Menachot 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

“The sons of Aaron

the priests,” the verse

this

is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and what follows it:

that is, both the “he shall pour” written before it and the “he shall take a handful” written after it must be performed by priests.

And we raise this objection:

and

if

Rabbi Shimon holds that “the verse is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and what follows it,”

but isn’t it taught:

It is written: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger and place it on the horns of the altar,” and we expound:

“with his finger” –

“he shall take,”

meaning that the word “with his finger” applies to what is written at the beginning of the verse, “he shall take.” And this

teaches that the receiving

of the blood [which is the meaning of “he shall take”]

must be performed only with the right hand,

that is, “with his finger,” for wherever the term “finger” is stated, it refers only to the right hand.

We further expound:

“with his finger” –

“and he shall place,”

meaning that the word “with his finger” applies to what is written after it, “and he shall place.” And this

teaches that the placing

on the horns of the altar

must be performed only with the right hand.

Rabbi Shimon said: Is a “hand” stated

that is, “finger,”

with regard to receiving?

For this “with his finger” applies to “and he shall place,” and not to “he shall take.”

And since “a hand” was not stated

with regard to receiving,

therefore

if he received with the left hand, it is valid.

And

to explain the rationale underlying their dispute,

Abaye said: They disagree with regard to whether “the verse is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and what follows it.”

The Rabbis expound “with his finger” both with regard to what precedes it, namely, “he shall take,” and Rabbi Shimon holds that it is expounded with regard to what follows it, namely, “and he shall place”; but with regard to what precedes it, “he shall take,” it is not expounded.

And if so, since Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it, why does he hold that pouring performed by a non-priest is invalid?

And we resolve:

Rather,

Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it. And concerning the pouring that is invalid when performed by a non-priest,

this is Rabbi Shimon’s reason:

because it is written:

“And he shall bring it

to the sons of Aaron, the priests,” and we expound:

the vav

in the word “and he shall bring it”

adds to the preceding matter,

which is “he shall pour,” written above it, teaching that the pouring, too, must be performed by a priest. 25 .

And we challenge this:

And does Rabbi Shimon hold that the vav adds to the preceding matter? If so,

with regard to

“And he shall slaughter the bull and the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall offer the blood and sprinkle the blood,”

from the fact that the word “the priests” relates to what follows it, “and they shall offer,” namely, receiving the blood, we learn that

from receiving onward there is a mitzva of priesthood –

this teaches concerning

slaughtering that it is valid when performed by a non-priest!

And

if

you say that

Rabbi Shimon

holds

that the vav adds to the preceding matter,

then let us say that the vav of “and they shall offer” adds to “and he shall slaughter,” and

slaughtering –

likewise should it be invalid when performed by a non-priest?!

Yet it is an established halakha that slaughtering is valid when performed by a non-priest.

And we resolve:

There it is different, as the verse states, “And he shall place his hands –

and he shall slaughter.”

The verse juxtaposed them to teach:

Just as placing of hands may be performed by non-priests,

as the owners place their hands,

so too slaughtering may be performed by non-priests.

And we challenge this:

If

that is so, that we expound “and he shall place his hands and he shall slaughter,” let us also derive the following law:

Just as placing of hands is performed by the owners, so too slaughtering must be performed specifically by the owners,

only by them?

And we resolve:

That

slaughtering must be performed specifically by the owners,

you cannot say,

for it is a

kal va-homer:

it is

the sprinkling, which is the principal means of atonement,

and yet

does not require the owners,

as the priests perform the sprinkling;

slaughtering, which is not the principal means of atonement, all the more so

does not need to be performed specifically by the owners. 26 .

And should you say that one does not derive

slaughtering that

can

be performed by the owners

from

sprinkling,

which cannot

be performed by the owners, since the priests perform the sprinkling, and nevertheless slaughtering would be derived from placing of hands as requiring specifically the owners?

And we resolve: From the fact that

the Torah explicitly stated on Yom Kippur,

with regard to the slaughtering of Aaron’s bull, that it must be performed specifically by the owner, as it is written:

“And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin-offering that is his,”

we learn

by inference that ordinary slaughtering

in the case of other offerings

does not require the owners!

Rav said: Wherever “Torah” and “statute” are stated, it is only to render the matter indispensable!

It might have entered our minds that both

must be written,

are required

by Rav in order for us to derive from them that the matter is indispensable,

as it is written, “This is the statute of the Torah”;

but if only “Torah” or only “statute” is written, the matter is not indispensable.

And we raise this objection:

But concerning a nazirite, only “Torah” is written,

as it is written, “concerning the Torah of his naziriteship,”

and Rav said: The waving with regard to a nazirite is indispensable,

even though with regard to other offerings requiring waving, the waving is not indispensable. Necessarily, this is because “Torah” is written with regard to a nazirite, even though “statute” is not written.

And we answer:

There it is different, since it is written, “So shall he perform

concerning the Torah of his naziriteship,”

it is considered as though “statute” were written with regard to it!

But in general, both “Torah” and “statute” are required to render the matter indispensable.

And we challenge this:

But concerning a thanks-offering, only “Torah” is written,

as it is written, “And this is the law of the offering … if he offers it as a thanks-offering,”

and we learned: The four types

of loaves

that

come with a

thanks-offering render one another indispensable.

If one type is missing, he may not bring the others. Thus, “Torah” alone teaches that the matter is indispensable, which is difficult for Rav, who requires both.

And we answer:

A thanks-offering is different, since it is juxtaposed to a nazirite offering, as it is written, “with the sacrifice of his thanks-offering,” and the Master said: “His thanks-offering”

is superfluous

to include the shelamim offering of a nazirite,

whose law is like that of a thanks-offering. Thus, the thanks-offering and the nazirite offering are juxtaposed in the verse; and just as with regard to a nazirite offering indispensability is written, as stated above, so too with regard to a thanks-offering.

And we further challenge this:

But concerning a leper, only “Torah” is written,

as it is written, “And this shall be the law of the leper,”

and we learned: The four types concerning a leper

—cedar wood, hyssop, crimson wool, and birds, which are brought for the leper’s purification—

render one another indispensable?!

And we answer:

There it is different, since it is written, “This shall be the law of the leper”; it is considered as though “statute” were written with regard to it!

For “shall be” indicates indispensability.

And we further challenge this:

But concerning Yom Kippur, only “statute” is written,

as it is written, “And it shall be for you an eternal statute,”

and we learned: The two goats of Yom Kippur,

for which lots are drawn, one for the Lord and one for Azazel,

render one another indispensable?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rav means: Wherever

either “Torah” or “statute”

is stated, it is only to render the matter indispensable.

And we challenge this:

But the other

offerings,

with regard to all of which “Torah” is written,

as it is written, “This is the Torah of the burnt-offering and of the meal-offering,” and so on,

and

there are elements among them that

are not indispensable?

And we resolve: If

“Torah” is written, it requires

that

“statute”

also be written in order for us to derive indispensability,

but

“statute”

does not require “Torah”;

rather, from “statute” alone we derive indispensability.

And we challenge this:

But Rav said “Torah” and “statute,”

which implies that the two are equivalent.

And we resolve:

This is what

Rav

is saying: “Even though ‘Torah’ is written, if ‘statute’ is written, it is

indispensable

, but if not,

it is not

indispensable!

And we challenge this:

But concerning a meal-offering, “statute” is written with regard to it,

as it is written, “Every male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it; it is an eternal statute,”

and Rav said: Wherever

any law

that the verse repeated

[from the language of repetition]

is written

in the portion of Tzav

concerning the meal-offering,

that which had already been stated in the portion of Vayikra,

it is only to render the matter indispensable!

And this implies:

Where the verse repeated it, yes; where it did not repeat it,

it did not

render it indispensable in the meal-offering, even though “statute” is written with regard to the meal-offering.

And we resolve:

There it is different, for when “statute” is written

with regard to the meal-offering,

it is written with regard to eating,

as it is stated, “Every male among the sons of Aaron shall eat it; it is an eternal statute.” And since eating is not indispensable, it necessarily follows that the “statute” written with regard to the meal-offering does not indicate indispensability.

And we challenge this:

But concerning the showbread, when

the word

“statute” is written with regard to it, it is written with regard to eating,

as it is written, “And they shall eat it in a holy place … an eternal statute,” and

yet

even so

we learned: The two arrangements

of showbread, six loaves for each one,

render one another indispensable. The two bowls

of frankincense placed on the two arrangements

render one another indispensable. The arrangements and the bowls render one another indispensable?!

And we resolve:

Rather, wherever

“statute” is written, even if it is written only

with regard to eating,

we say that it

is written with regard to the entire matter,

and we derive indispensability from it. Nevertheless, the meal-offering is not difficult, as

there it is different,

with regard to the meal-offering,

for the verse states, “of its fine flour and of its oil,”

and from the superfluous letter he, since it could have written “of fine flour and of oil,” we derive with regard to the law that if any amount of its fine flour or of its oil is missing, it is invalid; and since it was necessary to write indispensability with regard to this law,

The two goats of Yom Kippur

which we learned in the Mishna

are each indispensable to the other—

this is derived from the fact that it is written concerning them

“a statute,”

which indicates that it is indispensable. [As Rav said above, on page 19a: Wherever “a statute” is written, it is only to teach that the matter is indispensable.]

The two sheep of Shavuot are each indispensable to the other—

this is derived from the fact that the expression

“shall be”

is written concerning them: “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest,” and “shall be” indicates that the matter is indispensable.

The two loaves

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that the expression

“shall be”

is written concerning them: “They shall be fine flour.”

The two arrangements

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that it is written concerning them

“a statute.”

The two bowls

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that it is written concerning them

“a statute.”

The arrangements and the bowls

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that it is written concerning them

“a statute.”

The two types in the nazirite offering

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from

what is written

in the passage concerning the nazirite,

“so shall he do,”

which indicates that the matter is indispensable.

The three

types

in the red cow

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that it is written concerning them

“a statute.”

The four

loaves

in the thanks offering

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that thanksgiving offering is

juxtaposed

to the nazirite offering,

as it is written: “upon the sacrifice of his thanks offering of peace offerings,” and the Master said: “his peace offerings”

is superfluous

to include the nazirite peace offerings,

whose law is like that of the thanks offering with regard to the measure of fine flour and oil in the bread brought by the nazirite. And since the nazirite offering is juxtaposed to the thanks offering, its law is like that of the thanks offering also with regard to indispensability.

And the four

types

in the leper

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from

that which is written: “This shall be the law of the leper,”

and “shall be” indicates that the matter is indispensable.

And the four

types

in the lulav

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from the fact that it is written concerning them

“and you shall take,”

and we expound: there shall be

a complete taking

[a whole one], meaning that he must take all four together 164 .

so that he takes all four together. 164 .

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: They taught that

the four species of the lulav are each indispensable to the other

only when he does not have

all four species, in which case he does not fulfill his obligation, since he did not take all of them.

But if he has

the four species and takes them together, but does not bind them into a single bundle,

they are not indispensable

to one another, and he fulfills his obligation 165 .

It was taught in a beraita:

The four species of the lulav: two of them

the etrog and the lulav

produce fruit, and two of them

the myrtle and the willow

do not produce fruit. Those that produce fruit shall require those that do not produce fruit, and those that do not produce fruit shall require those that produce fruit, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with them until they are all in one bundle

[apart from the etrog] 166 .

And likewise Israel,

even when they fast and pray, do not

present an acceptable plea,

and their prayers are not answered

until they are all

in one bundle,

the righteous together with the wicked,

as it is stated: “He who builds His upper chambers in the heavens, and His band upon the earth He founded,”

which indicates that He founded them in this manner, so that they would be in one bundle.

This is difficult for Rav Ḥanan, for it is explicitly stated in the beraita that the four species are subject to the requirement that they be in one bundle.

And we answer: It is

a dispute between tannaim

whether binding is indispensable.

As it was taught in a beraita: The lulav, whether bound or not bound

with the other two species,

is valid. Rabbi Yehuda says: Bound is valid; not bound is invalid!

And Rav Ḥanan follows the first tanna.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

who says that binding is indispensable?

He derives

this by means of a gzera shava:

“taking”—

“taking,”

the lulav

from the bundle of hyssop

in the Egyptian Passover, since “and you shall take” is stated with regard to both.

Just as there

in the Egyptian Passover the stalks of the hyssop must be

in a bundle,

as it is stated, “a bundle of hyssop,”

so here

with regard to the lulav, they must be

in a bundle.

And the Sages,

who hold that it is not necessary to bind the lulav with the other species,

did not derive

from their teachers the gzera shava of

“taking”—

“taking.”

And we inquire:

In accordance with whom is that which was taught in a beraita: It is a mitzva to bind the lulav

together with the other two species,

but if he did not bind it, it is valid? In accordance with whom? If it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, why is it valid if he did not bind it? If it is in accordance with the Sages, what mitzva

is there in binding?

And we answer:

Actually, it is in accordance with the Sages,

and

what mitzva

is there?

Because of “This is my God and I will glorify Him,”

for a bound lulav is the manner in which the mitzva is beautified.

That which we learned in the Mishna:

The seven sprinklings of the red cow are each indispensable to the other

is derived from the fact that it is written in the passage of the red cow

“a statute.”

The seven sprinklings upon the area between the staves, upon the golden altar, and upon the curtain are each indispensable to the other—

from where do we derive this?

These sprinklings

of Yom Kippur

are each indispensable to the other; this is derived from

what is written

concerning them, “a statute.”

And the sprinklings

of the bull of the anointed priest, of the bull for the unintentional communal sin, and of the goats for idolatry,

whose blood is sprinkled upon the curtain and the golden altar—these are likewise derived to be indispensable,

as it was taught in a beraita:

It is written concerning the bull for the unintentional communal sin:

“And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull of the sin offering,”

that is, as was done with the bull of the anointed priest, which is written above it.

Why do I need

this verse? All the procedures of the bull of the anointed priest are also written in the passage of the bull for the unintentional communal sin; for what purpose, then, did the Torah need to state that the procedure for the bull for the unintentional communal sin is to be performed as for the bull of the anointed priest?

Rather, it comes for this purpose:

to repeat the sprinklings

of the bull for the unintentional communal sin, as though the Torah repeated the order of its sprinklings, saying: