Menachot

the priests’ is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows.1 And is R. Simeon of the opinion that a Scriptural expression is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows? But it has been taught: It is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar.2 ‘And... shall take.. . with his finger’, this teaches us that the taking [of the blood] shall be with the right hand only; ‘with his finger and put it’, this teaches us that the sprinkling shall be with [the finger of] the right hand only. R. Simeon said, Is the expression ‘hand’3 written in connection with the taking [of the blood]? Since the expression ‘hand’ is not written in connection with the taking [of the blood], if he took the blood with the left hand it is still valid. And Abaye said that they differ as to whether a Scriptural expression is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows or not!4 — This rather is the reason for R. Simeon's view: It is written, And he shall bring it;5 the term ‘and’ indicates conjunction with the preceding subject.6 But is R. Simeon of the opinion that the term ‘and’ indicates conjunction with the preceding subject? Then consider this: It is written, And he shall slaughter the bullock before the Lord; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood,7 from which it is clear that only from the act of receiving8 [the blood] and onwards is the function of the priesthood; we thus learn that the slaughtering may be performed by a non-priest. But according to R. Simeon, since the term ‘and’ indicates conjunction with the preceding subject, the slaughtering by a non-priest should not be permitted!9 Here it is different, for it is written, And he shall lay his hand10 ... and he shall slaughter; and as the laying of the hands is performed by non-priests so the slaughtering may be performed by non-priests. Then should it not follow, as the laying of the hands must be performed by the owner [of the offering], so the slaughtering, too, shall be performed by the owner! — You cannot say that, as there is an a fortiori argument against it. For if the sprinkling which is the chief service of atonement is not performed by the owner, a fortiori the slaughtering which is not the chief service of atonement! And should you retort, But surely the possible is not to be inferred from the impossible!11 then [I say], the fact that the Divine Law enjoined with regard to the service on the Day of Atonement, And he shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself,12 indicates that elsewhere the slaughtering need not be performed by the owners. Rab said, Wherever the expressions ‘law’ and ‘statute’ occur [in connection with any rites,] their purpose is only to indicate the indispensability [of those rites]. Now it was assumed that both expressions were necessary for this purpose, as in the verse, This is the statute of the law.13 (Mnemonic: Nataz Yikmal.).14 But is there not the case of the Nazirite,15 where only the expression ‘law’ is used,16 and yet Rab has said that the [absence of the] rite of waving17 in the case of the Nazirite invalidates [the service]? — That case is different, for since there is written, so he must do,18 it is as though the expression ‘statute’ were used. And is there _not the thank-offering, where only the expression ‘law’ is used,19 yet we have learnt:20 Of the four [kinds of cakes] of the thank-offering21 the [absence of] one invalidates the others? — The case of the thank-offering is also different, since it has been placed side by side with the Nazirite in the verse, With the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving,22 and the Master has taught23 that the term ‘peace-offerings’ includes the peace-offerings of the Nazirite. And is there not the case of the leper, where only the expression ‘law’ is used,24 yet we have learnt:23 Of the four kinds [used in the purification] of the leper25 the [absence of] one invalidates the others? — That case is different, for since there is written, This shall be the law of the leper,24 it is as though the word ‘statute’ were also written. 26 And is there not the Day of Atonement, where only the expression ‘statute’ is used,27 yet we have learnt:23 Of the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement the [absence of] one invalidates the other? — Hence we must say that either the expression ‘law’ [by itself] or ‘statute’ [by itself indicates indispensability]. But with all other offerings only the expression ‘law’ is found,28 and yet the rites [in each offering] are not indispensable!29 — We must therefore say that the expression ‘law’ requires with it the expression ‘statute’ [in order to indicate indispensability], whereas statute’ does not require with it ‘law’. But did not [Rab] say, The expressions ‘law’ and ‘statute’?30 — He meant to say this: Even though the expression ‘law’ is used, only if there is also used the expression ‘statute’ is [indispensability implied], otherwise it is not so. But in the case of the meal-offering only the expression ‘statute’ is used,31 and yet Rab has stated, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse32 is indispensable; which shows that only if it is repeated is it [indispensable], otherwise it is not!33 — That case is different, for the expression ‘statute’ relates only to the eating. 34 And is there not the Shewbread, where [undoubtedly] the expression ‘statute’ relates only to the eating,35 yet we have learnt:36 Of the two rows [of the Shewbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other, of the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other, of the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other? — Therefore [we must say that] even where [the expression ‘statute’] is used in connection with the eating [of the offering], it relates to all [the rites of that offering]; in that case,37 however, it is different, for since it is written, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof38 [it is clear that only] performed by the priests alone. ‘priest’, according to Rabbinic interpretation, signifies the use of the right hand or of the finger of the right hand; v. supra 10a) is so placed in the middle of the verse that it might be said to refer to the rite of taking the blood which precedes, or to the rite of sprinkling which follows, or even to both. therefore both services must be performed with the right hand; whereas R. Simeon holds that ‘with his finger’ refers to what follows, namely the sprinkling, and therefore the taking of the blood may be performed even with the left hand. latter is performed by the priest only,so the former may be performed by the priest only. To reason the same with regard to the sin-offering thus: since the second service is introduced by the term ‘and’, therefore as the second service, sc. the sprinkling, must be performed with the right finger so the preceding service, sc. the receiving of the blood, shall also be performed with the right hand, is not admissible, for the two services of the verse are separated by the expression ‘with his finger’ (Rashi). other than priests. conflict with the Scriptural precept, the slaughtering on the other hand is ‘possible’, i.e., may be, and therefore should be, performed by the owner. here in argument against Rab's principle. (supra 4a). and the meal-offering even though it was not brought nigh unto the altar (supra 18a). cannot be taken as a general term indicating indispensability. statute.