Menachot

. but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron but by the elders!1 — 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?2 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;3 for they4 were excluded by ‘the live [goat]’.5 But according to R. Judah what need was there to exclude them6 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?7 — It was merely an exercise in interpretation. 8 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]?9 — He derives it from the following [Baraitha] which was taught:10 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat:11 this includes Nahshon's goat12 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 within13 required the laying on of hands.14 Why is it stated [in this Baraitha], ‘for [R. Simeon ruled etc.]’?15 — It is merely an indication [of his view]. But perhaps it16 includes the he-goat that is offered within [on the Day of Atonement]!17 — [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.18 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]?19 — Both the verse and the tradition are necessary. For if [the law20 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’,21 against that Mishnah where R. Simeon stated, There are three kinds of offering which [between them] require three rites,22 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.’23 — the tradition is therefore necessary.24 And if it were derived from the tradition alone I should not have known which was [the other case],25 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.26 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,27 [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 it28 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 bring29 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!30 — Indeed the verses are merely a support. But 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! require the laying on of hands by the elders. 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. transgression of the congregation. V. our Mishnah. accept this tradition but arrives at that view by the exposition of verses. whence does he derive it that it must be performed by the elders? Perhaps they do not require it at all? error. because he, Nahshon b. Aminadab, the prince of Judah, was the first to bring his offering. Cf. Num. VII, 12. goat was not. 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! Simeon's ruling. relating to the Temple and the holy things where the transgressor has no knowledge thereof. V. Shebu. 2a. 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! 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. peace-offerings of the congregations be included as they do not make atonement at all. 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. tenth the ninth, and the eleventh the tenth, all three become holy. V. supra p. 558, n. 4 and Bek. 60a. 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.