Menachot 93a (צג.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Rather:

if so, what do these three

verses of “his offering”

come to teach us?

Why do I need them? What, in fact, do they come to exclude, if not the firstborn offering, the tithe offering, and the Paschal offering, which need not be excluded?

And we explain:

a.

“His offering”

means that he lays his hands on it,

but not another’s offering.

b.

“His offering”

means that he lays his hands on it,

but not a gentile’s offering.

c.

“His offering”

includes all the owners of an offering with regard to laying on of hands;

that is, if the offering was jointly owned, all the owners must lay their hands on it, and it is not sufficient for only one of them to do so. We learned in the Mishna:

An heir lays his hands

and brings the libations and performs temura:

Rav Ḥananya taught before Rava

the following beraita:

An heir does not lay his hands; an heir may not perform temura.

Rava was astonished:

But we learned in the Mishna

“An heir lays his hands, brings its libations, and performs temura”!

He said

and asked

him,

Rav Ḥananya asked Rava: In light of your objection from our Mishna,

should I reverse it—

should I change the version of the beraita and teach: “An heir lays his hands; an heir performs temura”?

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Ḥananya:

No,

do not reverse it, because

the matnita

the beraita that you brought

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

whereas our Mishna follows Rabbi Meir,

as it was taught:

the beraita that you brought is Rabbi Yehuda, while our Mishna follows Rabbi Meir

An heir lays his hands; an heir performs temura—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not lay his hands; an heir may not perform temura.

And we explain:

What is the rationale of Rabbi Yehuda?

For it is written in the passage concerning peace offerings,

“his offering,”

and we derive:

“but not his father’s offering,”

to teach with regard to laying on of hands that an heir does not lay his hands.

And he derives

Rabbi Yehuda

the beginning of consecration

that is, temura, which initiates the consecration of the substitute

from the end of consecration

that is, laying on of hands, which is performed immediately before slaughter:

Just as at the end of consecration an heir does not lay his hands, so at the beginning of consecration an heir may not perform temura.

And the Sages

hold: Since the verse repeats in the passage concerning temura (Leviticus 27),

“he shall surely substitute,”

we learn

to include an heir

with regard to temura.

And they derive

the Sages

the end of consecration

laying on of hands

from the beginning of consecration

temura:

Just as at the beginning of consecration an heir may perform temura, so at the end of consecration an heir lays his hands.

And

we ask

the Sages: This

“his offering”—

from which Rabbi Yehuda derives the exclusion of an heir—

what

do they do with it?

And we answer, as was explained above: The three instances of “his offering” stated in that passage are expounded as follows:

“His offering,”

but not a gentile’s offering;

“his offering,”

but not another person’s offering;

“his offering,”

to include all the owners of an offering with regard to laying on of hands.

And

we explain the rationale of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives from “his offering” the exclusion of an heir, although these expressions were needed:

“His offering”—

he does not have the inclusion of all the owners of an offering with regard to laying on of hands;

according to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of a jointly owned offering, it is sufficient for one of the owners to lay his hands on it. If so, “his offering” remains available to teach that an heir does not lay his hands.

The Gemara further explains Rabbi Yehuda’s rationale in another way:

Alternatively, he does hold,

even if you say that, according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, “his offering” comes to teach the law of a jointly owned offering, he can nevertheless derive from “his offering” the exclusion of an heir, because according to him, the offering of a

gentile, and

the offering of

another person are derived from a single verse—from “his offering”

—

they emerge.

And if so,

two verses remain available to him

from the word “his offering,” and Rabbi Yehuda expounds them:

One:

“his offering”

and not his father’s offering

to exclude an heir.

And the other: to include all the owners of an offering with regard to semikha.

And

we challenge

Rabbi Yehuda:

What does he do with

“he shall surely exchange”—

from which the Sages include an heir with regard to temura—

what does he use it for?

And we explain:

He requires it

for Rabbi Yehuda, the verse “he shall surely exchange,”

to include a woman,

so that if she performs temura, she receives lashes on account of “he shall not exchange”; and as

it is taught: Since the entire matter—

in the Torah passage concerning temura—

is stated exclusively in the masculine form,

what is the conclusion with regard to including a woman,

that is, how do we include a woman as liable to receive lashes on account of “he shall not exchange”?

The verse therefore states

“he shall surely exchange”

to include a woman.

And the Sages expound

to include a woman with regard to temura

from

“and if”

“he shall surely exchange”; and the vav in “and if” is superfluous and comes to teach with regard to a woman.

And

if

Rabbi Yehuda

does not expound

“and if.”

Mishna:

Everyone performs semikha

except for a deaf-mute [

who can neither hear nor speak,]

an imbecile and a minor,

a blind person and a gentile,

who do not perform semikha.

And

except for

a slave, an agent, and a woman.

And semikha—

is a nonessential mitzva,

meaning that it does not prevent atonement.

And the place of semikha is:

on the head with both hands.

And in the place where one performs semikha,

there

he slaughters,

and he should not move it from its place in order to slaughter it elsewhere,

and slaughtering immediately follows semikha.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone performs semikha except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, and a gentile:

The Gemara asks:

Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor,

who do not perform semikha—the reason for this law is clear, because

they are not possessors of legal understanding.

And likewise

a gentile,

who does not perform semikha,

also

the reason is clear, because it is stated [Leviticus 1]: “Speak to the children of Israel, and he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering,” and we learn:

The children of Israel perform semikha, but gentiles do not perform semikha.

But as for a blind person, what is the reason that he may not

perform semikha?

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi disagreed concerning this matter:

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi:

One said

that the source is as follows:

It is derived

by means of a gezerah shavah,

“semikha, semikha,”

from

the semikha of

the elders of the assembly

in the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the elders of the assembly, who are the Sanhedrin, are not fit when they have a physical blemish.

And one said that the source for the fact that a blind person does not perform semikha is:

It is derived

by means of

“semikha, semikha”

from the burnt offering brought upon appearance

[the burnt offering that one is obligated to bring when appearing at the Temple on the pilgrimage, as the verse states: “And they shall not appear before Me empty-handed”], with regard to which a blind person is exempt from appearing—as explained in Ḥagiga 2b and derived from the verse—and from his burnt offering.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who derives it from the burnt offering brought upon appearance,

we derive it from there,

what is the reason that he does not derive it from the elders of the assembly?