Menachot — Daf 93b

דנין יחיד מיחיד ואין דנין יחיד מציבור

ולמאן דיליף מזקני עדה מאי טעמא לא יליף מעולת ראייה דנין מידי דכתיב ביה סמיכה בגופיה ממידי דכתיב ביה סמיכה בגופיה לאפוקי עולת ראייה דהיא גופה מעולת נדבה גמרה

דתני תנא קמיה דרב יצחק בר אבא (ויקרא ט, טז) ויקרב את העולה ויעשה כמשפט כמשפט עולת נדבה לימד על עולת חובה שטעונה סמיכה:

והעבד והשליח והאשה: תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ד) ידו ולא יד עבדו ידו ולא יד שלוחו ידו ולא יד אשתו

כל הני למה לי צריכא אי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא למעוטי עבד דלאו בר מצות אבל שליח דבר מצוה הוא ושלוחו של אדם כמותו אימא לסמוך

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי דלאו כגופיה דמיא אבל אשתו דכגופיה דמיא אימא תיסמך צריכא:

סמיכה שירי מצוה: ת"ר (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך (ויקרא א, ד) ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא לומר לך שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר

ותניא גבי תנופה כי האי גוונא (ויקרא יד, כא) לתנופה לכפר וכי תנופה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא לומר לך שאם עשאה לתנופה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר:

על הראש: תנו רבנן ידו על הראש ולא ידו על הצואר ידו על הראש ולא ידו על הגביים ידו על הראש ולא ידו על החזה

כל הני למה לי צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא חד למעוטי צואר דלא קאי בהדי ראשו אבל גבו דקאי להדי ראשו אימא לא צריכא

ואי אשמעינן הני תרי משום דלא איתרבי לתנופה אבל חזה דאיתרבי לתנופה אימא לא צריכא

איבעיא להו ידו על הצדדין מהו תא שמע דתניא אבא ביראה ברבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ידו על ראשו ולא ידו על הצדדין

בעי רבי ירמיה מטלית מהו שתחוץ תא שמע ובלבד שלא תהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הזבח:

ובשתי ידים: מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש דאמר קרא (ויקרא טז, כא) וסמך אהרן את שתי ידו כתיב ידו וכתיב שתי זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר ידו הרי כאן שתים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחת

אזל רבי אלעזר אמרה להא שמעתא בבי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה דריש לקיש שמע ריש לקיש ואיקפד אמר ליה אי סלקא דעתך כל היכא דכתיב ידו תרתי נינהו למה לי למכתב ידיו ידיו

אקשי ליה עשרים וארבע ידיו (ויקרא ז, ל) ידיו תביאנה (דברים לג, ז) ידיו רב לו (בראשית מח, יד) שכל את ידיו אישתיק

לבתר דנח דעתיה אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא תימא לי ידיו דסמיכה קאמרי

בסמיכה נמי כתיב (במדבר כז, כג) ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו סמיכה דבהמה קאמרי:

ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין תכף לסמיכה שחיטה: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר במקום שסומכין שוחטין שתכף לסמיכה שחיטה:

מתני׳ חומר בסמיכה מבתנופה ובתנופה מבסמיכה שאחד מניף לכל החברים ואין אחד סומך לכל החברים חומר בתנופה שהתנופה נוהגת בקרבנות היחיד ובקרבנות הצבור

It is more proper to deduce the offering of an individual from another offering of the individual1 rather than to deduce the offering of the individual from the offering of the congregation. And why does not he that deduces the law from the elders of the congregation rather deduce it from the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering? — It is only proper to deduce the offering for which the rite of laying on the hands is expressly prescribed2 from that offering for which the rite of laying on the hands is also expressly prescribed;3 but this is not the case with the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering, for that4 is itself derived from the freewill burnt-offering. For a Tanna recited before R. Isaac b. Abba: And he presented the burnt-offering; and offered it according to the ordinance,5 that is, according to the ordinance of a freewill burnt-offering; this teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering6 requires the laying on of hands. A SLAVE, AN AGENT, OR A WOMAN. Our Rabbis taught: His hand,7 but not the hand of his slave; his hand,8 but not the hand of his agent; his hand,9 but not the hand of his wife. Why are all these required? — They are all necessary, for if the Divine Law had only stated once [the expression ‘his hand’]. I should have said that it only excluded the slave, since he is not subject to the commandments, but an agent, since he is subject to the commandments, and moreover a man's agent is like himself,10 [I would say] may lay the hands [on his principal's offering]. And if only these two11 had been stated [I should have said that the reason they are disqualified is that] they11 are not as part of himself, but a man's wife, since she is as part of himself,12 [I would say] may lay the hands [on her husband's offering]. Therefore [all three verses] are necessary. THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS OUTSIDE THE COMMANDMENT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall lay his hand . . . and it shall be accepted for him [to make atonement for him].13 Does the laying on of hands make the atonement? Does not the atonement come through the blood, as it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life?14 This, however, informs you that if a man treated the laying on of the hands as outside the commandment15 Scripture accounts it to him as though he has not obtained [the highest form of] atonement, but he has obtained atonement.16 The same was also taught with regard to the rite of waving. To be waved, to make atonement for him.17 Does the waving make the atonement? Does not the atonement come through the blood, as it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life? This, however, informs you that if a man treated the waving as outside the commandment Scripture accounts it to him as though he has not obtained [the highest form of] atonement, but he has obtained atonement. ON THE HEAD. Our Rabbis taught: [And he shall lay] his hand upon the head [of his offering],18 but not his hand upon the neck;19 his hand upon the head, but not his hand upon the back; ‘his hand upon the head’,but not his hand upon the breast. Why are all [the three verses] required? — They are all necessary, for if the Divine Law had only stated once [the expression ‘his hand upon the head,] I should have said that it only excluded the hand upon the neck, since it is not on the same plane as the head, but the [laying of the] hand upon the back, which is on the same plane as the head, I would say was not [excluded].20 And if only these two21 had been stated, [I should have said that] the reason [they are excluded] is that they are not included in the rite of waving, but the breast, since it is included in the rite of waving, I would say was not [excluded]. Therefore all [three verses] are necessary. The question was asked: What if the hands were laid upon the sides [of the head]? — Come and hear, for it was taught: Abba Bira'ah taught in the School of R. Eleazar b. Jacob: The expression ‘his hand upon the head’ excludes the hand upon the sides of the head. R. Jeremiah enquired, Would a cloth22 be regarded as an interposition or not?23 — Come and hear: But nothing shall interpose between him and the offering.24 BOTH HANDS. Whence do we derive it? — Resh Lakish said, Because the verse says, And Aaron shall lay both his hands.25 Now actually there is written in the verse ‘his hand’,26 and yet it says ‘both’, this establishes the rule that wherever ‘his hand’ is stated both [hands] are meant unless Holy Writ clearly specifies one. R. Eleazar went and reported this statement in the Beth-Hamidrash,27 but did not report it in the name of Resh Lakish. When Resh Lakish heard of it he was annoyed. Resh Lakish then said to him,28 If it is as you say that wherever ‘his hand’ is stated both [hands] are meant, why did [Scripture] state at all ‘his hands’? He thus questioned him from twenty-four passages where ‘his hands’ occurs; e.g.. His hands shall bring,29 his hands shall contend for him,30 he guided his hands wittingly.31 The other remained silent. When Resh Lakish's mind had been appeased he said to the other, Why do you not answer me that you mean the expression ‘his hand’32 stated in connection with the rite of the laying on of hands. But is there not written, even with regard to the laying on of hands, And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge?33 — I refer to the laying on of hands in connection with an animal-offering. 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. What does he mean by this?34 — He means to say, In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered because the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.35 MISHNAH. THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS [IN CERTAIN RESPECTS] MORE STRINGENT THAN THE RITE OF WAVING. AND THE RITE OF WAVING IS [IN OTHER RESPECTS] MORE STRINGENT THAN THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. [THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS MORE STRINGENT,] FOR ONE MAY PERFORM THE WAVING ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHER FELLOW-OWNERS BUT ONE MAY NOT PERFORM THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHER FELLOW-OWNERS. THE RITE OF WAVING IS MORE STRINGENT, FOR THE RITE OF WAVING TAKES PLACE IN OFFERINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL36 AND IN OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION,37 eighth day of his consecration (ibid. 2), but according to Tosaf. with the people's burnt-offering (ibid. 15). V. Bez. 20a. the head of the animal and he laid his hands thereon. and not ‘his hand’? same place where the laying on of hands was performed in order to avoid any delay; hence the first statement is superfluous.