Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 37:22

שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא ב, טז) מגרשה ומשמנה

And is there not the Day of Atonement, where only the expression 'statute' is used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ibid. XVI, 29.');">²⁷</span> yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">²³</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. VII, 37: This is the law of the burnt-offering etc.');">²⁸</span> and yet the rites [in each offering] are no indispensable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the offering is valid even though the sacrificial portions of the guilt-offering were not burnt upon the altar (supra 4a) . and the meal-offering even though it was not brought nigh unto the altar (supra 18a) .');">²⁹</span> - 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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is clear that the expressions are on an equal footing and one is not more significant than the other.');">³⁰</span> - 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VI, 11.');">³¹</span> and yet Rab has stated, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering is dealt with primarily in Lev. II, and also in VI, 7-11.');">³²</span> is indispensable; which shows that only if it is repeated is it [indispensable], otherwise it is not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that the expression 'statute' is used.');">³³</span> - That case is different, for the expression 'statute' relates only to the eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is written (ibid. VI, 11) : Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, it is a perpetual statute. It cannot be taken as a general term indicating indispensability.');">³⁴</span> And is there not the Shewbread, where [undoubtedly] the expression 'statute' relates only to the eating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is written (ibid. XXIV, 9) : And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy unto him . . by a perpetual statute.');">³⁵</span> yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">³⁶</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of the meal-offering.');">³⁷</span> however, it is different, for since it is written, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 16.');">³⁸</span> [it is clea that only]

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 37:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.