## Menachot Daf 19a

###### Menachot 19a:1
[Menachot 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:1)

הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 19a:2
[Menachot 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 19a:3
[Menachot 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה? הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״יָד״ בְּקַבָּלָה, קִיבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 19a:4
[Menachot 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:4)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי (וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: לְאַחֲרָיו נִדְרָשׁ, וּלְפָנָיו אֵין נִדְרָשׁ).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 19a:5
[Menachot 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:5)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״וֶהֱבִיאָהּ״ – וָי״ו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 19a:6
[Menachot 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:6)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 19a:7
[Menachot 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:7)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְסָמַךְ ... וְשָׁחַט״, מָה סְמִיכָה בְּזָרִים – אַף שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 19a:8
[Menachot 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Menachot 19a:9
[Menachot 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, אֵין דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּעָלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 19a:10
[Menachot 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:10)

אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תּוֹרָה״ וְ״חוּקָּה״, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֲיָא, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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).


###### Menachot 19a:11
[Menachot 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:11)

(סִימָן: נת״ץ יקמ״ל.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*].


###### Menachot 19a:12
[Menachot 19a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:12)

וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר רַב: תְּנוּפָה בְּנָזִיר מְעַכְּבָא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ חוּקָּה דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 19a:13
[Menachot 19a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 19a:14
[Menachot 19a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 19a:15
[Menachot 19a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:15)

וַהֲרֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אֶלָּא חוּקָּה, וּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֶלָּא: אוֹ תּוֹרָה אוֹ חוּקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 19a:16
[Menachot 19a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:16)

וַהֲרֵי שְׁאָר קׇרְבָּנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ תּוֹרָה, וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי? תּוֹרָה בָּעֲיָא חוּקָּה, וְחוּקָּה לָא בָּעֲיָא תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 19a:17
[Menachot 19a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:17)

וְהָא תּוֹרָה וְחוּקָּה קָא אָמַר, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב תּוֹרָה, אִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 19a:18
[Menachot 19a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:18)

וַהֲרֵי מִנְחָה, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ חוּקָּה, וְאָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיר הַכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מִנְחָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְעַכֵּב, הֶחְזִיר – אִין, לֹא הֶחֱזִיר – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Menachot 19a:19
[Menachot 19a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:19)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא חוּקָּה – אַאֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 19a:20
[Menachot 19a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:20)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 19a:21
[Menachot 19a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:21)

אֶלָּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיבָא אַאֲכִילָה – אַכּוֹלָּא מִילְּתָא כְּתִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 19a:22
[Menachot 19a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/19a:22)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,