Shiur sponsored in memory of Herzl Zvi Shlomo ben Pesach and Dina Sarah. Based on what principles can we determine that the details given by Torah relating to sacrifices are absolutely necessary?
Menachot 19
08.29.2018 | י״ח באלול תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 19
הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.
the priests,” the verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. Before mentioning the priests, the verse states the halakha of pouring the oil on the meal offering, and after mentioning the priests, it states the halakha of the removal of the handful. Therefore, a priest is required for each of these rites.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְלָקַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַבָּלָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נְתִינָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין.
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). The term “with his finger” is interpreted as referring to the term “and the priest shall take.” This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term “finger,” when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term “with his finger” is also interpreted as referring to the term “and put it.” This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: But is the term hand stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the term hand is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, only with regard to the placement of the blood, then even if the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).
And Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. The Rabbis hold that the term “with his finger” is referring to both to the term “and the priest shall take” that precedes it, and the term “and put it” that succeeds it. And Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that succeeds it, but is not interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it. In that case, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase “Aaron’s sons, the priests” should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous matter, demonstrating that the rite of the pouring of the oil is to be performed by Aaron’s sons, the priests.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מְלַמֵּד עַל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר; אִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁחִיטָה הָכִי נָמֵי בְּזָר תְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon hold that the letter vav adds to the previous matter? If that is so, then this would pose a problem with regard to that which is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood” (Leviticus 1:5). The Sages infer from here that from the stage of the sacrificing of the blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward, it is the mitzva exclusively of members of the priesthood. By inference, this teaches that the slaughter of the offering, which is performed earlier, is valid when performed by a non-priest. If according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the letter vav adds to the previous matter, if the slaughter of the offering is performed by a non-priest, it should also be unfit.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ … וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5), associating the placing of the hands on the head of an offering, which is performed by the owner of the animal, with the slaughter of the offering. Therefore, just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed by non-priests, so too, the slaughter of the offering is performed by non-priests.
אִי: מָה סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְעָלִים? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זְרִיקָה דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּעָלִים, שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
The Gemara asks: If there is a juxtaposition of the placing of the hands and the slaughter of the animals, why not also say that just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed only by the owner of the animal, so too, the slaughter of the offering may be performed only by the owner of the animal? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood: And just as the sprinkling of the blood, which is the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, does not require the owner to perform it, as the priests perform this rite on his behalf, with regard to the slaughter of the offering, which is not the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, is it not all the more so clear that it does not need to be performed by the owner?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.
And if you would say that one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, and the owner may not sprinkle the blood as he is not a priest, but he may still be obligated to slaughter the animal, as this rite may be performed by a non-priest, the Merciful One revealed in the Torah in the context of the Yom Kippur service with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). By inference, from the fact that the verse specifies that here the High Priest, who is the owner of the offering, must perform the slaughter, it is clear that usually the slaughter does not require the participation of the owner.
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.
§ Apropos the mishna’s list of rites that are not indispensable for the meal offering, the Gemara explains that Rav says: With regard to any sacrificial rite where the term law and statute are stated, they are stated only to teach that the absence of the performance of that rite invalidates the offering. The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say that the two terms are both required for this principle to be in effect, as it is written with regard to a red heifer: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).
(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)
Before continuing its discussion of this principle, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the questions that follow: Nun, tav, tzadi; yod, kuf, mem, lamed. They represent: Nazirite; thanks offering [toda]; leper [metzora]; Yom Kippur; offerings [korbanot]; meal offering [minḥa]; shewbread [leḥem hapanim].
וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), and yet Rav says that the lack of waving of the offering by a nazirite invalidates the offering? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written in the continuation of the verse: “So he must do,” and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, since it is juxtaposed in the Torah to the offering of a nazirite; as it is written in a verse describing the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.
וַהֲרֵי מְצוֹרָע, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper, i.e., cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper.” Due to the added emphasis of the term “shall be,” it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.
The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only “statute,” as the verse states: “And it shall be a statute for you forever” (Leviticus 16:29), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other? Rather, it must be that Rav meant that wherever either the term law or the term statute is employed, this signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.
וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav’s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term “law” is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The Gemara answers: When the term law appears, it is still necessary for the term statute to appear, in order to teach that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering. But when the term statute appears, it is not necessary for the term law to appear as well. The term statute is sufficient.
וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn’t Rav say: Wherever the terms law and statute appear? Apparently, both are necessary for his principle to apply. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav is saying: Even in a context where the term law is written, if the term statute is written as well, then yes, failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering; but if the term statute does not accompany the term law, then failure to perform the rites does not invalidate the offering.
וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term “statute” is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever” (Leviticus 6:11), and yet Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the law of the meal offering that the verse repeats, as the details of the meal offering are discussed in Leviticus, chapter 2, and again in Leviticus, chapter 6, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering? Doesn’t this demonstrate that where the verse repeated the command, then yes, failure to perform the rite invalidates the offering; but if the verse did not repeat it, then failure to perform the rite does not invalidate the offering, whether or not the term statute appears?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the meal offering rather than with regard to the sacrificial rites.
וַהֲרֵי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara asks: But what of the shewbread, where when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the shewbread, as the verse states: “And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 24:9), and we learn in the mishna (27a): With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.
Rather, it must be that anywhere that the term statute is written with regard to eating, it is written with regard to the entire matter, i.e., all the halakhot of the offering, and teaches that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the meal offering, it is different, and it is only the rites that are repeated that are indispensable, as the verse states: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,
גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב.
teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה מִנְחָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא לֵיהּ?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the meal offering that the verse in the Torah repeats, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering. And Shmuel says: Only the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable. The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, is it true that even though a rite of the meal offering is repeated in another verse he does not deem it indispensable?
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא וַדַּאי מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָכָא בִּ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ.
Rather, Shmuel must agree that wherever the verse repeats a rite it is certainly understood to be indispensable; and here, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the expressions “his handful” (Leviticus 2:2) and “with his hand” (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall remove his handful,” and elsewhere it states: “And he shall take up from it with his hand.” The change in terminology between the two verses teaches that the priest should not use a utensil to measure an amount for the handful of a meal offering, but should use his hand.
רַב סָבַר: הָא נָמֵי תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל: דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.
Rav holds that this halakha of using one’s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron’s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: “And he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17), demonstrating that the handful is removed by hand and not with a utensil. And Shmuel holds that we do not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation. Therefore, using one’s hand is not indispensable, as the general requirements of the rites of the meal offering cannot be derived from a verse referring to the meal offering that was sacrificed during the consecration of the Tabernacle.
וְלָא יָלֵיף שְׁמוּאֵל דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה? וְהָתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): Service vessels used for the liquids sanctify only the liquids placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances sanctify only the dry substances that are placed in them. But service vessels used for the liquids do not sanctify the dry substances placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances do not sanctify the liquids placed in them.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשִׁין, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת״!
And Shmuel says concerning this mishna: They taught that halakha only with regard to service vessels used to measure liquids, e.g., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry substances placed in them as well, as it is written with regard to the offerings of the princes during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry substance. In this case, Shmuel does derive the general halakha from a temporary situation, in this case the offerings of the princes.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנִין.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the offering of the princes, it is different, as the verse is repeated twelve times, once with regard to each and every prince. Therefore, Shmuel derives a halakha for all generations from it. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the halakha for all generations cannot be derived from a temporary situation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: וַהֲרֵי הַגָּשָׁה, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא, וְלָא מְעַכְּבָא! מַאן תְּנָא בֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara returns to discussing Rav’s statement that a rite is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But what of bringing the meal offering to the corner of the altar, which is repeated in the verse, as it is stated: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); and it is not indispensable, as stated in the mishna (18a)? The Gemara elaborates: Where is it repeated? As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).
הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara answers: That verse is not a repetition of the mitzva for the priest to bring the meal offering to the corner of the altar; rather, it comes only to establish the place for the meal offering and describe where it should be brought. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the meal offering must be brought on the western side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary and is therefore “before the Lord.” Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse had merely stated: In front of the altar, one might have thought that the meal offering is brought only on the southern side of the altar, as just mentioned. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The baraita answers: The priest brings it near on the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that will suffice for him.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the verse presents the priest with the option that he may bring it on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. You say the following principle: Any time you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, and one of which fulfills itself and negates the other, we set aside the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and we seize the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.
שֶׁכְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering “before the Lord,” which indicates that it shall be brought on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “in front of the altar,” which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering “in front of the altar” and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “before the Lord.”
וְהֵיכָא קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the entire altar stood in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, opposite the Holy of Holies, directly before the Lord. In any event, it can be seen in this baraita that the purpose of the verse: “The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא: הֲרֵי מֶלַח, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, וּמְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא
The Gemara cites another objection to Rav’s statement that a rite of the meal offering is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Huna objects to this: But what of the placement of the salt on the handful of the meal offering before it is burned, which is not repeated in the verse, and yet it is still indispensable in its sacrifice? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be
Follow
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Menachot 19
הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.
the priests,” the verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. Before mentioning the priests, the verse states the halakha of pouring the oil on the meal offering, and after mentioning the priests, it states the halakha of the removal of the handful. Therefore, a priest is required for each of these rites.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְלָקַח״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַבָּלָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין, ״בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נְתִינָה אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין.
The Gemara questions this explanation: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). The term “with his finger” is interpreted as referring to the term “and the priest shall take.” This teaches that the collection of the blood shall be performed only with the right hand, since the term “finger,” when stated in the context of the sacrificial rites, always is referring to the finger of the right hand. The term “with his finger” is also interpreted as referring to the term “and put it.” This teaches that the placing of the blood on the altar shall be performed only with the right hand.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said: But is the term hand stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the term hand is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, only with regard to the placement of the blood, then even if the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).
And Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it and to the matter that succeeds it. The Rabbis hold that the term “with his finger” is referring to both to the term “and the priest shall take” that precedes it, and the term “and put it” that succeeds it. And Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is interpreted as referring to the matter that succeeds it, but is not interpreted as referring to the matter that precedes it. In that case, Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the pouring of oil must be performed by a priest can no longer be ascribed to the opinion that the phrase “Aaron’s sons, the priests” should be interpreted as referring to the description of pouring the oil that precedes it.
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests” (Leviticus 2:1–2). He therefore employs the principle that the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, adds to the previous matter, demonstrating that the rite of the pouring of the oil is to be performed by Aaron’s sons, the priests.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן? אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״, מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, מְלַמֵּד עַל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר; אִי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁחִיטָה הָכִי נָמֵי בְּזָר תְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Shimon hold that the letter vav adds to the previous matter? If that is so, then this would pose a problem with regard to that which is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall sacrifice the blood and sprinkle the blood” (Leviticus 1:5). The Sages infer from here that from the stage of the sacrificing of the blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward, it is the mitzva exclusively of members of the priesthood. By inference, this teaches that the slaughter of the offering, which is performed earlier, is valid when performed by a non-priest. If according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the letter vav adds to the previous matter, if the slaughter of the offering is performed by a non-priest, it should also be unfit.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ … וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the slaughter of an offering, it is different, as earlier the verse states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5), associating the placing of the hands on the head of an offering, which is performed by the owner of the animal, with the slaughter of the offering. Therefore, just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed by non-priests, so too, the slaughter of the offering is performed by non-priests.
אִי: מָה סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים, אַף שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְעָלִים? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זְרִיקָה דְּעִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּעָלִים, שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָאו עִיקַּר כַּפָּרָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
The Gemara asks: If there is a juxtaposition of the placing of the hands and the slaughter of the animals, why not also say that just as the placing of the hands on the offering is performed only by the owner of the animal, so too, the slaughter of the offering may be performed only by the owner of the animal? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that, due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood: And just as the sprinkling of the blood, which is the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, does not require the owner to perform it, as the priests perform this rite on his behalf, with regard to the slaughter of the offering, which is not the essential rite that enables the one who brings the offering to achieve atonement, is it not all the more so clear that it does not need to be performed by the owner?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.
And if you would say that one cannot derive the possible from the impossible, and the owner may not sprinkle the blood as he is not a priest, but he may still be obligated to slaughter the animal, as this rite may be performed by a non-priest, the Merciful One revealed in the Torah in the context of the Yom Kippur service with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11). By inference, from the fact that the verse specifies that here the High Priest, who is the owner of the offering, must perform the slaughter, it is clear that usually the slaughter does not require the participation of the owner.
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.
§ Apropos the mishna’s list of rites that are not indispensable for the meal offering, the Gemara explains that Rav says: With regard to any sacrificial rite where the term law and statute are stated, they are stated only to teach that the absence of the performance of that rite invalidates the offering. The Gemara comments: It enters our mind to say that the two terms are both required for this principle to be in effect, as it is written with regard to a red heifer: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).
(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)
Before continuing its discussion of this principle, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the questions that follow: Nun, tav, tzadi; yod, kuf, mem, lamed. They represent: Nazirite; thanks offering [toda]; leper [metzora]; Yom Kippur; offerings [korbanot]; meal offering [minḥa]; shewbread [leḥem hapanim].
וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a nazirite, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite who vows, and of his offering to the Lord for his naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he vows, so he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), and yet Rav says that the lack of waving of the offering by a nazirite invalidates the offering? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written in the continuation of the verse: “So he must do,” and therefore it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
הֲרֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.
The Gemara asks: But what of the thanks offering, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, since it is juxtaposed in the Torah to the offering of a nazirite; as it is written in a verse describing the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13), instead of simply stating: The sacrifice of his thanks offering. And the Master says: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of the nazirite, to teach that the same halakhot apply to both.
וַהֲרֵי מְצוֹרָע, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara asks: But what of the offering of a leper, about which it is written only “law,” as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper, i.e., cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers: There it is different, since it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper.” Due to the added emphasis of the term “shall be,” it is considered as if the term statute were written with regard to it.
וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.
The Gemara asks: But what of Yom Kippur, about which it is written only “statute,” as the verse states: “And it shall be a statute for you forever” (Leviticus 16:29), and we learn in a mishna (27a) that with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other? Rather, it must be that Rav meant that wherever either the term law or the term statute is employed, this signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.
וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara questions this understanding of Rav’s statement: But what of the rest of the offerings, as the term “law” is written with regard to them, and yet failure to perform all of their different rites does not invalidate those offerings? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The Gemara answers: When the term law appears, it is still necessary for the term statute to appear, in order to teach that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering. But when the term statute appears, it is not necessary for the term law to appear as well. The term statute is sufficient.
וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But doesn’t Rav say: Wherever the terms law and statute appear? Apparently, both are necessary for his principle to apply. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav is saying: Even in a context where the term law is written, if the term statute is written as well, then yes, failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering; but if the term statute does not accompany the term law, then failure to perform the rites does not invalidate the offering.
וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But what of the meal offering, as the term “statute” is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a statute forever” (Leviticus 6:11), and yet Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the law of the meal offering that the verse repeats, as the details of the meal offering are discussed in Leviticus, chapter 2, and again in Leviticus, chapter 6, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering? Doesn’t this demonstrate that where the verse repeated the command, then yes, failure to perform the rite invalidates the offering; but if the verse did not repeat it, then failure to perform the rite does not invalidate the offering, whether or not the term statute appears?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the meal offering rather than with regard to the sacrificial rites.
וַהֲרֵי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara asks: But what of the shewbread, where when the term statute is written, it is written with regard to the eating of the shewbread, as the verse states: “And they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 24:9), and we learn in the mishna (27a): With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.
Rather, it must be that anywhere that the term statute is written with regard to eating, it is written with regard to the entire matter, i.e., all the halakhot of the offering, and teaches that failure to perform the rites invalidates the offering.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the meal offering, it is different, and it is only the rites that are repeated that are indispensable, as the verse states: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), rather than simply: Of the groats and oil,
גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב.
teaching that the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable, despite the fact that the term statute appears.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה מִנְחָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: גֶּרֶשׂ וָשֶׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר מְעַכֵּב. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא לָא מְעַכְּבָא לֵיהּ?
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rav says: With regard to every sacrificial rite of the meal offering that the verse in the Torah repeats, it is repeated only to teach that the failure to perform that rite invalidates the offering. And Shmuel says: Only the groats and oil are indispensable, and nothing else is indispensable. The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, is it true that even though a rite of the meal offering is repeated in another verse he does not deem it indispensable?
אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא וַדַּאי מְעַכְּבָא, וְהָכָא בִּ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ ״בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ.
Rather, Shmuel must agree that wherever the verse repeats a rite it is certainly understood to be indispensable; and here, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the expressions “his handful” (Leviticus 2:2) and “with his hand” (Leviticus 6:8). As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall remove his handful,” and elsewhere it states: “And he shall take up from it with his hand.” The change in terminology between the two verses teaches that the priest should not use a utensil to measure an amount for the handful of a meal offering, but should use his hand.
רַב סָבַר: הָא נָמֵי תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וַיְמַלֵּא כַפּוֹ מִמֶּנָּה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל: דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.
Rav holds that this halakha of using one’s hand and not a utensil is also repeated in another verse, as it is written in the context of Aaron’s service on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle: “And he presented the meal offering; and he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17), demonstrating that the handful is removed by hand and not with a utensil. And Shmuel holds that we do not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation. Therefore, using one’s hand is not indispensable, as the general requirements of the rites of the meal offering cannot be derived from a verse referring to the meal offering that was sacrificed during the consecration of the Tabernacle.
וְלָא יָלֵיף שְׁמוּאֵל דּוֹרוֹת מִשָּׁעָה? וְהָתְנַן: כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח, וּמִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ, וְלֹא מִדֹּת יָבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלַּח.
The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel not derive the halakha for all generations from a temporary situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 88a): Service vessels used for the liquids sanctify only the liquids placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances sanctify only the dry substances that are placed in them. But service vessels used for the liquids do not sanctify the dry substances placed in them, and service vessels used to measure dry substances do not sanctify the liquids placed in them.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִדּוֹת, אֲבָל מִזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשִׁין, דִּכְתִיב ״שְׁנֵיהֶם מְלֵאִים סֹלֶת״!
And Shmuel says concerning this mishna: They taught that halakha only with regard to service vessels used to measure liquids, e.g., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry substances placed in them as well, as it is written with regard to the offerings of the princes during the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry substance. In this case, Shmuel does derive the general halakha from a temporary situation, in this case the offerings of the princes.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנִין.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the offering of the princes, it is different, as the verse is repeated twelve times, once with regard to each and every prince. Therefore, Shmuel derives a halakha for all generations from it. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the halakha for all generations cannot be derived from a temporary situation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: וַהֲרֵי הַגָּשָׁה, דִּתְנָא בָּהּ קְרָא, וְלָא מְעַכְּבָא! מַאן תְּנָא בֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״!
The Gemara returns to discussing Rav’s statement that a rite is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But what of bringing the meal offering to the corner of the altar, which is repeated in the verse, as it is stated: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8); and it is not indispensable, as stated in the mishna (18a)? The Gemara elaborates: Where is it repeated? As it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).
הָהוּא לִקְבּוֹעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara answers: That verse is not a repetition of the mitzva for the priest to bring the meal offering to the corner of the altar; rather, it comes only to establish the place for the meal offering and describe where it should be brought. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering. The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the meal offering must be brought on the western side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary and is therefore “before the Lord.” Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its southern side, where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse had merely stated: In front of the altar, one might have thought that the meal offering is brought only on the southern side of the altar, as just mentioned. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the western side. How can these texts be reconciled? The baraita answers: The priest brings it near on the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that will suffice for him.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the verse presents the priest with the option that he may bring it on the western side of the corner or on the southern side of the corner. You say the following principle: Any time you find two verses, one of which fulfills itself and fulfills the other, and one of which fulfills itself and negates the other, we set aside the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and we seize the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other.
שֶׁכְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, בִּטַּלְתָּה ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּה ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
He explains: As, when you say to bring the meal offering “before the Lord,” which indicates that it shall be brought on the western side, you have nullified the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “in front of the altar,” which is on the southern side. But when you say to bring the meal offering “in front of the altar” and offer it on the southern side, you have also fulfilled the other part of the verse, which states to bring it “before the Lord.”
וְהֵיכָא קִיַּימְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: But if one brought the meal offering on the southern side, where have you fulfilled: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi said: This tanna, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the entire altar stood in the northern part of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, opposite the Holy of Holies, directly before the Lord. In any event, it can be seen in this baraita that the purpose of the verse: “The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” is to establish the precise location where the meal offering is brought, and it does not serve as a repetition.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא: הֲרֵי מֶלַח, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא, וּמְעַכְּבָא בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא
The Gemara cites another objection to Rav’s statement that a rite of the meal offering is deemed indispensable if it is repeated in the verses. Rav Huna objects to this: But what of the placement of the salt on the handful of the meal offering before it is burned, which is not repeated in the verse, and yet it is still indispensable in its sacrifice? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), teaching that there will be
Follow
