 was attacked with congestion, it may be bled in a place where no blemish would result, but it may not be bled in a place where a blemish would result.25 So R. Meir. The Sages say, It may be bled even in a place where a blemish would result, provided that it is not slaughtered by reason of that blemish.26 R. Simeon says, also have required slaughtering on the north side; therefore an express term was necessary in order to exclude the latter requirement. of hands, and presumably it did not require slaughtering on the north side; hence no term was necessary to exclude this. apply, but none other; hence slaughtering on the north side was not required for it; accordingly the term ‘it’ must be otherwise interpreted. purpose. ‘From (the fact that Scripture states), And he shall take, which signifies, and he shall take himself’. I.e., the receiver of the blood shall betake himself to the place where he is about to receive the blood, namely, the north side. V. Zeb. 48a. shaping as a separate work. Only in this sense can the baking be described as a single and specific work. the baking proper and the completion of the shaping. V. however, Tosaf. s.v. vtpt, and com. of R. Gershom. slaughter it unless it is blemished. It is, however, forbidden to blemish a firstling or any consecrated beast. congestion, in order to be allowed to slaughter it.