Menachot 185

קראי למה לי קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה:

what is the real purpose of these verses? - [To teach the following:] 'His offering' [requires the laying on of hands], but not the offering of another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man may not lay his hands on his neighbour's offering even though he was instructed to do so on his behalf.');">¹</span> 'His offering', but not the offering of a gentile, His offering, this includes every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., every person that has a share in the offering must lay his hands on it.');">²</span>

היורש סומך:

THE HEIR MAY LAY HIS HANDS. R'Hananiah recited the following teaching in the presence of Raba: The heir may not lay his hands [on his father's offering], and the heir cannot substitute [another animal for his father's offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he did so it is of no effect.');">³</span>

תני רב חנניה קמיה דרבא יורש אינו סומך יורש אינו מימר והא אנן תנן היורש סומך ומביא את נסכיו ומימר

[Raba said to him.] But we have learnt: THE HEIR MAY LAY HIS HANDS [ON HIS FATHER'S OFFERING]. MAY BRING THE DRINK-OFFERINGS FOR IT, AND CAN SUBSTITUTE [ANOTHER ANIMAL FOR IT]! Shall I then reverse it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And substitute 'may' for 'may not' and 'can' for 'cannot'.');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה איפכא אמר ליה לא מתניתין מני רבי יהודה היא דתניא יורש סומך יורש מימר רבי יהודה אומר יורש אינו סומך יורש אינו מימר

he asked. No, replied the other, for the teaching [quoted by you] is the view of R'Judah.

מאי טעמא דר' יהודה קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו ויליף תחלת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש יורש אינו סומך אף תחילת הקדש יורש אינו מימר

For it was taught: The heir may lay his hands [on his father's offering], and the heir can also substitute [another animal for it]. R'Judah says.

ורבנן (ויקרא כז, י) המר ימיר לרבות את היורש ויליף סוף הקדש מתחילת הקדש מה תחלת הקדש יורש מימר אף סוף הקדש יורש סומך

The heir may not lay his hands [on his father's offering], and the heir cannot substitute [another animal for it]. What is the reason for R'Judah's view? - It is written, His offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 2: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering.');">⁵</span>

ורבנן האי קרבנו מאי עבדי ליה קרבנו ולא קרבן עובד כוכבים קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

but not the offering of his father;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the heir may not lay his hands on his father's offering.');">⁶</span> and he compares the inception of the consecration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the substitution of another animal for the offering. This is an original act of consecration whereby a profane animal becomes holy.');">⁷</span>

ורבי יהודה לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה לית ליה ואי נמי אית ליה עובד כוכבים וחבירו מחד קרא נפקא אייתרו ליה תרי קראי חד קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו ואידך לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

with the termination of the consecration:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the laying on of hands. This is almost the last act with the consecrated animal, since the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of his hands.');">⁸</span> just as at the termination of the consecration the heir may not lay his hands [on his father's offering], so at the inception o the consecration the heir cannot substitute [another animal for his father's offering].

ורבי יהודה האי המר ימיר מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לרבות את האשה דתניא לפי שכל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא בלשון זכר מה סופינו לרבות את האשה תלמוד לומר המר ימיר

And what is the reason for the view of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., the first view in the above-mentioned Baraitha, quoted anonymously. In the parallel passage, Tem. ');">⁹</span> - It is written, And if he shall at all change,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 10.');">¹⁰</span>

ורבנן דרשי מואם ור' יהודה ואם לא דריש:

this includes the heir;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the heir can effectively substitute another animal for his father's offering, and both animals become holy.');">¹¹</span> and they compare the termination of the consecration with the inception of the consecration: just as at the inception of the consecration the heir can substitute [another animal for his father's offering], so at the termination of th consecration the heir may lay his hands [on his father's offering].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכל סומכין חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן וסומא ועובד כוכבים והעבד והשליח והאשה

For what purpose do the Rabbis utilize the expression 'his offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was interpreted by R. Judah to exclude the heir from the laying on of hands.');">¹²</span> - For the following: 'His offering' [requires the laying on of hands], but not the offering of a gentile.'

וסמיכה שירי מצוה

His offering', but not the offering of another.' His offering', this includes every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands.

על הראש בב' ידים ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין ותכף לסמיכה שחיטה:

And R Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he uses the expression 'his offering' to exclude the heir, he is then short of one of these expressions for the three foregoing teachings.');">¹³</span> - He does not hold the view that every owner of the offering is included for the rite of the laying on of hands.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא חרש שוטה וקטן דלאו בני דעה נינהו עובד כוכבים נמי (ויקרא א, ב) בני ישראל סומכין ואין עובדי כוכבים סומכין אלא סומא מאי טעמא לא

Alternatively, he may even hold [that view] but the offering of another and the offering of a gentile are excluded from one verse, hence two verses are at his disposal, one for the teaching that only 'his offering' [requires the laying on of hands] but not the offering of his father, and the other to include every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands. And for what purpose does R'Judah utilize the expression 'and if he shall at all change'? - He requires it in order to include a woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the law of substitution also applies to a woman.');">¹⁴</span>

רב חסדא ורב יצחק בר אבדימי חד אמר אתיא סמיכה סמיכה מזקני עדה

For it was taught: Since the whole passage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning the law of substitution.');">¹⁵</span> is stated in the masculine form, whence do we know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is our end'.');">¹⁶</span>

וחד אמר אתיא סמיכה סמיכה מעולת ראייה

to include a woman? Because the text states, And if he shall at all change.

ולמאן דאמר מעולת ראייה מאי טעמא לא יליף מן זקני עדה

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How do they know that a woman can effectively substitute another animal for the offering?');">¹⁷</span> - They derive it by expounding the expression 'and if'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the waw, 'and', is superfluous.');">¹⁸</span> And R'Judah? - He bases no exposition on the expression 'and if'. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL MAY LAY THE HANDS ON THE OFFERING EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE, A MINOR, A BLIND MAN, A GENTILE, A SLAVE, AN AGENT, OR A WOMAN. THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS OUTSIDE THE COMMANDMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the remnant of the commandment'. I.e., the laying on of hands may be omitted and yet the offering is valid, for the atonement is not dependent upon this act.');">¹⁹</span> [ONE MUST LAY] BOTH HANDS ON THE HEAD OF THE ANIMAL; AND IN THE PLACE WHERE ONE LAYS ON THE HANDS THERE THE ANIMAL MUST BE SLAUGHTERED; AND THE SLAUGHTERING MUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>We understand a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor being disqualified, because they do not know what they are doing; also a gentile, because it is written, The children of Israel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');">²⁰</span> [only they] may lay on the hands but gentiles may not lay on the hands. But why should a blind man be disqualified? R'Hisda and R'Isaac B'Abdimi [suggest different reasons]. One Says, It is because we deduce the laying on of hands [for all offerings] from the laying on of hands performed by the elders of the congregation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation; cf. Lev. IV, 15. And as the elders of the congregation had to be free from every physical blemish, v. Sanh. 17a, hence the blind may not lay on the hands.');">²¹</span> And the other says, It is because we deduce the laying on of hands [for all offerings] from the laying on of hands performed on the 'appearance' burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the burnt-offering offered by every Israelite on appearing at the Temple on the three great Festivals; cf. Deut. XVI, 16. And as a blind man was exempt from the 'appearance' burntoffering. v. Hag. 2a, the inference may therefore be made that a blind man may not lay on the hands.');">²²</span> Why does not he that deduces the law from the 'appearance' burnt-offering rather deduce it from the elders of the congregation? -