מנחות 93 — Soncino English Talmud

¹what 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. ‘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. 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]. [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? 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. but not the offering of his father; and he compares the inception of the consecration with the termination of the consecration: 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? — It is written, And if he shall at all change, this includes the heir; 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’? — 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? — 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. For it was taught: Since the whole passage is stated in the masculine form, whence do we know to include a woman? Because the text states, And if he shall at all change. And the Rabbis? — They derive it by expounding the expression ‘and if’. 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. [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: [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. 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. Why does not he that deduces the law from the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering rather deduce it from the elders of the congregation? —^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:A man may not lay his hands on his neighbour's offering even though he was instructed to do so on his behalf.
^ᵇnote:I.e., every person that has a share in the offering must lay his hands on it.
^ᶜnote:I.e., if he did so it is of no effect.
^ᵈnote:And substitute ‘may’ for ‘may not’ and ‘can’ for ‘cannot’.
^ᵉnote:Lev. III, 2: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering.
^ᶠnote:Thus the heir may not lay his hands on his father's offering.
^ᵍnote:Viz., the substitution of another animal for the offering. This is an original act of consecration whereby a profane animal becomes holy.
^ʰnote:Viz., the laying on of hands. This is almost the last act with the consecrated animal, since the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of his hands.
^ⁱnote:l.e., the first view in the above-mentioned Baraitha, quoted anonymously. In the parallel passage, Tem. 2a this is R. Meir's view.
^ʲnote:Lev. XXVII, 10.
^ᵏnote:Thus the heir can effectively substitute another animal for his father's offering, and both animals become holy.
^ˡnote:This was interpreted by R. Judah to exclude the heir from the laying on of hands.
^ᵐnote:Since he uses the expression ‘his offering’ to exclude the heir, he is then short of one of these expressions for the three foregoing teachings.
^ⁿnote:I.e., that the law of substitution also applies to a woman.
^ᵒnote:Concerning the law of substitution.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘what is our end’.
^ᵠnote:How do they know that a woman can effectively substitute another animal for the offering?
^ʳnote:For the waw, ‘and’, is superfluous.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘the remnant of the commandment’. I.e., the laying on of hands may be omitted and yet the offering is valid, for the atonement is not dependent upon this act.
^ᵗnote:Lev. I, 2.
^ᵘnote:In connection with the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation; cf. Lev. IV, 15. And as the elders of the congregation had to be free from every physical blemish, v. Sanh. 17a, hence the blind may not lay on the hands.
^ᵛnote:I.e., the burnt-offering offered by every Israelite on appearing at the Temple on the three great Festivals; cf. Deut. 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.

²It is more proper to deduce the offering of an individual from another offering of the individual 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 prescribed from that offering for which the rite of laying on the hands is also expressly prescribed; but this is not the case with the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering, for that 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, that is, according to the ordinance of a freewill burnt-offering; this teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering requires the laying on of hands. A SLAVE, AN AGENT, OR A WOMAN. Our Rabbis taught: His hand, but not the hand of his slave; his hand, but not the hand of his agent; his hand, 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, [I would say] may lay the hands [on his principal's offering]. And if only these two had been stated [I should have said that the reason they are disqualified is that] they are not as part of himself, but a man's wife, since she is as part of himself, [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]. 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? This, however, informs you that if a man treated the laying on of the hands 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. The same was also taught with regard to the rite of waving. To be waved, to make atonement for him. 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], but not his hand upon the neck; 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]. And if only these two 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 cloth be regarded as an interposition or not? — Come and hear: But nothing shall interpose between him and the offering. BOTH HANDS. Whence do we derive it? — Resh Lakish said, Because the verse says, And Aaron shall lay both his hands. Now actually there is written in the verse ‘his hand’, 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, 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, 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, his hands shall contend for him, he guided his hands wittingly. 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’ 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? — 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? — 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. 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 INDIVIDUAL AND IN OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION,^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^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^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ

^ʷnote:Sc. the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering.
^ˣnote:Sc. the freewill-offering of the individual; v. Lev. I, 4.
^ʸnote:Sc. the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation; ibid. IV, 15.
^ᶻnote:I.e., that the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering requires the laying on of hands.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. IX, 16. The verse is dealing, according to Rashi, with the obligatory burnt-offering offered by Aaron on the eighth day of his consecration (ibid. 2), but according to Tosaf. with the people's burnt-offering (ibid. 15). V. Bez. 20a.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which includes the ‘appearance’ burnt-offering.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. III, 2.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ibid. 8.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ibid. 13.
^ᵃᶠnote:V. Kid. 41b.
^ᵃᵍnote:The slave and the agent.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Ber. 24a.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lev. I, 4.
^ᵃʲnote:Ibid. XVII, 11.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘remnants of the precept’. I.e., he omitted to perform this rite.
^ᵃˡnote:By the sprinkling of the blood.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ibid. XIV, 21.
^ᵃⁿnote:This expression is stated three times in the chapter dealing with the peace-offering. viz., Lev. III, 2, 8, 13.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., the front of the neck.
^ᵃᵖnote:Hence a verse was necessary to exclude the laying of hands on the back of the offering.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., verses excluding the neck and the back.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., if a man wrapped a cloth round his hands and thus laid them on the head of the animal; or a cloth was covering the head of the animal and he laid his hands thereon.
^ᵃˢnote:Is it regarded as a proper laying on of hands or not?
^ᵃᵗnote:When laying the hands upon the head of the offering. V. Yoma 36a and Tosef. Men. X.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lev. XVI, 21.
^ᵃᵛnote:The Heb. for ‘his hands’ is written defectively thus ush and it might be read as ush his hand.
^ᵃʷnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃˣnote:R. Eleazar.
^ᵃʸnote:Lev. VII, 30.
^ᵃᶻnote:Deut. XXXIII, 7.
^ᵇᵃnote:Gen. XLVIII, 14.
^ᵇᵇnote:So MS.M., and so apparently in the text before Rashi; in cur. edd. ‘his hands’.
^ᵇᶜnote:Num. XXVII, 23, with reference to the appointment of Joshua as leader. Why did Scripture state here ‘his hands’ and not ‘his hand’?
^ᵇᵈnote:Since the slaughtering must follow the laying on of hands obviously then the animal would be slaughtered in the same place where the laying on of hands was performed in order to avoid any delay; hence the first statement is superfluous.
^ᵇᵉnote:For in Scripture ‘And he shall lay his hand’ (Lev. I, 4) is immediately followed by And he shall slaughter (ibid. 5).
^ᵇᶠnote:The waving of the breast and thigh of the peace-offering.
^ᵇᵍnote:The waving of the two lambs of Pentecost. V. supra 61a.