Menachot 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain: When

one derives

an individual’s offering

from

an individual’s offering,

but one does not derive

an individual’s offering

from

the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which belongs to the

community.

The Gemara asks further:

And according to the one who derives it from the elders of the community, 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 the requirement of laying hands is written explicitly in its own passage [

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

from a matter concerning which the requirement of laying hands is written explicitly in its own passage—

excluding the burnt offering of appearance, which—

the burnt offering of appearance—

itself

being a mandatory burnt offering,

learned the law of laying hands from the voluntary burnt offering,

as the requirement of laying hands was not stated concerning a burnt offering except at the beginning of Leviticus, in the passage of the voluntary burnt offering.

A tanna taught before Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba:

It is written [Leviticus 9] in the passage concerning the eighth day of the inauguration: “Take for yourself [Aaron] a calf, a young bull, as a sin offering, and a ram as a burnt offering, unblemished,

and he brought the burnt offering and performed it according to the law.”

And what does “according to the law” teach?

According to the law of the voluntary burnt offering; this teaches concerning a mandatory burnt offering,

Aaron’s burnt offering, which was mandatory for him,

that it requires laying hands.

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone lays hands except

a slave, an agent, and a woman:

The Sages taught:

The Torah states three times, “And he shall lay his hand,” and not “And he shall lay his hand” with the definite article;

and these expressions 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 ask:

All these “

And he shall lay his hand”

why are they necessary?

One verse would suffice to teach all of them!?

And we answer:

They are necessary.

The Torah needed 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 mitzvot,

from the law of laying hands—

But an agent is subject to mitzvot, and an agent of a person is like the person himself,

I might say that he may lay hands.

And if the verse had informed us

only of

these two [

the two of them: an agent and a slave ], because

they are not considered like his own body, but his wife, who is considered like his own body, [

she is like her husband’s body ],

I might say that she may lay hands

in his place.

Therefore,

all three verses are necessary.

.

We learned in the Mishna:

Laying hands is the remnant of a mitzva:

The Sages taught:

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

And he shall lay

his hand on the head of the burnt offering,

and it shall be accepted

for him to atone for him.”

But does laying hands effect atonement? Is atonement not effected only by the blood, as it is stated

[Leviticus 17:11]: “

For it is the blood that effects atonement through the soul”?

Rather, this serves to tell you:

That if he treated laying hands as the remnant of a mitzva,

meaning, he did not take care to regard it as a mitzva and did not lay hands,

the verse regards him as though he had not achieved atonement

in the optimal manner,

but

nevertheless

he achieved atonement,

some measure of atonement, since the principal atonement is effected by the blood.

And it was likewise taught

also

concerning waving, in a similar manner;

as it was taught:

It is written concerning a leper [Leviticus 14:21]: “And if he is poor and cannot afford it, he shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering

for waving, to effect atonement

for him.”

But does waving effect atonement? Is atonement not effected only by the blood, as it is stated, ‘For it is the blood that effects atonement through the soul’”?

Rather, this serves to tell you:

That if he treated waving as the remnant of a mitzva,

and did not wave it,

the verse regards him as though he had not achieved atonement,

but nevertheless

he achieved atonement.

We learned in the Mishna: And laying hands…

on the head:

The Sages taught:

The Torah states three times, “And he shall lay [his hand] on the head,” with the te’amim melody of tipḥa—which is a disjunctive accent—under the word “on”; and these three expressions are expounded: “

His hand on the head,”

and not his hand on the neck,

beneath the throat. “

His hand on the head,”

and not his hand on the back, [

the back of the animal ]. “

His hand on the head,”

and not his hand on the chest.

And we ask:

All these—

“his hand on a head”—

why are they necessary?

None of these is “the head,” and they could all be learned from one verse?

And we answer:

They are necessary:

If the Merciful One had written

only

one “

on the head,”

I would have thought:

The verse came

to exclude

only the

neck,

because

it does not align with the head [

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

but the back, which aligns with the head [

it is in a straight line with the head ],

I might say that it does not

exclude it from laying hands—

Therefore,

it is necessary.

And if it had informed us of these two [

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

because they were not included in the requirement of waving, but the chest, which was included in the requirement of waving,

as the chest of a peace offering is waved,

I might say that it is not—

therefore,

it is necessary.

They raised a dilemma:

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 on his head”

and not his hand on the sides.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

He wrapped a

cloth

around his hand and laid hands;

does the cloth constitute an interruption

between him and the offering?

Come and hear

from that which was taught concerning laying hands:

Provided that there is not [

be ] [

be ]

anything intervening between him and the offering.

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone lays hands…

with both hands:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived,

that laying hands is performed with both hands, although in most places the Torah says, “And he shall lay his hand,” which is phrased in the singular?

He said—

he explained—

Reish Lakish:

Because

the verse says concerning the scapegoat: “

And Aaron shall lay

his two hands [

this is the written form, while it is read ‘his hands’ ] on the head of the live goat.”

It is written, ‘his hand’ [

defective, without a yod ],

and it is written “

two,”

so

this establishes a foundational rule [

from here one can derive the rule for every place, through the expression “foundational rule” ]:

Every place where it is stated, “

his hand,”

it refers to two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies

one; thus we learn to interpret the Torah’s statement “his hand” as meaning his two hands.

, and we learn that the Torah’s statement “his hand” means his two hands.

Rabbi Elazar went and stated this teaching—

of Reish Lakish—

in the house of study, without stating it in the name of Reish Lakish [

After Rabbi Elazar heard this source from Reish Lakish, he stated it to the students in the house of study without saying that he had heard it from Reish Lakish ]—

Reish Lakish heard

that his teaching had not been cited in his name,

and he became angry

about it.

Reish 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,”

it means two [

two hands ], then

why is it necessary

to write

in several places in the Torah

“his hands”

“his hands”,

to teach us that there are two hands? Even if “his hand” had been written, it would imply two!?

And

he challenged him,

Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Elazar, from

twenty-four

places where “

his hands” is stated,

such as: “

His hands shall bring it,” “

His hands are enough for him,” “

He guided his hands.” In all these cases, why was “his hand” not written!?

The Sfat Emet found this difficult because of this number, since we do not find twenty-four hands mentioned in the Torah; ; and see the glosses of Rabbi Yeshaya Bakhrach, of blessed memory; ; and see further the Malbim, Parashat Aharei Mot, section 52. The Sfat Emet explained: Now, from the verse, “With his hands he shall bring the offerings of the fire of the Lord,” and “to wave it as a wave-offering before the Lord,” this difficulty can be resolved; ; One may be uncertain regarding the laying of hands, which requires both hands: if a person has only one hand, is he exempt from laying hands? For one could say that the verse must be understood exactly as it is written; ; However, one can say that since the verse does not actually say “his two hands,” but rather there is an interpretive principle that “his hand” means two, it may be that “his hand” means all his strength. If he has only one hand, “his hand” is fully present in his case, and he is obligated to perform the laying of hands; ; But regarding the waving, where the verse explicitly says, “With his hands he shall bring,” one can say that if he has only one hand, he is exempt from waving, since for this reason the verse says “his hands.” Therefore, it was not enough for the Gemara to raise the difficulty from “With his hands he shall bring”; it also brought the verse, “His hands are many for him.”

Rabbi Elazar fell silent

and did not know how to answer.

After Reish Lakish’s anger

at Rabbi Elazar had subsided,

he said to him

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar:

Why did you not say to me [

you did not resolve it for me] “

his hands” [

apparently one should say “his hand”]

with regard to semikha

alone

is what they said

that it is interpreted as two, but not all those cases that do not involve semikha; and had the verse not said “his hands,” I would not have known to interpret it as two.

And it is still difficult: After all,

with regard to semikha it is also written

concerning Moses, who performed semikha for Joshua [Numbers 27:23]: “

And he placed his hands upon him, and commanded him,”

and in this regard the difficulty arises: Let it write “his hand,” and two would automatically be implied.

And we answer:

the semikha of an animal

alone

is what they said

to explain “his hand” as two, but not with regard to Moses’ semikha of Joshua. We learned in the Mishna:

And in the place where they perform semikha, they slaughter; and slaughtering follows immediately after semikha:

a. [ It requires examination: We find several instances in connection with the laying of hands on offerings where the expression “their hands” is used, such as: “And the elders of the assembly shall lay their hands,” which seemingly means the two hands of many people, since one hand belonging to many people would be written “their hand.” See the Ramban on the Torah, at the beginning of Parashat Vayikra, regarding the verse “And he shall lay his hand,” where he writes: This is done with both hands, for we find: “And Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull,” and “Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the ram.” The Sages expounded this to mean the hands of each individual, and thus it is done with both his hands.] b. In Minchat Chinukh [mitzva 115, in “Komets HaMincha”] found it difficult that Jonathan ben Uzziel translated and explained in several places where the laying of hands is mentioned with the expression “his hand” that this means his right hand, which contradicts an explicit Mishna! ? Later authorities pointed out: Earlier [92a], Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagreed about whether the goat sent away on Yom Kippur is to be counted among the two acts of laying hands performed for communal offerings. Rabbi Shimon’s reason for not counting the laying of hands on the goat sent away was explained there as follows: “Laying of hands applies only to the owners”; ;

And we challenge this:

What is he saying!?

That is, once he said, “and slaughtering follows immediately after semikha,” we will already know that he must perform semikha in the place of slaughtering; so why do I need “and in the place where they perform semikha, they slaughter”!?

And we answer:

This is what the tanna is saying

the tanna:

In the place where they perform semikha, they slaughter,

because

slaughtering follows immediately after semikha.

Mishna:

There is a stringency with regard to semikha over tenufa, and a stringency with regard to tenufa over semikha:

The stringency with regard to semikha over tenufa is that:

one person waves on behalf of all the partners [

who are partners in the offering],

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

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

The stringency with regard to tenufa

over semikha is

that tenufa applies

both

to individual offerings [

the guilt-offering and the log of oil of a leper, the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, 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 that accompany them].