Menachot 92b (צב:) — the Talmud in English

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

It is therefore explicit that, according to Rabbi Shimon, the laying of hands on the goats of idolatry is performed not by Aaron but by the Elders, and not as stated in the preceding beraita!?

Rav Sheshet said

to resolve the matter rhetorically:

And can you understand that the first one is a properly resolved beraita [Do you really think that the first beraita is sound and not corrupt?], for how could Rabbi Shimon say that the laying of hands on the goats of idolatry is performed by Aaron!?

And

And

Rabbi Shimon said

to Rabbi Yehuda, who counted among the communal acts of laying hands the laying of hands on the scapegoat in place of the goats of idolatry that Rabbi Shimon counted:

We require laying of hands by the owners

and not by Aaron, who is not their owner; and if the laying of hands on the goats of idolatry were also performed by Aaron, it would be impossible to count them among the communal acts of laying hands. Necessarily, then, their laying of hands is performed by the Elders.

Rather

necessarily,

this is what it teaches

in the first beraita: “

“The bull” [the bull mentioned with regard to the unwitting communal sin: “And the Elders of the congregation shall place their hands upon the head of the bull”]

comes to exclude:

The bull requires laying of hands, but the goats of idolatry do not require laying of hands at all

-

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

“The living one”

mentioned with regard to the scapegoat comes to exclude:

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

and the Gemara explains how this constitutes a response to Rabbi Yehuda:

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

and not, as you say, that they are excluded entirely from laying of hands—

And I will make you hear

if you have a tradition concerning the goats of idolatry

that they do not require laying of hands:

they did not say this with regard to the basic requirement of laying of hands, but with regard to laying of hands

by Aaron is what you have heard,

for they said: Aaron does not lay his hands on the goats of idolatry. Nor is it as you say, that this laying of hands is excluded by “the bull,” but rather

the exclusion from “

the living one”

—the verse stated with regard to the scapegoat, upon which Aaron lays his hands—

is the source.

And

we challenge

Rabbi Yehuda: Why do I need to exclude them,

the goats of idolatry,

from a verse,

from “the bull” or “the living one”?

But Ravina said: It is learned by tradition

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai

that there are only two communal acts of laying hands,

and we have already found two explicit acts of laying hands in the Torah: on the bull of the unwitting communal sin and on the scapegoat. Necessarily, the goats of idolatry do not require laying of hands!?

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

merely a mnemonic,

a general indication that the Sages stated in order to know that there are two communal acts of laying hands. It does not itself constitute a source from which to derive when the community performs laying of hands; rather, this is derived from the exclusion in the verse.

The Gemara asks:

And

the Gemara asks

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

And we explain:

He derives it

for Rabbi Shimon

from that which was taught:

It is written with regard to the goat of a ruler: “

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

and the verse found it necessary to mention “the goat,” although this is the subject under discussion:

To include the goat of Nahshon

this is the sin-offering goat among the offerings of the tribal leaders for the inauguration of the altar during the days of the inauguration, when the Tabernacle was erected in the days of Moses. As the verse states: “And it was that the one who brought his offering on the first day was Nahshon son of Amminadav … his offering … one male goat for a sin-offering”; it was called by his name because he was the first -

for laying of hands.

The statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: “

the goat”

comes to include the goats of idolatry for laying of hands—

as Rabbi Shimon would say: Every sin-offering whose blood enters inside requires laying of hands.

The Gemara asks:

Why do I need

to say: “

As Rabbi Shimon would say

…”

And we explain:

It is merely a mnemonic

for the principle.

And we challenge: From where do we know that the verse includes the goats of idolatry, which resemble the bull of the unwitting communal sin in that their blood enters inside?

And say: The verse came to include

the verse comes to include

the goat

of Yom Kippur

performed inside,

to teach that it requires laying of hands?

And we answer: It is more reasonable that the verse includes, with regard to the goat of a ruler,

something resembling the goat of a ruler, which atones for known transgressions of a mitzva,

meaning that at the time of the offering it was already known to him that he had sinned; but it should not include laying of hands on the goat performed inside, whose atonement applies specifically until he becomes aware that he sinned, at which point he brings his offering, namely an ascending and descending offering.

And

we challenge

Ravina, who said: It is learned by tradition -

from the halakha given to Moses at Sinai -

that there are two communal acts of laying hands,

and it is not merely a mnemonic, contrary to Rabbi Yehuda. If so, Rabbi Shimon faces a difficulty:

Why do I need the verses

to include the goats of idolatry for laying of hands? Through this halakha we can complete the number of communal acts of laying hands with the goats of idolatry!?

And we answer:

The halakha was necessary, and

also

the verses were necessary.

For if it were only from the verse,

that is, without the halakha,

I would have said that even

that even

the communal peace-offerings

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

would require laying of hands by means of a kal va-homer:

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

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

require laying of hands while alive,

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

the communal peace-offerings, which do require waving while alive, as the verse states [Leviticus 23:19]: “And you shall perform … and two lambs in their first year as a peace-offering. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits [the two loaves] as a waving before the Lord, together with the two lambs”—all the more so should they require laying of hands while alive—

and therefore

the halakha was necessary

to teach us that there are no more than two communal acts of laying hands, namely, on the bull of the unwitting communal sin and on the goats of idolatry.

And if it were from the halakha

alone,

we would not know which they are,

that is, which is the second communal offering—apart from the bull of the unwitting communal sin—that requires laying of hands -

It teaches us

the verse concerning the goat of a ruler,

which resembles the goat of a ruler, which atones for known transgressions of a mitzva.

We learned in the Mishna:

All offerings of an individual require laying of hands, except for the firstborn, animal tithe, and Paschal offering:

The Sages taught:

The term “his offering” is stated three times in the portion of peace-offerings [Leviticus 3]: “And if his offering is from the flock”; “If his offering is a sheep”; “And he shall place his hand upon the head of his offering.” All three are subject to exposition:

“His offering” -

this implies that only an offering brought for acceptance and as a gift requires laying of hands,

but not the firstborn

—which is not brought for acceptance and as a gift, but is an obligation incumbent upon him and not for atonement—and therefore the verse needed to exclude it.

Because

one might

have said:

Is this not a logical inference

that the firstborn should require laying of hands? For:

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

nevertheless

require laying of hands, so the firstborn, whose sanctity comes from the womb, should certainly require laying of hands.

Therefore,

the verse states: “

His offering”

but not the firstborn.

b.

“His offering”

comes to exclude

but not animal tithe.

The verse needed to exclude it.

Because

one might

have said:

Is this not a logical inference

that animal tithe should require laying of hands? For:

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

nevertheless

require laying of hands, so animal tithe, which sanctifies that before it and that after it

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

should it not

therefore

require laying of hands?

Therefore,

the verse states: “

His offering”

but not animal tithe.

c. “

His offering”

but not the Paschal offering:

One might say, and is this not a logical inference: Just as peace-offerings, which are not “

brought as an obligation and at a fixed time”

if he had not vowed to bring them, nevertheless

require laying of hands, so the Paschal offering, which is “

brought as an obligation and at a fixed time,”

should certainly require laying of hands.

Therefore,

the verse states: “

His offering”

but not the Paschal offering.

And we challenge all the inferences that one might have made:

But

there is room to refute: What is distinctive about peace-offerings is that they require libations and the waving of the breast and thigh.

They therefore require laying of hands, whereas the firstborn, animal tithe, and Paschal offering, which do not require these, do not require laying of hands. If so, why did the Torah need to exclude them from laying of hands?

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

the verses

through which we say that these three are excluded

are merely an asmakhta. The Sages supported the matter with these verses; it is not that the Torah intended to exclude them through these verses.

The Sages associated their teaching with these verses, but the Torah did not intend through these verses themselves to exclude them.