Menachot 93a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

Rather:

if so, these three

verses of “his offering”

—

why do I need them?

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

And we explain: a.

“His offering”

he lays his hands

and not his fellow’s offering.

b.

“His offering”

he lays his hands

and not a gentile’s offering.

c.

“His offering”

includes all the owners of an offering for laying on of hands,

meaning, if it was an offering held in partnership, all the owners must place their hands upon it, and it is not sufficient for one to place his hands. We learned in the Mishna:

An heir lays his hands

and brings libations and performs substitution:

Rav Ḥananya taught before Rava

a beraita:

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

Rava was perplexed:

But did we not learn in the Mishna

“An heir lays hands on the offering, brings its libations, and may substitute another animal for it”!?

An heir does not lay his hands; an heir does not perform substitution.

Rava was astonished at this:

But did we not learn

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

He said

Rav Ḥananya asked him:

to him,

Rav Ḥananya asked Rava: Is it because of your question from our Mishna

the opposite—

should I reverse the version of the beraita and change it to read: An heir lays his hands; an heir performs substitution?

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Ḥananya:

No,

do not reverse it, because

the teaching

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

; for it was taught:

An heir lays his hands; an heir performs substitution, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not lay his hands; an heir does not perform substitution.

Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not lay hands on the offering; an heir may not substitute another animal for it.

And we explain:

And we explain:

What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda?

As it is written in the section concerning peace offerings:

“Its offering,”

and we derive:

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason?

For it is written in the passage concerning peace-offerings:

“His offering,”

and we derive:

and not his father’s offering

for laying on of hands, to teach that an heir does not lay his hands.

And he derives

Rabbi Yehuda

the beginning of consecration [namely, substitution, which is the beginning of the consecration of the substitute]

from the end of consecration [namely, laying on of hands, which is done immediately before slaughter]:

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

And the Rabbis

say: Since the verse repeated in the passage concerning substitution, “he shall surely substitute,”

we have learned

to include the heir

for substitution—

And the Rabbis derive

the end of consecration [laying on of hands]

from the beginning of consecration [substitution]:

Just as at the beginning of consecration an heir performs substitution, so too at the end of consecration an heir lays his hands.

And

we ask

the Rabbis: This

“his offering”—

which Rabbi Yehuda derives from to exclude an heir—

what

do they do with it?

And we answer—as was explained above—that the three occurrences of “his offering” stated in that passage are expounded:

“His offering”

and not a gentile’s offering; “his offering”

and not his fellow’s offering; “his offering”

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

And

we explain the reason of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives from “his offering” to exclude an heir, even though these expressions were needed:

“His offering”

to include all the owners of an offering for laying on of hands, he does not hold,

according to Rabbi Yehuda, and he maintains that with an offering of partners, the laying on of hands of one is sufficient

;

and if so, “his offering” remains to teach concerning an heir, that he does not lay his hands.

The Gemara adds further to explain Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in another manner:

And alternatively, he does hold,

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

gentile, and

the offering of his

fellow emerge from one verse—

from “his offering”

they emerge—

And if so,

two verses remain for him

from “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 owners of an offering for 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:

Rabbi Yehuda needs it

for the verse “he shall surely exchange”

to include a woman,

for if she makes an exchange, she is flogged because of “he shall not exchange”; and so

it was taught: since the entire matter

in the Torah’s passage of temura

speaks only in the masculine language,

how, in the end, do we include a woman,

that is, how do we include a woman so that she is flogged because of “he shall not exchange”?

The verse therefore says “

he shall surely exchange”

to include a woman.

And the Rabbis expound

to include a woman for temura

from “

and if”

“he shall surely exchange”; and the vav is superfluous, and it comes to teach about a woman.

And

if

Rabbi Yehuda

“and if”

does not expound.

Mishna:

Everyone performs semikha

except a deaf-mute

[who neither hears nor speaks]

a mentally incompetent person, and a minor,

a blind person, and a gentile,

who do not perform semikha.

And

except

a slave, an agent, and a woman.

And semikha—

is an ancillary mitzva,

meaning that it does not prevent atonement.

And the place of semikha is:

upon the head, with both hands.

And in the place where they perform semikha

there

they slaughter,

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

and immediately after semikha comes slaughter.

Gemara:

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

The Gemara asks:

Granted, a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, and a minor,

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

they are not people possessing understanding.

And likewise

a gentile,

who does not perform semikha,

also

its 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 a blind person—what is the reason that he does not

perform semikha!?

They disagreed about this matter,

Rav Hisda and Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi:

One said

the source for this is that

it is derived by a gezera shava,

“

semikha, semikha,”

from

the semikha of

the elders of the assembly in the bull for an error of the community, and the elders of the assembly, who are the Sanhedrin, are not fit when they have a blemish.

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

the source for a blind person who does not perform semikha is:

it is derived

“

semikha, semikha”

from the burnt offering of appearance [a burnt offering that one is obligated to bring when appearing at the Temple on the Festival, as the verse says, “and they shall not appear before Me empty-handed”], since a blind person is exempt from appearing—as explained in Hagiga 2 and derived from the verse—and from its offering.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that we derive it from the burnt offering of appearance,

we derive it

from there;

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