Menachot 186

Chapter 186

אדניןDnynיחידYkhydמיחידMykhydואיןVynדניןDnynיחידYkhydמציבורMtsyvvr
1It 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.');"><sup>1</sup></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.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
בולמאןVlmnדיליףDylyfמזקניMzknyעדהDhמאיMyטעמאTmלאLיליףYlyfמעולתMvltראייהRyyhדניןDnynמידיMydyדכתיבDkhtyvביהVyhסמיכהSmykhhבגופיהVgvfyhממידיMmydyדכתיבDkhtyvביהVyhסמיכהSmykhhבגופיהVgvfyhלאפוקיLfvkyעולתVltראייהRyyhדהיאDhyגופהGvfhמעולתMvltנדבהNdvhגמרהGmrh
2from 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.');"><sup>3</sup></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.');"><sup>4</sup></span> is itself derived from the freewill burnt-offering.
גדתניDtnyתנאTnקמיהKmyhדרבDrvיצחקYtskhkברVrאבאV(ויקרא(vykrט,T,טז)Tz)ויקרבVykrvאתTהעולהHvlhויעשהVyshhכמשפטKhmshftכמשפטKhmshftעולתVltנדבהNdvhלימדLymdעלLעולתVltחובהKhvvhשטעונהShtvnhסמיכה:Smykhh:
3For 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.');"><sup>5</sup></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.');"><sup>6</sup></span> requires the laying on of hands.
דוהעבדVhvdוהשליחVhshlykhוהאשה:Vhshh:תנוTnvרבנןRvnn(ויקרא(vykrא,,ד)D)ידוYdvולאVlידYdעבדוVdvידוYdvולאVlידYdשלוחוShlvkhvידוYdvולאVlידYdאשתוShtv
4A SLAVE, AN AGENT, OR A WOMAN. Our Rabbis taught: His hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 2.');"><sup>7</sup></span> but not the hand of his slave; his hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
הכלKhlהניHnyלמהLmhליLyצריכאTsrykhאיYכתבKhtvרחמנאRkhmnחדKhdהוהHvhאמינאMynלמעוטיLmvtyעבדVdדלאוDlvברVrמצותMtsvtאבלVlשליחShlykhדברDvrמצוהMtsvhהואHvושלוחוVshlvkhvשלShlאדםDmכמותוKhmvtvאימאYmלסמוךLsmvkh
5but not the hand of his agent; his hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13.');"><sup>9</sup></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'].
וואיVyאשמעינןShmynnהניHnyתרתיTrtyדלאוDlvכגופיהKhgvfyhדמיאDmyאבלVlאשתוShtvדכגופיהDkhgvfyhדמיאDmyאימאYmתיסמךTysmkhצריכא:Tsrykh:
6I 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.');"><sup>10</sup></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.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
זסמיכהSmykhhשיריShyryמצוה:Mtsvh:תמוTmvרבנןRvnn(ויקרא(vykrא,,ד)D)וסמךVsmkh(ויקרא(vykrא,,ד)D)ונרצהVnrtshוכיVkhyסמיכהSmykhhמכפרתMkhfrtוהלאVhlאיןYnכפרהKhfrhאלאLבדםVdmשנאמרShnmr(ויקרא(vykrיז,Yz,יא)Y)כיKhyהדםHdmהואHvבנפשVnfshיכפרYkhfrאלאLלומרLvmrלךLkhשאםShmעשאהShhלסמיכהLsmykhhשיריShyryמצוהMtsvhמעלהMlhעליוLyvהכתובHkhtvvכאילוKhylvלאLכיפרKhyfrוכיפרVkhyfr
7had 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.');"><sup>11</sup></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.');"><sup>12</sup></span> [I would say] may lay the hands [on her husband's offering].
חותניאVtnyגביGvyתנופהTnvfhכיKhyהאיHyגוונאGvvn(ויקרא(vykrיד,Yd,כא)Kh)לתנופהLtnvfhלכפרLkhfrוכיVkhyתנופהTnvfhמכפרתMkhfrtוהלאVhlאיןYnכפרהKhfrhאלאLבדםVdmשנאמרShnmrכיKhyהדםHdmהואHvבנפשVnfshיכפרYkhfrאלאLלומרLvmrלךLkhשאםShmעשאהShhלתנופהLtnvfhשיריShyryמצוהMtsvhמעלהMlhעליוLyvהכתובHkhtvvכאילוKhylvלאLכיפרKhyfrוכיפר:Vkhyfr:
8Therefore [all three verses] are necessary. THE LAYING ON OF HANDS IS OUTSIDE THE COMMANDMENT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall lay his hand.
טעלLהראש:Hrsh:תנוTnvרבנןRvnnידוYdvעלLהראשHrshולאVlידוYdvעלLהצוארHtsvrידוYdvעלLהראשHrshולאVlידוYdvעלLהגבייםHgvyymידוYdvעלLהראשHrshולאVlידוYdvעלLהחזהHkhzh
9and it shall be accepted for him [to make atonement for him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4.');"><sup>13</sup></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.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יכלKhlהניHnyלמהLmhליLyצריכיTsrykhyדאיDyכתבKhtvרחמנאRkhmnחדKhdלמעוטיLmvtyצוארTsvrדלאDlקאיKyבהדיVhdyראשוRshvאבלVlגבוGvvדקאיDkyלהדיLhdyראשוRshvאימאYmלאLצריכאTsrykh
10This, 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.');"><sup>15</sup></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.');"><sup>16</sup></span> The same was also taught with regard to the rite of waving.
יאואיVyאשמעינןShmynnהניHnyתריTryמשוםMshvmדלאDlאיתרביYtrvyלתנופהLtnvfhאבלVlחזהKhzhדאיתרביDytrvyלתנופהLtnvfhאימאYmלאLצריכאTsrykh
11To be waved, to make atonement for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 21.');"><sup>17</sup></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?
יבאיבעיאYvyלהוLhvידוYdvעלLהצדדיןHtsddynמהוMhvתאTשמעShmדתניאDtnyאבאVביראהVyrhברביVrvyאליעזרLyzrבןVnיעקבYkvאומרVmrידוYdvעלLראשוRshvולאVlידוYdvעלLהצדדיןHtsddyn
12This, 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.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יגבעיVyרביRvyירמיהYrmyhמטליתMtlytמהוMhvשתחוץShtkhvtsתאTשמעShmובלבדVvlvdשלאShlתהאThדברDvrחוצץKhvtstsבינוVynvלביןLvynהזבח:Hzvkh:
13but not his hand upon the neck;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the front of the neck.');"><sup>19</sup></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.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
ידובשתיVvshtyידים:Ydym:מנאMnהניHnyמיליMylyאמרMrרישRyshלקישLkyshדאמרDmrקראKr(ויקרא(vykrטז,Tz,כא)Kh)וסמךVsmkhאהרןHrnאתTשתיShtyידוYdvכתיבKhtyvידוYdvוכתיבVkhtyvשתיShtyזהZhבנהVnhאבVכלKhlמקוםMkvmשנאמרShnmrידוYdvהריHryכאןKhnשתיםShtymעדDשיפרטShyfrtלךLkhהכתובHkhtvvאחתKht
14And if only these two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., verses excluding the neck and the back.');"><sup>21</sup></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.
טואזלZlרביRvyאלעזרLzrאמרהMrhלהאLhשמעתאShmtבביVvyמדרשאMdrshולאVlאמרהMrhמשמיהMshmyhדרישDryshלקישLkyshשמעShmרישRyshלקישLkyshואיקפדVykfdאמרMrליהLyhאיYסלקאSlkדעתךDtkhכלKhlהיכאHykhדכתיבDkhtyvידוYdvתרתיTrtyנינהוNynhvלמהLmhליLyלמכתבLmkhtvידיוYdyvידיוYdyv
15The 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.');"><sup>22</sup></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?');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טזאקשיKshyליהLyhעשריםShrymוארבעVrvידיוYdyv(ויקרא(vykrז,Z,ל)L)ידיוYdyvתביאנהTvynh(דברים(dvrymלג,Lg,ז)Z)ידיוYdyvרבRvלוLv(בראשית(vrshytמח,Mkh,יד)Yd)שכלShkhlאתTידיוYdyvאישתיקYshtyk
16- 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 ');"><sup>24</sup></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');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יזלבתרLvtrדנחDnkhדעתיהDtyhאמרMrליהLyhמאיMyטעמאTmלאLתימאTymליLyידיוYdyvדסמיכהDsmykhhקאמריKmry
17Now 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.');"><sup>26</sup></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.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יחבסמיכהVsmykhhנמיNmyכתיבKhtyv(במדבר(vmdvrכז,Khz,כג)Khg)ויסמוךVysmvkhאתTידיוYdyvעליוLyvויצוהוVytsvhvסמיכהSmykhhדבהמהDvhmhקאמרי:Kmry:
18but 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.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יטובמקוםVvmkvmשסומכיןShsvmkhynשוחטיןShvkhtynתכףTkhfלסמיכהLsmykhhשחיטה:Shkhyth:מאיMyקאמרKmrהכיHkhyקאמרKmrבמקוםVmkvmשסומכיןShsvmkhynשוחטיןShvkhtynשתכףShtkhfלסמיכהLsmykhhשחיטה:Shkhyth:
19If 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.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
כ<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big><big><strong>mtny׳</strong></big>חומרKhvmrבסמיכהVsmykhhמבתנופהMvtnvfhובתנופהVvtnvfhמבסמיכהMvsmykhhשאחדShkhdמניףMnyfלכלLkhlהחבריםHkhvrymואיןVynאחדKhdסומךSvmkhלכלLkhlהחבריםHkhvrymחומרKhvmrבתנופהVtnvfhשהתנופהShhtnvfhנוהגתNvhgtבקרבנותVkrvnvtהיחידHykhydובקרבנותVvkrvnvtהצבורHtsvvr
20his hands shall contend for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXXIII, 7.');"><sup>30</sup></span> he guided his hands wittingly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XLVIII, 14.');"><sup>31</sup></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'.');"><sup>32</sup></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'?');"><sup>33</sup></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.');"><sup>34</sup></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) .');"><sup>35</sup></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.');"><sup>36</sup></span> AND IN OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The waving of the two lambs of Pentecost. V. supra 61a.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter