Menachot 111

לרבות שעירי עבודת כוכבים לסמיכה

It includes the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry for the requirement of the laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 92b.');">¹</span> Rabina demurred, [saying], It is well according to R'Judah's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he maintains that Nahshon's he-goat required laying on of hands just like an ordinary sin-offering, it would also have required slaughtering on the north side; therefore an express term was necessary in order to exclude the latter requirement.');">²</span>

מתקיף לה רבינא תינח לרבי יהודה לרבי שמעון מאי איכא למימר

but what is to be said if R'Simeon's view is followed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to him Nahshon's he-goat was different from ordinary sin-offerings, since it did not require laying on of hands, and presumably it did not require slaughtering on the north side; hence no term was necessary to exclude this.');">³</span> Thereupon Mar Zutra the son of R'Mari said to Rabina, But even according to R'Judah should we not say that that which is expressly included<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rite of laying on of hands.');">⁴</span>

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא לרבי יהודה נמי מאי דאיתרבי איתרבי מאי דלא איתרבי לא איתרבי

is included, and that which is not included<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The requirement of slaughtering on the north side.');">⁵</span> is not included?

וכי תימא אי לא מעטיה קרא הוה אמינא תיתי בבנין אב סמיכה גופה לישתוק קרא מיניה ותיתי בבנין אב אלא שעה מדורות לא ילפינן הכא נמי שעה מדורות לא ילפינן

And if you retort that without a verse to exclude it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The requirement of slaughtering on the north side.');">⁵</span> you would have included it by virtue of the general principle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as all sin-offerings required slaughtering on the north side so this offering also required it.');">⁶</span>

אלא אותו טעון צפון ואין השוחט עומד בצפון

then with regard to the requirement of laying on of hands Scripture should have been silent concerning it since it would have been included by virtue of the general principle. But [you would answer that] we may not derive [the regulations applicable, to] a temporary enactment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the offering of Nahshon's he-goat at the dedication of the altar.');">⁷</span>

מדרבי אחייה נפקא דתניא רבי אחייה אומר (ויקרא א, יא) ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה מה ת"ל

from a permanent law, then with regard to this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The requirement of slaughtering on the north side.');">⁵</span> too, we may not derive a temporary enactment from a permanent law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that even according to R. Judah only that rite which was expressly stated as applying to Nahshon's he-goat did apply, but none other; hence slaughtering on the north side was not required for it; accordingly the term 'it' must be otherwise interpreted.');">⁸</span>

לפי שמצינו במקבל שעומד בצפון ומקבל בצפון ואם עמד בדרום וקיבל בצפון פסול יכול אף זה כן ת"ל אותו אותו בצפון ולא השוחט צריך להיות עומד בצפון

- This then is the interpretation: 'It' must be [slaughtered] on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand at the north side.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may stand on the south side and slaughter the animal which is on the north side by using a long knife for the purpose.');">⁹</span> But is not this to be derived from R'Ahiyah's teaching?

אלא אותו בצפון ואין בן עוף בצפון סלקא דעתך אמינא ליתי בק"ו מבן צאן ומה בן צאן שלא קבע לו כהן קבע לו צפון בן עוף שקבע לו כהן אינו דין שנקבע לו צפון

For it was taught: R'Ahiyah says, Wherefore does the text state, And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 11.');">¹⁰</span> It is because concerning the receiving [of the blood] we know that [the priest] must stand on the north side and receive [the blood] on the north side, and if he stood on the south side and received [the blood] on the north side the offering is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 48a.');">¹¹</span>

מה לבן צאן שכן קבע לו כלי

now I might have thought that it is the same here [with regard to the slaughtering], Scripture therefore stated 'it', signifying that 'it' must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not sta on the north side!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the term 'it', stated in Lev. IV, 24, has not been satisfactorily interpreted.');">¹²</span> - Rather [then interpret it thus]: 'It' must be on the north side but [the killing of] a bird-offering need not be on the north side.

אלא אותו בצפון ואין פסח בצפון פסח מדר"א בן יעקב נפקא

For I might have argued [that this was essential] by an a fortiori argument from a lamb-offering thus: if [the slaughtering of] a lamb-offering, which does not require the services of a priest, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that [the killing of] a bird-offering which requires the services of a priest, shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That slaughtering on the north side is essential.');">¹³</span>

דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר יכול יהא הפסח טעון צפון ודין הוא ומה עולה שלא קבע לה זמן בשחיטתה קבע לה צפון פסח שקבע לו זמן לשחיטתו אינו דין שקבע לו צפון

with a lamb-offering because it requires an instrument [for the slaughtering]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the killing of a bird sacrifice is performed by the priest nipping off the head with his thumb; cf. Lev. I, 15.');">¹⁴</span> - Rather then [we must interpret it as follows]: 'It' must be on the north side, but the slaughtering of the Passover-offering nee not be on the north side.

מה לעולה שכן כליל

But is not the [exclusion of the] Passover-offering derived from the teaching of R'Eliezer B'Jacob? For it was taught: R'Eliezer B'Jacob said, One might think that the Passover-offering requires slaughtering on the north side by reason of this a fortiori argument: if the slaughtering of a burnt-offering, which has no fixed time for the slaughtering, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that the slaughtering of the Passover-offering, which has a fixed time for the slaughtering thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be slaughtered on the eve of the Passover Festival on the fourteenth day of Nisan in the afternoon.');">¹⁵</span>

מחטאת מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות

shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That slaughtering on the north side is essential.');">¹³</span>

מאשם מה לאשם שכן קדשי קדשים מכולהו נמי שכן קדשי קדשים

with a burnt-offering because it is wholly burnt! - One can argue the case from the sin-offering. But surely [one can retort that] this is so with the sin-offering because it effects atonement for those that are liable to the penalty of kareth! - One can argue the case from the guilt-offering.

אלא לעולם כדקאמרינן מעיקרא אותו בצפון ואין השוחט בצפון ודקא קשיא לך מדר' אחייה נפקא דר' אחייה לאו למעוטי שוחט בצפון הוא דאתא אלא הכי קאמר אין השוחט בצפון אבל מקבל בצפון

But surely this is so with the guilt-offering because it is a Most Holy offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the Passover-offering is of the Less Holy offerings.');">¹⁶</span> And if one were to argue the case from all these offerings, [one could retort that] this is so with these mentioned because they are all Most Holy offerings! - Rather [we must say that the interpretation] is indeed as stated previously: 'It' must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not be on the north side; and as for your objection 'Is not this to be derived from R'Ahiyah's teaching? ' [I say that] R'Ahiyah comes [not to teach] that the slaughterer need not be on the north side; he teaches rather that, in contradistinction from the slaughterer who need not be on the north side,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is derived from the term 'it' (Lev. IV, 24) stated in connection with the sin-offering of a ruler.');">¹⁷</span>

מקבל מלקח ולקח נפקא לקח ולקח לא משמע ליה:

the receiver of the blood must be on the north side. But is not this rule regarding the receiver of the blood derived from [the fact that Scripture states], 'A he shall take'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 25.');">¹⁸</span>

וחייב על לישתה ועל עריכתה ועל אפייתה: אמר רב פפא אפאה לוקה שתים אחת על עריכתה ואחת על אפייתה והא אמרת מה אפייה מיוחדת שהיא מעשה יחידי וחייבין עליה בפני עצמה

and not 'he shall take'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is derived from the superfluous waw 'and' (R. Gershom) . According to Sh. Mek. the text should read: 'From (the fact that Scripture states) , And he shall take, which signifies, and he shall take himself'. I.e., the receiver of the blood shall betake himself to the place where he is about to receive the blood, namely, the north side. V. Zeb. 48a.');">¹⁹</span> - He [R'Ahiyah] does not base any exposition on the fact that Scripture states 'And he shall take' and not 'he shall take'.

לא קשיא הא דעריך הוא ואפה הוא הא דעריך חבריה ויהיב ליה ואפה

ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING. R'Papa said, If a man baked [the meal-offering leavened], he has incurred stripes on two counts, once for shaping it [while leavened] and again for baking it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The baking is regarded as a twofold work, as the completion of the work of shaping and as the baking proper.');">²⁰</span>

ת"ר בכור שאחזו דם מקיזין אותו את הדם במקום שאין עושין בו מום ואין מקיזין את הדם במקום שעושין בו מום דברי ר"מ

But have you not said above<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 329.');">²¹</span> 'As the baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it'? - This is no difficulty, for in the one case he shaped it and also baked it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case he would not be liable on two counts for the baking, since he has already incurred liability for the shaping as a separate work. Only in this sense can the baking be described as a single and specific work.');">²²</span>

וחכ"א יקיז אף במקום שעושין בו מום ובלבד שלא ישחוט [על אותו מום] ר"ש אומר

but in the other case another shaped it and he baked it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other would then be liable for the shaping, whilst he would be liable for the baking which involves two counts, the baking proper and vtpt the completion of the shaping. V. however, Tosaf. s.v. , and com. of R. Gershom.');">²³</span> Our Rabbis taught: If a firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstling, after Temple times, since it can no longer be offered, is given to the priest, but he is forbidden to slaughter it unless it is blemished. It is, however, forbidden to blemish a firstling or any consecrated beast.');">²⁴</span> was attacked with congestion, it may be bled in a place where no blemish would result, but it may not be bled in a place where a blemish would result.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., to bleed the firstling at the ear or lip would leave a scar or blemish.');">²⁵</span> So R'Meir. The Sages say, It may be bled even in a place where a blemish would result, provided that it is not slaughtered by reason of that blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise it is to be feared that the owner would bleed it deliberately, although it was not suffering from congestion, in order to be allowed to slaughter it.');">²⁶</span> R'Simeon says,