מנחות 92 — Soncino English Talmud

¹What is the quantity of drink-offerings for a ewe in its second year? And we answered him that this was clearly stated in a Mishnah: [The seal inscribed with] ‘Kid’ signified drink-offerings for [offerings from] the flock, whether large or small, male or female, excepting rams. MISHNAH. NONE OF THE OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS EXCEPT THE BULLOCK THAT IS OFFERED FOR THE TRANSGRESSION [BY THE CONGREGATION] OF ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS, AND THE SCAPEGOAT. R. SIMEON SAYS, ALSO THE HE-GOAT OFFERED FOR THE SIN OF IDOLATRY. ALL THE OFFERINGS OF AN INDIVIDUAL REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS EXCEPT THE FIRSTLING, THE CATTLE TITHE, AND THE PASSOVER-OFFERING. 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]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: None of the offerings of the congregation require the laying on of hands except the bullock that is offered for the transgression [by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry. So R. Simeon. But R. Judah says, The he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands. What then must I include in their place? The scapegoat. (But is it absolutely necessary to include [another in their place]? — Rabina answered, There is a tradition that among the offerings of the congregation there are two that require the laying on of hands.) R. Simeon said to him, Is it not the law that the laying on of hands must be performed by the owners [of the offering]? But on that Aaron and his sons lay the hands! He replied, Even in that case [the laying on of the hands is performed by the owners] since Aaron and his sons obtain atonement through it. R. Jeremiah said, They are indeed consistent in their views, for it has been taught: And he shall make atonement for the most holy place. this means the Holy of Holies; and the tent of meeting. this means the Holy place; and the altar, this is to be taken in its usual sense; he shall make atonement, this means the various Temple courts; and for the priests, this is to be taken in its usual sense; and for all the people of the assembly, this means the Israelites; he shall make atonement, this means the Levites. They are all declared alike in respect of one atonement, in that they obtain atonement through the scapegoat for other sins. So R. Judah. But R. Simeon says, Just as the blood of the he-goat that is offered within [the Holy of Holies] makes atonement for Israelites for all matters of uncleanness touching the Temple and the holy things thereof, so does the blood of the bullock make atonement for the priests for all matters of uncleanness touching the Temple and the holy things thereof; and just as the confession of sin pronounced over the scapegoat makes atonement for Israelites for other sins, so does the confession of sin pronounced over the bullock make atonement for priests for other sins. But according to R. Simeon [it will be asked]: Surely they are declared alike! — Yes. they are all declared alike in that they all obtain atonement, but each obtains atonement through its own [offering]. This means, therefore, that, according to R. Judah, for transgressions of the laws of uncleanness touching the Temple and the holy things thereof Israelites obtain atonement through the blood of the he-goat that is sprinkled within [the Holy of Holies], and priests through Aaron's bullock, and for other sins all obtain atonement through the confession over the scapegoat; according to R. Simeon, even for other sins priests obtain atonement through the confession pronounced over the bullock. And so it is stated in [the Tractate] Shebu'oth: [For all other sins the scapegoat makes atonement] alike for Israelites, priests and the anointed High Priest. Wherein do Israelites differ from priests and the anointed High Priest? Only in that the blood of the bullock makes atonement for priests for the transgressions of the laws of uncleanness touching the Temple and the holy things thereof. R. Simeon says, As the blood of the he-goat that is sprinkled within the Holy of Holies makes atonement for the Israelites, so does the blood of the bullock make atonement for the priests; and as the confession of sin pronounced over the scapegoat makes atonement for the Israelites, so does the confession of sin pronounced over the bullock make atonement for the priests. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock: this signifies that only the bullock requires the laying on of hands, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands. So R. Judah. But R. Simeon says, [It signifies that] only the bullock requires the laying on of hands by the elders, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by the elders but by Aaron. There is, however, [a Baraitha] which conflicts with the above, for it was taught: It is written, The live [goat]: this signifies that only the live [goat] requires the laying on of hands, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands. So R. Judah. But R. Simeon says, [It signifies that] only the live [goat] requires the laying on of hands by Aaron^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:Shek. V, 3.
^ᵇnote:A man who required drink-offerings for his offering did not bring them from his own home but came to the Temple to the officer in charge of the seals, paid him money, and received from him a seal. On handing the seal to another officer who was in charge of the drink-offerings he would receive the necessary quantities of drink-offerings as indicated by the inscription on the seal. The seal inscribed with ‘Kid’ signified the drink-offerings for an offering from the flock. V. Shek. V, 4. Thus a ewe in its second year required the drink-offerings of a lamb.
^ᶜnote:Who sinned in error by reason of an erroneous ruling of the Beth din; v. Lev. IV, 13-21.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. XVI, 21.
^ᵉnote:Where the congregation sinned in error by reason of an erroneous ruling of the Beth din in regard to idolatry; v. Num. XV, 24. Cf. Hor. 5b.
^ᶠnote:Where the father died having already set aside a beast for his burnt-offering or peace-offering, and the heir is offering it on behalf of his father.
^ᵍnote:I.e., if he substituted another animal for his father's offering, both animals are holy; v. Lev. XXVII, 10.
^ʰnote:Sc. the scapegoat.
^ⁱnote:And not the owners, for the owners are the entire congregation.
^ʲnote:Yoma 61a, Shebu. 13b. Hul. 131b.
^ᵏnote:Lev. XVI, 33. From this verse it is deduced that the High Priest effected atonement for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness in the Holy of Holies, in the Holy place etc. with the bullock and the he-goat, the former making atonement for priests who erred in this way and the latter for Israelites.
^ˡnote:I.e., if a person became unclean whilst in the Holy of Holies or in the Holy place and tarried there for the prescribed period (v. Shebu. 16b), or if he offered incense on the golden altar whilst unclean, or if he unwittingly entered the Temple courts whilst unclean.
^ᵐnote:Priests, Levites and Israelites.
^ⁿnote:I.e., for all sins except the transgression of the laws of uncleanness connected with the Temple.
^ᵒnote:Thus according to R. Judah priests also obtained atonement through the scapegoat, consequently when they lay the hands on it they do so in the capacity of owners.
^ᵖnote:Lev. XVI, 21; cf. Yoma 66a.
^ᵠnote:Cf. Yoma 35b.
^ʳnote:According to R. Simeon, therefore, priests do not obtain any atonement through the scapegoat.
^ˢnote:For the last phrases of the quoted verse imply that all sections of the people, Israelites as well as priests, obtain atonement alike for other sins.
^ᵗnote:For other sins, Israelites through the scapegoat and priests through the bullock.
^ᵘnote:Heb. aurhp, so MS.M., and Sh. Mek. An unusual expression. The entire passage is an addition by the Saboraim (Sh. Mek.).
^ᵛnote:I.e., the High Priest's bullock; v. Lev. XVI, 6.
^ʷnote:Shebu. 2b. So in MS.M. and Sh. Mek.; cur. edd. omit ‘in Shebu'oth’.
^ˣnote:Cur. edd. insert here: ‘This is the opinion of R. Judah’.
^ʸnote:Lev. IV, 15 with reference to the bullock offered when the congregation sinned in error by reason of an erroneous ruling of the Beth din.
^ᶻnote:I.e., a priest.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ibid. XVI, 21 with reference to the scapegoat.

². but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron but by the elders! — Thereupon R. Shesheth said, And do you think that the first [Baraitha] is correct? Has not R. Simeon laid down the rule that the laying on of hands must be performed by the owners? But you must correct [the Baraitha] as follows: The bullock; this signifies that only the bullock requires the laying on of hands, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands. So R. Judah. R. Simeon says. The live [goat]: this signifies that only the live [goat] requires the laying on of hands by Aaron, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron but by the elders. And this is really what R. Simeon said to R. Judah: The he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry [most certainly] require the laying on of hands, for if you have heard anything to the effect that they do not require the laying on of hands, you must have heard it only in regard to Aaron; for they were excluded by ‘the live [goat]’. But according to R. Judah what need was there to exclude them by a verse? Has not Rabina stated that there is a tradition that among the offerings of the congregation there are two that require the laying on of hands? — It was merely an exercise in interpretation. Whence does R. Simeon derive the law that the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry require the laying on of hands [by the elders]? — He derives it from the following [Baraitha] which was taught: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat: this includes Nahshon's goat in respect of the laying on of hands. So R. Judah. But R. Simeon says. It includes the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry in respect of the laying on of hands; for R. Simeon ruled that every sin-offering whose blood was brought within required the laying on of hands. Why is it stated [in this Baraitha], ‘for [R. Simeon ruled etc.]’? — It is merely an indication [of his view]. But perhaps it includes the he-goat that is offered within [on the Day of Atonement]! — [What is included] must be like the he-goat of a ruler which makes atonement for the person who has knowledge of the transgression of the precept. But according to Rabina who said that there is a tradition that among the offerings of the congregation there are [only] two that require the laying on of hands, wherefore is a verse required [to include the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry]? — Both the verse and the tradition are necessary. For if [the law were derived] from the verse alone I should have said that the peace-offerings of the congregation also [require the laying on of hands] — as indeed this question was raised in the chapter entitled ‘All meal-offerings were offered unleavened’, against that Mishnah where R. Simeon stated, There are three kinds of offering which [between them] require three rites, in the following terms: ‘Surely the peace-offerings of the congregation should require the ceremony of the laying on of hands by the following a fortiori argument: if the peace-offerings of the individual which do not require waving for the living animals require the laying on of hands etc.’ — the tradition is therefore necessary. And if it were derived from the tradition alone I should not have known which was [the other case], the verse therefore informs us that it includes what is like the he-goat of a ruler which makes atonement for the person who has knowledge of the transgression of the precept. ALL THE OFFERINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS EXCEPT THE FIRSTLING, THE CATTLE TITHE, AND THE PASSOVER-OFFERING. Our Rabbis taught: His offering, [requires the laying on of hands], but not the firstling. For without this exposition I should have argued as follows: if the peace-offering which is not holy from the womb requires the laying on of hands, the firstling which is holy from the womb surely requires the laying on of hands! The text therefore stated, ‘His offering’, but not the firstling. ‘His offering’, but not the tithe. For without this exposition I should have argued as follows: if the peace-offering which does not sanctify what comes before it or what comes after it requires the laying on of hands, the tithe which sanctifies what comes before it and what comes after it surely requires the laying on of hands! The text therefore stated, ‘His offering’, but not the tithe. ‘His offering’, but not the Passover-offering. For without this exposition I should have argued as follows: if the peace-offering which one is not bound to bring requires the laying on of hands, the Passover-offering which one is bound to bring surely requires the laying on of hands! The text therefore stated, ‘His offering’, but not the Passover-offering. But surely all these arguments can be refuted: It is so with the peace-offering since it requires drink-offerings and also the waving of the breast and the thigh! — Indeed the verses are merely a support. But^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ

^ᵃᵇnote:This contradicts the view of R. Simeon as stated in the former Baraitha.
^ᵃᶜnote:Supra p. 561. And the owners of the he-goats offered by the congregation for the sin of idolatry are the elders of the congregation, yet R. Simeon states in the first Baraitha that the laying on of hands was to be performed by Aaron and not by the elders!
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., that the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron, but they certainly require the laying on of hands by the elders.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., that the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron.
^ᵃᶠnote:Thus only on the scapegoat shall Aaron lay his hands but not on these goats. This is the proper inference. viz., the he-goats from the scapegoat; but one may not infer the he-goats from ‘the bullock’ (as was originally stated in the first Baraitha), for they are of different kinds.
^ᵃᵍnote:Sc. the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., two and no more. And the two, according to R. Judah, are: the scapegoat, and the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation. V. our Mishnah.
^ᵃⁱnote:To interpret the verses in order to arrive at the traditional view as reported by Rabina. Aliter: R. Judah does not accept this tradition but arrives at that view by the exposition of verses.
^ᵃʲnote:All that R. Simeon established above was that these goats do not require the laying on of hands by the priest, but whence does he derive it that it must be performed by the elders? Perhaps they do not require it at all?
^ᵃᵏnote:Supra 55b; Zeb. 48b.
^ᵃˡnote:Lev. IV, 24. with reference to the he-goat offered by a ruler, i.e., a prince of a tribe, for a sin committed by him in error.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sc. the he-goat offered by each of the princes of the tribes at the dedication of the altar, called ‘Nahshon's goat’ because he, Nahshon b. Aminadab, the prince of Judah, was the first to bring his offering. Cf. Num. VII, 12.
^ᵃⁿnote:To be sprinkled upon the golden altar or upon the veil.
^ᵃᵒnote:And the blood of the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry was sprinkled within, whereas the blood of Nahshon's goat was not.
^ᵃᵖnote:For the only two cases to which this rule applies are the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry and the sin-offering of the anointed High Priest. How the former is here included for the rite of laying on of hands, and as for the latter, Scripture has expressly stated that it requires the laying on of hands (v. Lev. IV, 4); obviously then R. Simeon's rule is superfluous!
^ᵃᵠnote:Sc. the verse that prescribes the laying on of hands in the case of the he-goat brought by a ruler.
^ᵃʳnote:Since its blood is sprinkled within the Holy of Holies it should require the laying on of hands, in accordance with R. Simeon's ruling.
^ᵃˢnote:Whereas the he-goat of the Day of Atonement makes atonement for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness relating to the Temple and the holy things where the transgressor has no knowledge thereof. V. Shebu. 2a.
^ᵃᵗnote:Since R. Simeon is of the opinion that the laying on of hands must be performed by the owners, and therefore the laying of the hands by Aaron on the scapegoat is not a proper laying on of hands, inasmuch as Aaron is not the owner since he does not even obtain any atonement through it, then by virtue of the tradition the only two possible offerings of the congregation that require the laying on of hands are the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation and the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry. Hence the verse is superfluous!
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc. of laying on the hands in offerings of the congregation.
^ᵃᵛnote:Chap. V.
^ᵃʷnote:Supra 61a.
^ᵃˣnote:V. supra p. 369.
^ᵃʸnote:That there are only two cases of laying on of hands among the offerings of the congregation.
^ᵃᶻnote:One offering of the congregation, namely the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation, is expressly stated in Scripture as requiring the laying on of hands, but we should not know which was the other offering that required it, whether it was the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry, or the he-goat of the Day of Atonement, or the peace-offerings of the congregation.
^ᵇᵃnote:Hence the he-goat of the Day of Atonement cannot be included, v. supra p. 566, n. 1; neither can the peace-offerings of the congregations be included as they do not make atonement at all.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lev. III, 1. The expression ‘his offering’ occurs seven times in the passage dealing with the peace-offering (Lev. 111, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14) and each is interpreted for some purpose in connection with the law of the laying on of hands. V. Sifra a.l. The basis for the interpretations in this passage is the definition of the word ‘offering’, which is defined as that which is made holy by a person of his own free will and which he offers as a gift to God to win His favour. Accordingly the firstling is excluded since it is holy from the moment it is born and not made holy by any person, moreover it is an obligatory offering and is not brought to win God's favour. The tithe and the Passover-offering are also excluded for the reason last stated.
^ᵇᶜnote:For if in the course of counting the animals for the purpose of the tithe the ninth was by error called the tenth, the tenth the ninth, and the eleventh the tenth, all three become holy. V. supra p. 558, n. 4 and Bek. 60a.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘which is not (subject to the command of) arise and bring it’.
^ᵇᵉnote:And therefore it also requires the laying on of hands, but neither the firstling nor the tithe nor the Passover-offering require drink-offerings or the waving of the breast and thigh. Accordingly no verses are required to exclude these offerings as there are no valid reasons for including them.