Menachot 93b — the Talmud in English

And we explain: since

one derives

a sacrifice

of an individual from

a sacrifice

of an individual, but one does not derive

a sacrifice

of an individual from

the bull for an unwitting matter, which belongs to the

community.

The Gemara asks further:

And according to the one who derives it from the elders of the assembly, what is the reason that he does not derive it from the burnt-offering of appearance?

And we explain:

One derives a matter concerning which laying of hands is written in its own section [the law of laying of hands is stated in its section],

the law of laying hands is stated in its passage ],

from a matter concerning which laying of hands is written in its own section—

to exclude the burnt-offering of appearance, for it—

the burnt-offering of appearance—

itself

is a obligatory burnt-offering,

was derived from the voluntary burnt-offering

for the law of laying of hands; for laying of hands was not stated concerning a burnt-offering except at the beginning of Leviticus, in the section of the voluntary burnt-offering.

For a tanna taught before Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba:

It is written [Leviticus 9], in the section of the eighth day of the inauguration: “Take for yourself [Aaron] a calf of cattle for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering, unblemished,

and bring forward the burnt-offering and perform it according to the law,”

and what does “according to the law” teach?

According to the law of the voluntary burnt-offering; it teaches concerning the obligatory burnt-offering,

which was Aaron’s burnt-offering, for it was obligatory for him,

that it requires laying of hands.

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone lays hands except

the slave, the agent, and the woman:

The Sages taught:

The Torah said three times, “And he shall lay his hand,” and not, “And he shall lay his hand” with the definite object marker;

and they are expounded: “

His hand,”

and not the hand of his slave. “

His hand,”

and not the hand of his agent. “

His hand,”

and not the hand of

his wife.

And we challenge:

All these “

and he shall lay his hand”

why are they needed,

when from one verse it is possible to learn them all!?

And we answer:

They are necessary

for the Torah to write “and he shall lay his hand” three times: for

if the Merciful One had written

only

one “

his hand,”

I would have thought:

The verse came only

to exclude a slave,

who is not subject to the commandments,

as he is—

But an agent is one who is subject to a mitzva, and a person’s agent is like himself,

I might say that he should lay hands.

And if the verse had informed us

only of

these two [these two: the agent and the slave],

because

they are not considered like his body, but his wife, who is considered like his body [she is like her husband’s body],

[she is like her husband’s body],

I might say that she should lay hands

in his place.

Therefore

all three

verses are necessary.

We learned in the Mishna:

Laying hands is the remainder of the mitzva:

The Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 1, in the section of the burnt-offering]: “

And he shall lay

his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering,

and it shall be accepted

for him to atone for him”;

but does laying hands atone? Is atonement not only through the blood, as it is stated [Leviticus 17:11]: “

[Leviticus 17:11]: “

For the blood—it is that which effects atonement through the soul”—

Rather, this is to tell you:

That if he treated laying hands as the remainder of the mitzva,

that is, he did not take care to consider it a mitzva, and did not lay hands,

the verse considers it for him as though he had not atoned

in the optimal manner,

but

nevertheless

he atoned

with some atonement, for the essential atonement is through the blood.

And it was also taught

likewise

concerning waving, in this manner;

for it was taught:

It is written concerning the person afflicted with tzaraat [Leviticus 14:21]: “And if he is poor and his hand cannot afford, he shall take one sheep as a guilt-offering

for waving, to atone

for him,”

but does waving atone? Is atonement not only through the blood, as it is stated, ‘For the blood—it is that which effects atonement through the soul’”—

Rather, this is to tell you:

That if he treated waving as the remainder of the mitzva,

and did not wave it,

the verse considers it for him as though he had not atoned,

but nevertheless

he atoned.

We learned in the Mishna: And laying hands...

upon the head:

The Sages taught:

Three times it is stated in the Torah, “And he shall lay upon the head,” and there is a tevir cantillation mark—which is a separating accent—under the word “upon”; and these three are expounded: “

His hand upon the head,”

and not his hand upon the neck,

under the throat. “

His hand upon the head,”

and not his hand upon the back [

the back of the animal]. “

His hand upon the head,”

and not his hand upon the chest.

And we challenge:

All these—

“his hand upon a head”—

why are they needed,

when all these are not the “head,” and they can be learned from one verse?

And we answer:

They are necessary:

For if the Merciful One had written

only

one “

upon the head,”

I would have thought:

The verse came

to exclude

only

the neck,

because

it is not aligned with its head [

it is not on a straight line with the head],

but its back, which is aligned with its head [

it is on a straight line with the head],

I might say not

that the verse excluded it from laying hands—

Therefore

it is necessary.

And if it had informed us of these two [

the neck and the back, upon which laying hands is ineffective],

because they were not included for waving, but the chest, which was included for waving,

for they wave the chest of peace-offerings,

I might say not—

therefore

it is necessary.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If he laid

his hand on the sides

of the head,

what is the law?

Come and hear, for it was taught: Abba Birah says: “

His hand upon his head”

and not his hand upon the sides.

Rabbi Jeremiah raised a dilemma:

He wrapped

a cloth

around his hand and laid hands;

what is the law: does the cloth interpose

between him and the animal?

Come and hear

from that which was taught concerning laying hands:

provided that there is not [

there be] [

there be]

anything interposing between him and the sacrifice.

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone lays hands...

with two hands:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters,

that laying hands is with two hands, although in most places the Torah said, “And he shall lay his hand,” which is singular?

He said—

he explained—

Resh Lakish:

Because

the verse says concerning the scapegoat: “

And Aaron shall lay

his two hands [this is the written form, and it is read “his hands”] upon the head of the living goat”—

on the head of the live goat”—

“His hand” is written [

without a yod],

and it is written “

two”;

this is

a foundational principle [

from here one learns everywhere, from the expression “foundational principle”], for

every place where it is stated “

his hand”

there are two here, unless the verse specifies for you

one,

and we learned to interpret what the Torah said, “his hand,” as meaning his two hands.

Rabbi Elazar went and stated this teaching—

of Resh Lakish—

in the study hall, but did not state it in the name of Resh Lakish [

Rabbi Elazar went, after hearing this source from Resh Lakish, and stated this source to the members of the academy in the study hall, but did not say that he had heard it from Resh Lakish]—

Resh Lakish heard

that his teaching had not been stated in his name,

and he became angry

about this.

Resh Lakish went and

said

he challenged

him,

Rabbi Elazar, concerning this source:

But

if it enters your mind that wherever it is written “

his hand,”

they are two [

they are two hands], then

why is it necessary

to write

in several places in the Torah

“his hands,”

“his hands,”

to teach us two hands, when even had “his hand” been stated it would imply two!?

And

Resh Lakish challenged him

Rabbi Elazar from

twenty-four

places where

“his hands” is stated,

such as: “

His hands shall bring it,” “

His hands are abundant for him,” “

He guided his hands”; and in all these, why was “his hand” not stated!?

Rabbi Elazar fell silent

and did not know how to answer.

After Reish Lakish’s anger had subsided

at Rabbi Elazar for not citing him,

he said to him

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar:

Why did you not say to me [

you did not resolve this for me ] “‘

his hands’” [

apparently, one should say “his hand” ]

regarding the laying of hands

alone

is what they are saying

—that it is interpreted as meaning two, but this does not apply to all those acts that are not the laying of hands. Had the verse not said “his hands,” I would not have known to interpret it as two.

And there is still a difficulty:

it is also written regarding the laying of hands

in the account of Moses laying his hands on Joshua [Numbers 27:23]: “‘

He laid his hands upon him and commanded him,’”

and this creates the following difficulty: Let the verse write “his hand,” and it would then automatically imply two hands.

And we answer:

the laying of hands on an animal

alone

is what they are saying—

that “his hand” is interpreted as two; this does not refer to Moses laying his hands on Joshua. We learned in the Mishna:

And wherever the laying of hands is performed, the slaughter is performed there; and immediately after the laying of hands comes the slaughter:

And we challenge this:

What is he saying!?

That is, once he said, “Immediately after the laying of hands comes the slaughter,” we already know that the slaughter must necessarily take place where the laying of hands was performed. Why, then, do I need the phrase “And wherever the laying of hands is performed, the slaughter is performed there”!?

And we answer:

This is what the tanna is saying:

the tanna says:

Wherever the laying of hands is performed, the slaughter is performed there,

because

immediately after the laying of hands comes the slaughter.

Mishna:

There is a stringency in the laying of hands over waving, and a stringency in waving over the laying of hands:

The stringency of the laying of hands over waving is:

one person waves on behalf of all the partners [

who are partners in the offering ],

but one person does not perform the laying of hands on behalf of all the partners,

rather, each and every one of the owners of the offering must perform the laying of hands.

The stringency of waving

over the laying of hands is

that waving applies

both

to individual offerings [

the guilt-offering and the log of oil of a person afflicted with leprosy, the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering, and the loaves of a nazirite-offering ],

and

both

to communal offerings [

the lambs of Shavuot and the two loaves brought with them ].