Menachot 184

ואין שעירי עבודת כוכבים טעונין סמיכה באהרן אלא בזקנים

but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron but by the elders!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts the view of R. Simeon as stated in the former Baraitha.');">¹</span> - Thereupon R'Shesheth said, And do you think that the first [Baraitha] is correct?

אמר רב ששת ותסברא דהך קמייתא מתרצתא היא הא אמר ר' שמעון סמיכה בבעלים בעינן

Has not R'Simeon laid down the rule that the laying on of hands must be performed by the owners?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 561. And the owners of the he-goats offered by the congregation for the sin of idolatry are the elders of the congregation, yet R. Simeon states in the first Baraitha that the laying on of hands was to be performed by Aaron and not by the elders!');">²</span> But you must correct [the Baraitha] as follows: The bullock; this signifies that only the bullock requires the laying on of hands, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands.

אלא תריץ הכי הפר פר טעון סמיכה ואין שעירי עבודת כוכבים טעונין סמיכה דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר החי חי טעון סמיכה באהרן ואין שעירי עבודת כוכבים טעונין סמיכה באהרן אלא בזקנים

So R'Judah. R'Simeon says.

והכי קא אמר ליה ר' שמעון לר' יהודה שעירי עבודת כוכבים בעו סמיכה ואי שמיע לך דלא בעו סמיכה באהרן הוא דשמיע לך ומיעוטא מהחי הוא

The live [goat]: this signifies that only the live [goat] requires the laying on of hands by Aaron, but the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron but by the elders. And this is really what R'Simeon said to R'Judah: The he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry [most certainly] require the laying on of hands, for if you have heard anything to the effect that they do not require the laying on of hands, you must have heard it only in regard to Aaron;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron, but they certainly require the laying on of hands by the elders.');">³</span>

ורבי יהודה למה לי למעטינהו מקרא והא אמר רבינא גמירי שתי סמיכות בצבור גירסא בעלמא

for they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry do not require the laying on of hands by Aaron.');">⁴</span> were excluded by 'the live [goat]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus only on the scapegoat shall Aaron lay his hands but not on these goats. This is the proper inference. viz., the he-goats from the scapegoat; but one may not infer the he-goats from 'the bullock' (as was originally stated in the first Baraitha) , for they are of different kinds.');">⁵</span>

ורבי שמעון שעירי עבודת כוכבים דבעיא סמיכה מנלן

But according to R'Judah what need was there to exclude them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry.');">⁶</span> by a verse?

נפקא לן מדתניא (ויקרא ד, כד) וסמך ידו על ראש השעיר לרבות שעיר נחשון לסמיכה דברי ר' יהודה ר' שמעון אומר לרבות שעירי עבודת כוכבים לסמיכה שהיה ר' שמעון אומר כל חטאת שנכנס דמה לפנים טעונה סמיכה

Has not Rabina stated that there is a tradition that among the offerings of the congregation there are two that require the laying on of hands?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., two and no more. And the two, according to R. Judah, are: the scapegoat, and the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation. V. our MISHNAH:');">⁷</span> - It was merely an exercise in interpretation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To interpret the verses in order to arrive at the traditional view as reported by Rabina. Aliter: R. Judah does not accept this tradition but arrives at that view by the exposition of verses.');">⁸</span>

למה לי למימרא שהיה סימנא בעלמא

Whence does R'Simeon derive the law that the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry require the laying on of hands [by the elders]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All that R. Simeon established above was that these goats do not require the laying on of hands by the priest, but whence does he derive it that it must be performed by the elders? Perhaps they do not require it at all?');">⁹</span> - He derives it from the following [Baraitha] which was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 55b; Zeb. 48b.');">¹⁰</span>

ואימא שעיר הנעשה בפנים דומיא דשעיר נשיא דמכפר על עבירות מצוה ידועה

And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 24. with reference to the he-goat offered by a ruler, i.e., a prince of a tribe, for a sin committed by him in error.');">¹¹</span> this includes Nahshon's goat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the he-goat offered by each of the princes of the tribes at the dedication of the altar, called 'Nahshon's goat' because he, Nahshon b. Aminadab, the prince of Judah, was the first to bring his offering. Cf. Num. VII, 12.');">¹²</span>

ולרבינא דאמר גמירי שתי סמיכות בציבור קראי למה לי

in respect of the laying on of hands. So R'Judah.

איצטריך הלכתא ואיצטריך קראי

But R'Simeon says. It includes the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry in respect of the laying on of hands; for R'Simeon ruled that every sin-offering whose blood was brought within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be sprinkled upon the golden altar or upon the veil.');">¹³</span>

דאי מקרא הוה אמינא זבחי שלמי ציבור

required the laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the blood of the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry was sprinkled within, whereas the blood of Nahshon's goat was not.');">¹⁴</span> Why is it stated [in this Baraitha], 'for [R'Simeon ruled etc.]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the only two cases to which this rule applies are the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry and the sin-offering of the anointed High Priest. How the former is here included for the rite of laying on of hands, and as for the latter, Scripture has expressly stated that it requires the laying on of hands (v. Lev. IV, 4) ; obviously then R. Simeon's rule is superfluous!');">¹⁵</span>

כי קשיא אמתניתין דהך פירקא דכל המנחות באות אמר ר' שמעון שלשה מינין טעונין שלש מצות

- It is merely an indication [of his view]. But perhaps it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the verse that prescribes the laying on of hands in the case of the he-goat brought by a ruler.');">¹⁶</span>

ליתי בקל וחומר ויהו זבחי שלמי ציבור טעונין סמיכה מקל וחומר מה שלמי יחיד שאין טעונין תנופה חיים טעונין סמיכה חיים וכו' איצטריך הלכתא

includes the he-goat that is offered within [on the Day of Atonement]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since its blood is sprinkled within the Holy of Holies it should require the laying on of hands, in accordance with R. Simeon's ruling.');">¹⁷</span> - [What is included] must be like the he-goat of a ruler which makes atonement for the person who has knowledge of the transgression of the precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the he-goat of the Day of Atonement makes atonement for the transgression of the laws of uncleanness relating to the Temple and the holy things where the transgressor has no knowledge thereof. V. Shebu. 2a.');">¹⁸</span>

ואי מהלכתא (הוה אמינא) לא ידעינן הי נינהו קמשמע לן דומיא דשעיר נשיא דמכפר על עבירות מצוה ידועה:

But according to Rabina who said that there is a tradition that among the offerings of the congregation there are [only] two that require the laying on of hands, wherefore is a verse required [to include the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Simeon is of the opinion that the laying on of hands must be performed by the owners, and therefore the laying of the hands by Aaron on the scapegoat is not a proper laying on of hands, inasmuch as Aaron is not the owner since he does not even obtain any atonement through it, then by virtue of the tradition the only two possible offerings of the congregation that require the laying on of hands are the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation and the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry. Hence the verse is superfluous!');">¹⁹</span> - Both the verse and the tradition are necessary.

כל קרבנות היחיד טעונין סמיכה חוץ מבכור ומעשר ופסח:

For if [the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of laying on the hands in offerings of the congregation.');">²⁰</span> were derived] from the verse alone I should have said that the peace-offerings of the congregation also [require the laying on of hands] - as indeed this question was raised in the chapter entitled 'All meal-offerings were offered unleavened',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Chap. V.');">²¹</span>

תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ג) קרבנו ולא הבכור שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה שלמים שאין קדושתן מרחם טעונין סמיכה בכור שקדושתו מרחם אינו דין שטעון סמיכה תלמוד לומר קרבנו ולא הבכור

against that Mishnah where R'Simeon stated, There are three kinds of offering which [between them] require three rites,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 61a.');">²²</span> in the following terms: 'Surely the peace-offerings of the congregation should require the ceremony of the laying on of hands by the following a fortiori argument: if the peace-offerings of the individual which do not require waving for the living animals require the laying on of hands etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 369.');">²³</span>

קרבנו ולא מעשר שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה שלמים שאין מקדשין לפניהם ולאחריהם טעונין סמיכה מעשר שמקדש לפניו ולאחריו אינו דין שטעון סמיכה תלמוד לומר קרבנו ולא מעשר

- the tradition is therefore necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there are only two cases of laying on of hands among the offerings of the congregation.');">²⁴</span> And if it were derived from the tradition alone I should not have known which was [the other case],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One offering of the congregation, namely the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation, is expressly stated in Scripture as requiring the laying on of hands, but we should not know which was the other offering that required it, whether it was the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry, or the he-goat of the Day of Atonement, or the peace-offerings of the congregation.');">²⁵</span>

קרבנו ולא פסח שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה שלמים שאינו בעמוד והבא טעונין סמיכה פסח שהוא בעמוד והבא אינו דין שטעון סמיכה תלמוד לומר קרבנו ולא פסח

the verse therefore informs us that it includes what is like the he-goat of a ruler which makes atonement for the person who has knowledge of the transgression of the precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the he-goat of the Day of Atonement cannot be included, v. supra p. 566, n. 1; neither can the peace-offerings of the congregations be included as they do not make atonement at all.');">²⁶</span> ALL THE OFFERINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS EXCEPT THE FIRSTLING, THE CATTLE TITHE, AND THE PASSOVER-OFFERING.

איכא למיפרך מה לשלמים שכן טעונין נסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק קראי אסמכתא בעלמא

Our Rabbis taught: His offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 1. The expression 'his offering' occurs seven times in the passage dealing with the peace-offering (Lev. 111, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14) and each is interpreted for some purpose in connection with the law of the laying on of hands. V. Sifra a.l. The basis for the interpretations in this passage is the definition of the word 'offering', which is defined as that which is made holy by a person of his own free will and which he offers as a gift to God to win His favour. Accordingly the firstling is excluded since it is holy from the moment it is born and not made holy by any person, moreover it is an obligatory offering and is not brought to win God's favour. The tithe and the Passover-offering are also excluded for the reason last stated.');">²⁷</span> [requires the laying on of hands], but not the firstling.

אלא

For without this exposition I should have argued as follows: if the peace-offering which is not holy from the womb requires the laying on of hands, the firstling which is holy from the womb surely requires the laying on of hands! The text therefore stated, 'His offering', but not the firstling.' His offering', but not the tithe. For without this exposition I should have argued as follows: if the peace-offering which does not sanctify what comes before it or what comes after it requires the laying on of hands, the tithe which sanctifies what comes before it and what comes after it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if in the course of counting the animals for the purpose of the tithe the ninth was by error called the tenth, the tenth the ninth, and the eleventh the tenth, all three become holy. V. supra p. 558, n. 4 and Bek. 60a.');">²⁸</span> surely requires the laying on of hands! The text therefore stated, 'His offering', but not the tithe.' His offering', but not th Passover-offering. For without this exposition I should have argued as follows: if the peace-offering which one is not bound to bring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which is not (subject to the command of) arise and bring it'.');">²⁹</span> requires the laying on of hands, the Passover-offering which one is bound to bring surely requires the laying on of hands! The text therefore stated, 'His offering', but not the Passover-offering. But surely all these arguments can be refuted: It is so with the peace-offering since it requires drink-offerings and also the waving of the breast and the thigh!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it also requires the laying on of hands, but neither the firstling nor the tithe nor the Passover-offering require drink-offerings or the waving of the breast and thigh. Accordingly no verses are required to exclude these offerings as there are no valid reasons for including them.');">³⁰</span> - Indeed the verses are merely a support. But