Menachot 186

דנין יחיד מיחיד ואין דנין יחיד מציבור

It is more proper to deduce the offering of an individual from another offering of the individual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the 'appearance' burnt-offering.');">¹</span> rather than to deduce the offering of the individual from the offering of the congregation. And why does not he that deduces the law from the elders of the congregation rather deduce it from the 'appearance' burnt-offering? - It is only proper to deduce the offering for which the rite of laying on the hands is expressly prescribed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the freewill-offering of the individual; v. Lev. I, 4.');">²</span>

ולמאן דיליף מזקני עדה מאי טעמא לא יליף מעולת ראייה דנין מידי דכתיב ביה סמיכה בגופיה ממידי דכתיב ביה סמיכה בגופיה לאפוקי עולת ראייה דהיא גופה מעולת נדבה גמרה

from that offering for which the rite of laying on the hands is also expressly prescribed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the bullock offered for the transgression of the congregation; ibid. IV, 15.');">³</span> but this is not the case with the 'appearance' burnt-offering, for that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the 'appearance' burnt-offering requires the laying on of hands.');">⁴</span> is itself derived from the freewill burnt-offering.

דתני תנא קמיה דרב יצחק בר אבא (ויקרא ט, טז) ויקרב את העולה ויעשה כמשפט כמשפט עולת נדבה לימד על עולת חובה שטעונה סמיכה:

For a Tanna recited before R'Isaac B'Abba: And he presented the burnt-offering; and offered it according to the ordinance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IX, 16. The verse is dealing, according to Rashi, with the obligatory burnt-offering offered by Aaron on the eighth day of his consecration (ibid. 2) , but according to Tosaf. with the people's burnt-offering (ibid. 15) . V. Bez. 20a.');">⁵</span> that is, according to the ordinance of a freewill burnt-offering; this teaches that the obligatory burnt-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes the 'appearance' burnt-offering.');">⁶</span> requires the laying on of hands.

והעבד והשליח והאשה: תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ד) ידו ולא יד עבדו ידו ולא יד שלוחו ידו ולא יד אשתו

A SLAVE, AN AGENT, OR A WOMAN. Our Rabbis taught: His hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 2.');">⁷</span> but not the hand of his slave; his hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8.');">⁸</span>

כל הני למה לי צריכא אי כתב רחמנא חד הוה אמינא למעוטי עבד דלאו בר מצות אבל שליח דבר מצוה הוא ושלוחו של אדם כמותו אימא לסמוך

but not the hand of his agent; his hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13.');">⁹</span> but not the hand of his wife. Why are all these required? - They are all necessary, for if the Divine Law had only stated once [the expression 'his hand'].

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי דלאו כגופיה דמיא אבל אשתו דכגופיה דמיא אימא תיסמך צריכא:

I should have said that it only excluded the slave, since he is not subject to the commandments, but an agent, since he is subject to the commandments, and moreover a man's agent is like himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 41b.');">¹⁰</span> [I would say] may lay the hands [on his principal's offering]. And if only these two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slave and the agent.');">¹¹</span>

סמיכה שירי מצוה: תמו רבנן (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך (ויקרא א, ד) ונרצה וכי סמיכה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יא) כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא לומר לך שאם עשאה לסמיכה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר

had been stated [I should have said that the reason they are disqualified is that] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slave and the agent.');">¹¹</span> are not as part of himself, but a man's wife, since she is as part himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ber. 24a.');">¹²</span> [I would say] may lay the hands [on her husband's offering].

ותניא גבי תנופה כי האי גוונא (ויקרא יד, כא) לתנופה לכפר וכי תנופה מכפרת והלא אין כפרה אלא בדם שנאמר כי הדם הוא בנפש יכפר אלא לומר לך שאם עשאה לתנופה שירי מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו לא כיפר וכיפר:

Therefore [all three verses] are necessary. THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS OUTSIDE THE COMMANDMENT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall lay his hand.

על הראש: תנו רבנן ידו על הראש ולא ידו על הצואר ידו על הראש ולא ידו על הגביים ידו על הראש ולא ידו על החזה

and it shall be accepted for him [to make atonement for him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4.');">¹³</span> Does the laying on of hands make the atonement? Does not the atonement come through the blood, as it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVII, 11.');">¹⁴</span>

כל הני למה לי צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא חד למעוטי צואר דלא קאי בהדי ראשו אבל גבו דקאי להדי ראשו אימא לא צריכא

This, however, informs you that if a man treated the laying on of the hands as outside the commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'remnants of the precept'. I.e., he omitted to perform this rite.');">¹⁵</span> Scripture accounts it to him as though he has not obtained [the highest form of] atonement, but he has obtained atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the sprinkling of the blood.');">¹⁶</span> The same was also taught with regard to the rite of waving.

ואי אשמעינן הני תרי משום דלא איתרבי לתנופה אבל חזה דאיתרבי לתנופה אימא לא צריכא

To be waved, to make atonement for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 21.');">¹⁷</span> Does the waving make the atonement? Does not the atonement come through the blood, as it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life?

איבעיא להו ידו על הצדדין מהו תא שמע דתניא אבא ביראה ברבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ידו על ראשו ולא ידו על הצדדין

This, however, informs you that if a man treated the waving as outside the commandment Scripture accounts it to him as though he has not obtained [the highest form of] atonement, but he has obtained atonement. ON THE HEAD. Our Rabbis taught: [And he shall lay] his hand upon the head [of his offering],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This expression is stated three times in the chapter dealing with the peace-offering. viz., Lev. III, 2, 8, 13.');">¹⁸</span>

בעי רבי ירמיה מטלית מהו שתחוץ תא שמע ובלבד שלא תהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הזבח:

but not his hand upon the neck;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the front of the neck.');">¹⁹</span> his hand upon the head, but not his hand upon the back; 'his hand upon the head',but not his hand upon the breast. Why are all [the three verses] required? - They are all necessary, for if the Divine Law had only stated once [the expression 'his hand upon the head,] I should have said that it only excluded the hand upon the neck, since it is not on the same plane as the head, but the [laying of the] hand upon the back, which is on the same plane as the head, I would say was not [excluded].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence a verse was necessary to exclude the laying of hands on the back of the offering.');">²⁰</span>

ובשתי ידים: מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש דאמר קרא (ויקרא טז, כא) וסמך אהרן את שתי ידו כתיב ידו וכתיב שתי זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר ידו הרי כאן שתים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחת

And if only these two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., verses excluding the neck and the back.');">²¹</span> had been stated, [I should have said that] the reason [they are excluded] is that they are not included in the rite of waving, but the breast, since it is included in the rite of waving, I would say was not [excluded]. Therefore all [three verses] are necessary.

אזל רבי אלעזר אמרה להא שמעתא בבי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה דריש לקיש שמע ריש לקיש ואיקפד אמר ליה אי סלקא דעתך כל היכא דכתיב ידו תרתי נינהו למה לי למכתב ידיו ידיו

The question was asked: What if the hands were laid upon the sides [of the head]? - Come and hear, for it was taught: Abba Bira'ah taught in the School of R'Eleazar B'Jacob: The expression 'his hand upon the head' excludes the hand upon the sides of the head. R'Jeremiah enquired, Would a cloth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man wrapped a cloth round his hands and thus laid them on the head of the animal; or a cloth was covering the head of the animal and he laid his hands thereon.');">²²</span> be regarded as an interposition or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it regarded as a proper laying on of hands or not?');">²³</span>

אקשי ליה עשרים וארבע ידיו (ויקרא ז, ל) ידיו תביאנה (דברים לג, ז) ידיו רב לו (בראשית מח, יד) שכל את ידיו אישתיק

- Come and hear: But nothing shall interpose between him and the offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When laying the hands upon the head of the offering. V. Yoma ');">²⁴</span> BOTH HANDS. Whence do we derive it? - Resh Lakish said, Because the verse says, And Aaron shall lay both his hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 21. ush ush');">²⁵</span>

לבתר דנח דעתיה אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא תימא לי ידיו דסמיכה קאמרי

Now actually there is written in the verse 'his hand',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. for 'his hands' is written defectively thus and it might be read as his hand.');">²⁶</span> and yet it says 'both', this establishes the rule that wherever 'his hand' is stated both [hands] are meant unless Holy Writ clearly specifies one. R'Eleazar went and reported this statement in the Beth-Hamidrash,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁷</span>

בסמיכה נמי כתיב (במדבר כז, כג) ויסמוך את ידיו עליו ויצוהו סמיכה דבהמה קאמרי:

but did not report it in the name of Resh Lakish. When Resh Lakish heard of it he was annoyed. Resh Lakish then said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar.');">²⁸</span>

ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין תכף לסמיכה שחיטה: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר במקום שסומכין שוחטין שתכף לסמיכה שחיטה:

If it is as you say that wherever 'his hand' is stated both [hands] are meant, why did [Scripture] state at all 'his hands'? He thus questioned him from twenty-four passages where 'his hands' occurs; e.g. His hands shall bring,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 30.');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חומר בסמיכה מבתנופה ובתנופה מבסמיכה שאחד מניף לכל החברים ואין אחד סומך לכל החברים חומר בתנופה שהתנופה נוהגת בקרבנות היחיד ובקרבנות הצבור

his hands shall contend for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXXIII, 7.');">³⁰</span> he guided his hands wittingly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XLVIII, 14.');">³¹</span> The other remained silent. When Resh Lakish's mind had been appeased he said to the other, Why do you not answer me that you mean the expression 'his hand'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M., and so apparently in the text before Rashi; in cur. edd. 'his hands'.');">³²</span> stated in connection with the rite of the laying on of hands. But is there not written, even with regard to the laying on of hands, And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 23, with reference to the appointment of Joshua as leader. Why did Scripture state here 'his hands' and not 'his hand'?');">³³</span> - I refer to the laying on of hands in connection with an animal-offering. 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. What does he mean by this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the slaughtering must follow the laying on of hands obviously then the animal would be slaughtered in the same place where the laying on of hands was performed in order to avoid any delay; hence the first statement is superfluous.');">³⁴</span> - He means to say, In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered because the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in Scripture 'And he shall lay his hand' (Lev. I, 4) is immediately followed by And he shall slaughter (ibid. 5) .');">³⁵</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS [IN CERTAIN RESPECTS] MORE STRINGENT THAN THE RITE OF WAVING. AND THE RITE OF WAVING IS [IN OTHER RESPECTS] MORE STRINGENT THAN THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. [THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS MORE STRINGENT,] FOR ONE MAY PERFORM THE WAVING ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHER FELLOW-OWNERS BUT ONE MAY NOT PERFORM THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ON BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHER FELLOW-OWNERS. THE RITE OF WAVING IS MORE STRINGENT, FOR THE RITE OF WAVING TAKES PLACE IN OFFERINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The waving of the breast and thigh of the peace-offering.');">³⁶</span> AND IN OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The waving of the two lambs of Pentecost. V. supra 61a.');">³⁷</span>