Menachot 110

תאפה חמץ מה ת"ל והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ב, יא) לא תעשה חמץ לפי שנאמר לא תעשה חמץ יכול לא יהא חייב אלא אחת על כולם ת"ל (ויקרא ו, י) לא תאפה

be baked leavened? Has it not already stated, It shall not be made leavened?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 11.');">¹</span>

אפייה בכלל היתה למה יצאת להקיש אליה מה אפייה מיוחדת שהיא מעשה יחידי וחייבין עליה בפני עצמה אף אני אביא לישת' ועריכתה

From the verse, It shall not be made leavened, I might have said that one is liable only once for all [the works involved], Scripture therefore says, It shall not be baked leavened. Now baking was included in the general prohibition; why was it specifically mentioned?

וכל מעשה יחידי שבה לאיתויי קיטוף שהוא מעשה יחידי וחייבין עליה בפני עצמה

So that every other work shall be like it; thus as the work of baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it, so I will include the work of kneading and of shaping and every other specific work, including also the work of smoothing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the surface of the dough with moist hands (Rashi) . Others: cutting away a lump of dough sufficient for each loaf (R. Gershom) ; or, shaping the loaf (Maim.) .');">²</span> which is also a specific work, that one is liable on account of each alone! - We derive our rule from the expression 'their portion'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which expression, following immediately upon the prohibition 'It shall not be baked leavened', signifies that even the remainder shall not be baked leavened.');">³</span>

אנן מחלקם קאמרינן

Perhaps then the whole verse refers to this only!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the remainder shall not be leavened. Whence then do we know that the meal-offering as a whole, before the taking out of the handful, is subject to this prohibition?');">⁴</span> - If so [the prohibition] should have been, 'Their portion shall not be baked leavened'; why does Scripture say, It shall not be baked leavened: their portion?

ואימא כוליה להכי הוא דאתא

You can therefore infer both [prohibitions]. But perhaps the interpretation should be thus: for the baking which is expressly prohibited by the Divine Law one is liable once, but as for the other works one is only liable once for all of them! - This is a case of a subject which though included in a general proposition is specifically mentioned in order to teach us something concerning it, in which case what is specifically mentioned is not stated only for its own sake but to teach that the same affects the whole general proposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general prohibition 'It shall not be made leavened' includes every work in connection with the meal-offering, and certainly the baking, but the latter was specifically prohibited to teach that for the baking alone, as well as for any single work in connection with the meal-offering, one is liable.');">⁵</span>

אם כן לכתוב חלקם לא תאפה חמץ מאי לא תאפה חמץ חלקם שמעת מינה תרתי

But perhaps I should say that the verse 'it shall not be made leavened' is a general [prohibition] and the verse 'It shall not be baked leavened' is a particular [prohibition]; we thus have a general rule followed by a specific particular, in which case the general rule is limited to the particular specified, so that only the baking is prohibited but no other work! - R'Aptoriki explained, Here the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former is stated in Lev. II, 11, whilst the latter in VI, 10.');">⁶</span> and in every case where the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular does not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 6b.');">⁷</span>

ואימא אפייה דפרט בה רחמנא ליחייב חדא אינך ליחייב חדא אכולהו משום דהוה דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא

R'Adda B'Ahabah (some say, Kadi) objected, Do you say that where the general rule and the specific particular are far away from each other the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular does not apply? Surely it has been taught: It is written, And he shall slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering before the Lord; it is a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler.');">⁸</span>

ואימא לא תעשה כלל לא תאפה פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט אפייה אין מידי אחרינא לא

Now where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? On the north side;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. I, 11.');">⁹</span>

אמר רבי אפטוריקי משום דהוי כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה וכל כלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה אין דנין אותן בכלל ופרט

this too is slaughtered on the north side. But do we derive it from here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sin-offering must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar.');">¹⁰</span>

מתיב רב אדא בר אהבה ואמרי לה כדי וכלל ופרט המרוחקין זה מזה אין דנין אותן בכלל ופרט והתניא (ויקרא ד, כד) ושחט אותו במקום אשר ישחט העולה לפני ה' חטאת הוא היכן עולה נשחטת בצפון אף זה בצפון

Is it not written, In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 18.');">¹¹</span> Why then is the former verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler.');">⁸</span>

וכי אנו מכאן למידין והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ו, יח) במקום אשר תשחט העולה תשחט החטאת הא למה זה יצא לקובעו שאם לא שחט אותו בצפון פסלו

necessary? It serves to make the rule absolute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition of this rule establishes it as an obligation and absolutely indispensable.');">¹²</span>

אתה אומר לכך יצאת או אינו אלא שזה טעון צפון ואין אחר טעון צפון ת"ל (ויקרא ד, כט) ושחט את החטאת במקום (אשר ישחט את) העולה זה בנה אב לכל חטאות שטעונות צפון

namely, that if it was not slaughtered on the north side it is invalid. You say that it serves to make this rule absolute, but perhaps it i not so but teaches rather that this [sin-offering] must be [slaughtered] on the north side but no other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the communal sin-offerings offered on the Festivals. V. Sh. Mek. n. 3.');">¹³</span>

טעמא דכתב רחמנא ושחט את החטאת הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא שזה טעון צפון ואין אחר טעון צפון מ"ט

requires the north side! The text therefore states, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 29.');">¹⁴</span> this establishes the rule that all sin-offerings must be slaughtered on the north side.

לאו משום דהוה כלל ופרט ואע"ג דמרוחקין זה מזה דנין אותן בכלל ופרט

Now this is the conclusion because the Divine Law has also written, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering, but without this verse I would have held that only this [sin-offering] requires the north side but no other requires the north side. And why?

מתקיף לה רב אשי האי כלל ופרט הוא פרט וכלל הוא ונעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואיתרבי להו כל מילי

Is it not because this would be a case of a general rule followed by a specific particular, which would be governed by the principle relating to a general rule followed by a specific particular, notwithstanding that the two are far away from each other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In VI, 18 the rule is stated with regard to sin-offerings generally whilst in IV, 24 it is stated with regard to the special case of a sin-offering of a ruler.');">¹⁵</span> Thereupon R'Ashi demurred, Is this an instance of a general rule followed by a specific particular?

אלא תנא אותו קא קשיא ליה וה"ק או אינו אלא שזה טעון צפון ואין אחר טעון צפון דכתב רחמנא אותו

It is an instance of a specif particular followed by a general rule,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the specific case is stated before the general rule, v. prec. note.');">¹⁶</span> in which case the general rule extends beyond the scope of the specific particular, and includes every [sin-offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the verse, And he shall slaughter the sin-offering (ibid. IV, 29) , is rendered superfluous. u,ut');">¹⁷</span>

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'.

אותו בצפון ואין שעיר נחשון בצפון

Now that the general rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all sin-offerings must be slaughtered on the north side.');">¹⁹</span> is derived from the verse, 'And he shall slaughter the sin-offering', what does the term 'it' exclude? - (Mnemonic: Nahshon, the slaughterer, a bird, the Passover-offering.)

סד"א הואיל ואיתרבי לענין סמיכה ליתרבי נמי לענין צפון קמ"ל

It teaches that it must be on the north side, but Nahshon's he-goat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The he-goat offered as a sin-offering by Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, (and likewise by each of the princes of the other tribes, v. Num. VII, 12ff) at the dedication of the altar. This sin-offering was peculiar in that it was offered not in expiation of any sin committed.');">²⁰</span> 'was not [slaughtered] on the north side.

וסמיכה גופה מנלן דתניא (ויקרא ד, כד) וסמך ידו על ראש השעיר לרבות שעיר נחשון לסמיכה דברי רבי יהודה ר"ש אומר

For I might have thought that since the latter was included under the law of laying on of hands it was also included under the law requiring the north side; we are therefore taught [that it was not so]. And whence do we know that this was so concerning the laying on of hands?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Nahshon's he-goat required the laying on of hands before slaughtering.');">²¹</span> - For it was taught: The verse, And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the he-goat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 24, with reference to the sin-offering brought by a ruler. Other offerings of a he-goat are included in this verse by reason of the fact that 'he-goat' is expressly mentioned here instead of the more usual expression 'upon its head'.');">²²</span> includes also Nahshon's he-goat, for the requirement of the laying on of hands. So R'Judah. But R'Simeon says,