Commentary for Menachot 110:17

והשתא דנפקא ליה מושחט את החטאת אותו למעוטי מאי למעוטי (נחשו"ן ושח"ט עו"פ בפס"ח סימן)

Rather the fact is that the Tanna's counter-argument was based upon the expression 'it';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , 'it' to the exclusion of others. The third verse (Lev. IV, 29) was therefore necessary to extend the rule generally so as to include all sin-offerings.');">¹⁸</span> and he argued thus: 'perhaps it is not so but teaches rather that this [sin-offering] must be [slaughtered] on the north side but no other requires the north side', since the Divine Law stated 'it'.

Explore commentary for Menachot 110:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.