Menachot 37

הכהנים מקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו

the priests' is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the rites prior to the taking of the handful, namely the pouring in of the oil and the mingling, must also be performed by the priests alone.');">¹</span> And is R'Simeon of the opinion that a Scriptural expression is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows?

וסבר ר"ש מקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו והתניא (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו ונתן על קרנות המזבח באצבעו ולקח מלמד שלא תהא קבלה אלא בימין באצבעו ונתן מלמד שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין

But it has been taught: It is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 25. It is to be particularly observed that the expression 'with his finger' (which in conjunction with the term 'priest', according to Rabbinic interpretation, signifies the use of the right hand or of the finger of the right hand; v. supra 10a) is so placed in the middle of the verse that it might be said to refer to the rite of taking the blood which precedes, or to the rite of sprinkling which follows, or even to both.');">²</span> 'And.

אר"ש וכי נאמר יד בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמר יד בקבלה קיבל בשמאל כשר

shall take. with his finger', this teaches us that t taking [of the blood] shall be with the right hand only; 'with his finger and put it', this teaches us that the sprinkling shall be with [the finger of] the right hand only.

ואמר אביי במקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו קא מיפלגי (ור"ש סבר לאחריו נדרש ולפניו אין נדרש)

R'Simeon said, Is the expression 'hand'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'finger' is here meant.');">³</span> written in connection with the taking [of the blood]?

אלא ה"ט דר"ש והביאה וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון

Since the expression 'hand' is not written in connection with the taking [of the blood], if he took the blood with the left hand it is still valid. And Abaye said that they diffe as to whether a Scriptural expression is to be interpreted as referring to what precedes as well as to what follows or not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna holds that the expression 'with his finger' refers to what precedes as well as to what follows, and therefore both services must be performed with the right hand; whereas R. Simeon holds that 'with his finger' refers to what follows, namely the sprinkling, and therefore the taking of the blood may be performed even with the left hand.');">⁴</span>

וסבר ר"ש וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון אלא מעתה דכתיב (ויקרא א, ה) ושחט את בן הבקר והקריבו בני אהרן הכהנים את הדם וזרקו את הדם מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה מלמד על שחיטה שכשירה בזר אי לר"ש וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון שחיטה ה"נ בזר תהא פסולה

- This rather is the reason for R'Simeon's view: It is written, And he shall bring it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 2.');">⁵</span> the term 'and' indicates conjunction with the preceding subject.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the former service (sc. the pouring in of the oil) is determined by the latter (sc. the taking of the handful) ; as the latter is performed by the priest only,so the former may be performed by the priest only. To reason the same with regard to the sin-offering thus: since the second service is introduced by the term 'and', therefore as the second service, sc. the sprinkling, must be performed with the right finger so the preceding service, sc. the receiving of the blood, shall also be performed with the right hand, is not admissible, for the two services of the verse are separated by the expression 'with his finger' (Rashi) .');">⁶</span>

שאני התם דאמר קרא וסמך ושחט מה סמיכה בזרים אף שחיטה בזרים

But is R'Simeon of the opinion that the term 'and' indicates conjunction with the preceding subject? Then consider this: It is written, And he shall slaughter the bullock before the Lord; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 5.');">⁷</span>

אי מה סמיכה בבעלים אף שחיטה בבעלים ההוא לא מצית אמרת ק"ו ומה זריקה דעיקר כפרה לא בעיא בעלים שחיטה דלאו עיקר כפרה לא כ"ש

from which it is clear that only from the act of receiving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is understood by the expression 'present the blood'.');">⁸</span> [the blood] and onwards is the function of the priesthood; we thus learn that the slaughtering may be performed by a non-priest.

וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר גלי רחמנא ביוה"כ (ויקרא טז, יא) ושחט את פר החטאת אשר לו מכלל דשחיטה בעלמא לא בעינן בעלים

But according to R'Simeon, since the term 'and' indicates conjunction with the preceding subject, the slaughtering by a non-priest should not be permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the services which follow the term 'and', namely the receiving and the sprinkling, may be performed by none other than priests.');">⁹</span> Here it is different, for it is written, And he shall lay his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב כל מקום שנאמר תורה וחוקה אינו אלא לעכב קא ס"ד תרתי בעיא כדכתיב (במדבר יט, ב) זאת חוקת התורה

and he shall slaughter; and as the laying of the hands is performed by non-priests so the slaughtering may be performed by non-priests. Then should it not follow, as the laying of the hands must be performed by the owner [of the offering], so the slaughtering, too, shall be performed by the owner! - You cannot say that, as there is an a fortiori argument against it.

(סימן נת"ץ יקמ"ל)

For if the sprinkling which is the chief service of atonement is not performed by the owner, a fortiori the slaughtering which is not the chief service of atonement! And should you retort, But surely the possible is not to be inferred from the impossible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the sprinkling is 'impossible', i.e., may not be performed by the owner, since that would be in direct conflict with the Scriptural precept, the slaughtering on the other hand is 'possible', i.e., may be, and therefore should be, performed by the owner.');">¹¹</span> then [I say], the fact that th Divine Law enjoined with regard to the service on the Day of Atonement, And he shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVI, 11.');">¹²</span>

והרי נזיר דלא כתיבא ביה אלא תורה ואמר רב תנופה בנזיר מעכבא שאני התם כיון דכתיב כן יעשה כמאן דכתיבא בהו חוקה דמי

indicates that elsewhere the slaughtering need not be performed by the owners. Rab said, Wherever the expressions 'law' and 'statute' occur [in connection with any rites,] their purpose is only to indicate the indispensability [of those rites].

הרי תודה דלא כתיבא ביה אלא תורה ותנן ארבעה שבתודה מעכבין זה את זה שאני תודה דאיתקש לנזיר דכתיב (ויקרא ז, יג) על זבח תודת שלמיו ואמר מר שלמיו לרבות שלמי נזיר

Now it was assumed that both expressions were necessary for this purpose, as in the verse, This is the statute of the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 2. kneh .,b');">¹³</span> .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (he dashes and will pluck off) , a mnemonic of the initial or characteristic letters of the cases adduced here in argument against Rab's principle.');">¹⁴</span>

והרי מצורע דלא כתיב ביה אלא תורה ותנן ארבעה מינין שבמצורע מעכבין זה את זה שאני התם כיון דכתיב (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת תהיה תורת המצורע כמאן דכתיב ביה חוקה דמי

But is there not the case of the Nazirite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. VI, 2ff.');">¹⁵</span> where only the expression 'law' is used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21: This is the law of the Nazirite.');">¹⁶</span>

והרי יוה"כ דלא כתיב ביה אלא חוקה ותנן שני שעירי יוה"כ מעכבין זה את זה אלא או תורה או חוקה

and yet Rab has said that the [absence of the] rite of waving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ibid. 19, 20.');">¹⁷</span> in the case of the Nazirite invalidates [the service]? - That case is different, for since there is written, so he must do,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21.');">¹⁸</span>

והרי שאר קרבנות דכתיב בהו תורה ולא מעכבי תורה בעיא חוקה וחוקה לא בעיא תורה

it is as though the expression 'statute' were used. And is there _not the thank-offering, where only the expression 'law' is used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 11.');">¹⁹</span>

והא תורה וחוקה קא אמר ה"ק אף על גב דכתיב תורה אי כתיבא חוקה אין ואי לא לא

yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">²⁰</span> Of the four [kinds of cakes] of the thank-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. leavened, cakes, unleavened cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes; cf. Lev. VII, 12, 13.');">²¹</span>

והרי מנחה דכתיב בה חוקה ואמר רב כל מקום שהחזיר הכתוב בתורת מנחה אינו אלא לעכב החזיר אין לא החזיר לא

the [absence of] one invalidates the others? - The case of the thank-offering is also different, since it has been placed side by side with the Nazirite in the verse, With the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13.');">²²</span> and the Master has taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">²³</span>

שאני התם דכי כתיבא חוקה אאכילה כתיבא

that the term 'peace-offerings' includes the peace-offerings of the Nazirite. And is there not the case of the leper, where only the expression 'law' is used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 2.');">²⁴</span>

והרי לחם הפנים דכי כתיבא חוקה אאכילה כתיבא ותנן שני סדרים מעכבין זה את זה שני בזיכין מעכבין זה את זה הסדרין והבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה

yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">²³</span> Of the four kinds [used in the purification] of the leper<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. cedarwood, scarlet, hyssop, and two clean birds; cf. ibid. 4'');">²⁵</span>

אלא כל היכא דכתיבא אאכילה אכולא מילתא כתיבא

the [absence of] one invalidates the others? - That case is different, for since there is written, This shall be the law of the leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 2.');">²⁴</span> it is as though the word 'statute' were also written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the expression 'shall be' also signifies indispensability.');">²⁶</span>

שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא ב, טז) מגרשה ומשמנה

And is there not the Day of Atonement, where only the expression 'statute' is used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ibid. XVI, 29.');">²⁷</span> yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">²³</span> Of the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement the [absence of] one invalidates the other? - Hence we must say that either the expression 'law' [by itself] or 'statute' [by itself indicates indispensability]. But with all other offerings only the expression 'law' is found,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. VII, 37: This is the law of the burnt-offering etc.');">²⁸</span> and yet the rites [in each offering] are no indispensable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the offering is valid even though the sacrificial portions of the guilt-offering were not burnt upon the altar (supra 4a) . and the meal-offering even though it was not brought nigh unto the altar (supra 18a) .');">²⁹</span> - We must therefore say that the expression 'law' requires with it the expression 'statute' [in order to indicate indispensability], whereas statute' does not require with it 'law'. But did not [Rab] say, The expressions 'law' and 'statute'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is clear that the expressions are on an equal footing and one is not more significant than the other.');">³⁰</span> - He meant to say this: Even though the expression 'law' is used, only if there is also used the expression 'statute' is [indispensability implied], otherwise it is not so. But in the case of the meal-offering only the expression 'statute' is used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VI, 11.');">³¹</span> and yet Rab has stated, Every rite of the meal-offering which is repeated in another verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meal-offering is dealt with primarily in Lev. II, and also in VI, 7-11.');">³²</span> is indispensable; which shows that only if it is repeated is it [indispensable], otherwise it is not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that the expression 'statute' is used.');">³³</span> - That case is different, for the expression 'statute' relates only to the eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is written (ibid. VI, 11) : Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat of it, it is a perpetual statute. It cannot be taken as a general term indicating indispensability.');">³⁴</span> And is there not the Shewbread, where [undoubtedly] the expression 'statute' relates only to the eating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is written (ibid. XXIV, 9) : And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy unto him . . by a perpetual statute.');">³⁵</span> yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 27a.');">³⁶</span> Of the two rows [of the Shewbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other, of the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other, of the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other? - Therefore [we must say that] even where [the expression 'statute'] is used in connection with the eating [of the offering], it relates to all [the rites of that offering]; in that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of the meal-offering.');">³⁷</span> however, it is different, for since it is written, Of the bruised corn thereof and of the oil thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 16.');">³⁸</span> [it is clea that only]