Menachot 92b — the Talmud in English

And the goats of idolatry do not require semikha by Aaron, but by the Elders -

It is thus explained that the semikha of the goats of idolatry—according to Rabbi Shimon—is not by Aaron but by the Elders, and not as explained in the preceding beraita?!

Rav Sheshet said

to resolve it by way of astonishment:

And do you understand that this first one is a properly resolved [beraita] [

and do you think that the first beraita is properly resolved and not corrupted], and yet how is it possible that Rabbi Shimon would say that the semikha of the goats of idolatry is by Aaron?!

And

did Rabbi Shimon not say

to Rabbi Yehuda, who counted among the semikhot of the community the semikha of the scapegoat in place of the goats of idolatry that Rabbi Shimon counted:

We require semikha by the owners

and not by Aaron, who is not an owner; and if the semikha of the goats of idolatry is also by Aaron, it is impossible to count them among the semikhot of the community; necessarily, their semikha is by the Elders.

Rather

necessarily,

this is what it teaches

in the first beraita:

“The bull” [

the bull mentioned in the bull for an unintentional matter of the community: “And the Elders of the assembly shall place their hands upon the head of the bull”] comes to exclude:

A bull requires semikha, but the goats of idolatry do not require semikha

at all—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: “

The living one”

mentioned concerning the scapegoat comes to exclude:

The living one requires semikha by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not require semikha by Aaron, but by the Elders;

and the Gemara explains what answer this is to Rabbi Yehuda:

And this is what Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The goats of idolatry require semikha

and not as you say, that you exclude them entirely from semikha—

And I will inform you—

if you have a received tradition concerning the goats of idolatry

that they do not require semikha,

it was not said concerning the essential semikha, but concerning semikha

by Aaron is what you were informed,

that they said: Aaron does not perform semikha on the goats of idolatry, and not as you say, that this semikha is excluded by “the bull,” but rather:

And its exclusion is from “

the living one”

—which is said concerning the scapegoat, on which Aaron performs semikha—

it is.

And

we challenge

Rabbi Yehuda: Why do I need to exclude them

the goats of idolatry

from a verse,

whether “the bull” or “the living one”?

But did Ravina not say: It is a received tradition

from the law given to Moses at Sinai

that there are two semikhot in the community

only, and we have already found two semikhot explicitly in the Torah, in the bull for an unintentional matter of the community and in the scapegoat; necessarily, the goats of idolatry do not require semikha?!

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda held that this is not a law given to Moses at Sinai, but rather

merely a formula,

a mere mnemonic that the Sages stated in order to know that there are two semikhot in the community; and from this itself there is no source to learn when the community performs semikha, but it is learned from the exclusion of the verse.

The Gemara asks:

And

to

Rabbi Shimon: From where do we know that the goats of idolatry require semikha?

And we explain:

It follows for him

for Rabbi Shimon

from that which was taught:

It is written concerning the goat of a ruler: “

And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat,”

and the verse needed to mention “the goat,” even though we are engaged with it:

To include the goat of Nahshon—

that is the sin-offering goat among the offerings of the rulers for the dedication of the altar in the days of the inauguration, when the Tabernacle was erected in the days of Moses; and as the verse says [Numbers 7:12]: “And it was that the one bringing his offering on the first day was Nahshon son of Amminadav... his offering... one male goat for a sin-offering,” and it was called by his name because he was first—

for semikha.

The words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: “The goat”

mentioned comes

to include the goats of idolatry for semikha—

For Rabbi Shimon would say: Every sin-offering whose blood enters inside requires semikha.

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need

to say: “

For Rabbi Shimon would say

Rabbi Shimon says...”?!

And we explain:

It is merely a mnemonic

for it.

And we challenge: From where [do we know] that the verse includes the goats of idolatry, which resemble the bull for an unintentional matter of the community in that their blood enters inside?

And perhaps:

the verse comes to include

the goat

of Yom Kippur

made inside,

to teach that it requires semikha?

And we answer: It is more reasonable to include from the verse concerning the goat of a ruler

that resembles the goat of a ruler, which atones for violations of a known mitzva,

that is, he already knew at the time of the offering that he had sinned; and not to include semikha for the goat made inside, whose atonement applies specifically until he becomes aware that he sinned, and then he brings his offering, which is an ascending-and-descending offering.

And

we challenge

Ravina, who said: It is a received tradition—

from the law given to Moses at Sinai—

that there are two semikhot in the community,

and it is not merely a formula, and not like Rabbi Yehuda; if so, this is difficult for Rabbi Shimon:

Why do I need the verses

to include the goats of idolatry for semikha, when through this law we complete the count of the community’s semikhot with the goats of idolatry?!

And we answer:

The halakha was necessary, and

also

the verses were necessary.

For if it were from the verse,

that is, if there were no halakha,

I would have said

even

the communal peace-offerings,

that is, the two lambs brought on Shavuot with the two loaves,

would require semikha by a kal va-chomer:

Just as the peace-offerings of an individual, which do not require waving while alive [

the animal is not waved while alive; only the breast and thigh are waved after slaughter], nevertheless

require semikha while alive,

as is explicit in the verses concerning peace-offerings in the portion of Leviticus—

the communal peace-offerings, which require waving while alive, as the verse says [Leviticus 23:19]: “And you shall offer... and two yearling lambs for a peace-offering. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits [the two loaves], a waving before the Lord, over the two lambs”—all the more so that they require semikha while alive—

and therefore

the halakha was necessary

to teach us that there are no more than two semikhot in the community, namely, the bull for an unintentional matter of the community and the goats of idolatry.

And if it were from the halakha

alone,

we would not know which they are

the second communal offering—apart from the bull for an unintentional matter of the community—that requires semikha—

It teaches us

the verse concerning the goat of a ruler,

that it resembles the goat of a ruler, which atones for violations of a known mitzva.

We learned in the Mishna:

All individual offerings require semikha, except for the firstborn, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering:

The Sages taught:

The expression “his offering” is stated three times in the portion of peace-offerings [Leviticus 3]: “And if his offering is from the flock”; “If it is a sheep, he brings his offering”; “And he shall place his hand upon the head of his offering”; and all three are for exposition:

“His offering”—

this implies that only an offering that comes for appeasement and as a gift requires semikha,

but not the firstborn—

which does not come for appeasement and as a gift, but is an obligation upon him and not for atonement—requires semikha; therefore the verse needed to exclude it:

because

it could have been said

I would say:

Is this not an inference

that the firstborn should require semikha? For:

Just as peace-offerings, whose sanctity does not come from the womb,

are nevertheless

subject to semikha; the firstborn, whose sanctity comes from the womb, is it not an inference that it should require semikha?

Therefore

the verse states: “

His offering”

but not the firstborn.

B. “

His offering”

comes to exclude

but not the animal tithe;

the verse needed to exclude it:

because

it could have been said

I would say:

Is this not an inference

that the animal tithe should require semikha? For:

Just as peace-offerings, which do not sanctify before them or after them,

are nevertheless

subject to semikha; the animal tithe, which sanctifies before it and after it [

if he called the tenth animal “ninth,” the ninth “tenth,” and the eleventh “tenth,” all are sanctified],

is it not an inference that it

should be

subject to semikha.

Therefore

the verse states: “

His offering”

but not the animal tithe.

C. “

His offering”

but not the Paschal offering:

It could have been said, and is this not an inference: Just as peace-offerings, which are not

brought as an obligation and regularly

if he had not vowed to bring them, are nevertheless

subject to semikha; the Paschal offering, which is

brought as an obligation and regularly,

is it not an inference that it should require semikha.

Therefore

the verse states: “

His offering”

but not the Paschal offering.

And we challenge everything that I could have said:

But

there is room to refute: What is there about peace-offerings? They require libations and the waving of the breast and thigh,

and they therefore require semikha, but the firstborn, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering, which do not require these, do not require semikha—and if so, why did the Torah need to exclude them from semikha?

And we answer: Indeed, I would not have learned them from peace-offerings, but rather

the verses—

which we say come to exclude these three—

are merely a supporting proof.

The Sages attached their teaching to these verses; it is not that the Torah intended to exclude them from these verses.