Menachot — Daf 93a

קראי למה לי קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה:

היורש סומך:

תני רב חנניה קמיה דרבא יורש אינו סומך יורש אינו מימר והא אנן תנן היורש סומך ומביא את נסכיו ומימר

אמר ליה איפכאי אמר ליה לא מתניתין מני רבי יהודה היא דתניא יורש סומך יורש מימר רבי יהודה אומר יורש אינו סומך יורש אינו מימר

מאי טעמא דר' יהודה קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו ויליף תחלת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש יורש אינו סומך אף תחילת הקדש יורש אינו מימר

ורבנן (ויקרא כז, י) המר ימיר לרבות את היורש ויליף סוף הקדש מתחילת הקדש מה תחלת הקדש יורש מימר אף סוף הקדש יורש סומך

ורבנן האי קרבנו מאי עבדי ליה קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

ורבי יהודה לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה לית ליה ואי נמי אית ליה עובד כוכבים וחבירו מחד קרא נפקא אייתרו ליה תרי קראי חד קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו ואידך לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

ורבי יהודה האי המר ימיר מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבות את האשה דתניא לפי שכל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא בלשון זכר מה סופינו לרבות את האשה תלמוד לומר המר ימיר

ורבנן דרשי מואם ור' יהודה ואם לא דריש:

מתני׳ הכל סומכין חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן וסומא ועובד כוכבים והעבד והשליח והאשה

וסמיכה שירי מצוה

על הראש בב' ידים ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין ותכף לסמיכה שחיטה:

גמ׳ בשלמא חרש שוטה וקטן דלאו בני דעה נינהו עובד כוכבים נמי (ויקרא א, ב) בני ישראל סומכין ואין עובדי כוכבים סומכין אלא סומא מאי טעמא לא

רב חסדא ורב יצחק בר אבדימי חד אמר אתיא סמיכה סמיכה מזקני עדה

וחד אמר אתיא סמיכה סמיכה מעולת ראייה

ולמאן דאמר מעולת ראייה מאי טעמא לא יליף מן זקני עדה

what is the real purpose of these verses? — [To teach the following:] ‘His offering’ [requires the laying on of hands], but not the offering of another.1 ‘His offering’, but not the offering of a gentile, His offering, this includes every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands.2 THE HEIR MAY LAY HIS HANDS. R. Hananiah recited the following teaching in the presence of Raba: The heir may not lay his hands [on his father's offering], and the heir cannot substitute [another animal for his father's offering].3 [Raba said to him.] But we have learnt: THE HEIR MAY LAY HIS HANDS [ON HIS FATHER'S OFFERING]. MAY BRING THE DRINK-OFFERINGS FOR IT, AND CAN SUBSTITUTE [ANOTHER ANIMAL FOR IT]! Shall I then reverse it?4 he asked. No, replied the other, for the teaching [quoted by you] is the view of R. Judah. For it was taught: The heir may lay his hands [on his father's offering], and the heir can also substitute [another animal for it]. R. Judah says. The heir may not lay his hands [on his father's offering], and the heir cannot substitute [another animal for it]. What is the reason for R. Judah's view? — It is written, His offering.5 but not the offering of his father;6 and he compares the inception of the consecration7 with the termination of the consecration:8 just as at the termination of the consecration the heir may not lay his hands [on his father's offering], so at the inception of the consecration the heir cannot substitute [another animal for his father's offering]. And what is the reason for the view of the Rabbis?9 — It is written, And if he shall at all change,10 this includes the heir;11 and they compare the termination of the consecration with the inception of the consecration: just as at the inception of the consecration the heir can substitute [another animal for his father's offering], so at the termination of the consecration the heir may lay his hands [on his father's offering]. For what purpose do the Rabbis utilize the expression ‘his offering’?12 — For the following: ‘His offering’ [requires the laying on of hands], but not the offering of a gentile. ‘His offering’, but not the offering of another. ‘His offering’, this includes every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands. And R. Judah?13 — He does not hold the view that every owner of the offering is included for the rite of the laying on of hands. Alternatively, he may even hold [that view] but the offering of another and the offering of a gentile are excluded from one verse, hence two verses are at his disposal, one for the teaching that only ‘his offering’ [requires the laying on of hands] but not the offering of his father, and the other to include every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands. And for what purpose does R. Judah utilize the expression ‘and if he shall at all change’? — He requires it in order to include a woman.14 For it was taught: Since the whole passage15 is stated in the masculine form, whence do we know16 to include a woman? Because the text states, And if he shall at all change. And the Rabbis?17 — They derive it by expounding the expression ‘and if’.18 And R. Judah? — He bases no exposition on the expression ‘and if’. MISHNAH. ALL MAY LAY THE HANDS ON THE OFFERING EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE, A MINOR, A BLIND MAN, A GENTILE, A SLAVE, AN AGENT, OR A WOMAN. THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS OUTSIDE THE COMMANDMENT.19 [ONE MUST LAY] BOTH HANDS ON THE HEAD OF THE ANIMAL; AND IN THE PLACE WHERE ONE LAYS ON THE HANDS THERE THE ANIMAL MUST BE SLAUGHTERED; AND THE SLAUGHTERING MUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. GEMARA. We understand a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor being disqualified, because they do not know what they are doing; also a gentile, because it is written, The children of Israel:20 [only they] may lay on the hands but gentiles may not lay on the hands. But why should a blind man be disqualified? R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi [suggest different reasons]. One Says, It is because we deduce the laying on of hands [for all offerings] from the laying on of hands performed by the elders of the congregation.21 And the other says, It is because we deduce the laying on of hands [for all offerings] from the laying on of hands performed on the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering.22 Why does not he that deduces the law from the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering rather deduce it from the elders of the congregation? — animal becomes holy. immediately follow the laying on of his hands. Meir's view. three foregoing teachings. the atonement is not dependent upon this act. of the congregation had to be free from every physical blemish, v. Sanh. 17a, hence the blind may not lay on the hands. XVI, 16. And as a blind man was exempt from the ‘appearance’ burntoffering. v. Hag. 2a, the inference may therefore be made that a blind man may not lay on the hands.