## Menachot Daf 93b

###### Menachot 93b:1
[Menachot 93b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:1)

דָּנִין יָחִיד מִיָּחִיד, וְאֵין דָּנִין יָחִיד מִצִּיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: He holds that **one derives** the *halakhot* of the offering of **an individual from** the *halakhot* of another offering of **an individual,** such as the burnt offering of appearance, **and one does not derive** the *halakhot* of the offering of **an individual from** the *halakhot* of **a communal** offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.


###### Menachot 93b:2
[Menachot 93b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:2)

וּלְמַאן דְּיָלֵיף מִזִּקְנֵי עֵדָה, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא יָלֵיף מֵעוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה? דָּנִין מִידֵּי דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ סְמִיכָה בְּגוּפֵיהּ, מִמִּידֵּי דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ סְמִיכָה בְּגוּפֵיהּ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה, דְּהִיא גּוּפַהּ מֵעוֹלַת נְדָבָה גָּמְרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who said** that the exclusion of a blind person is derived **from** the placing of hands performed by the **Elders of** the **congregation, what is the reason** that **he does not derive** this **from** the **burnt offering of appearance?** The Gemara answers: He holds that **one derives** the *halakhot* of **a matter** concerning **which** the requirement of **placing hands is** explicitly **written with regard to** that case **itself,** as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, **from** another **matter** concerning **which placing hands is** also explicitly **written with regard to** that case **itself,** as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves **to exclude** the possibility of deriving the *halakhot* from those of the **burnt offering of appearance, as** the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather **it itself is derived from** the requirement stated with regard to **a voluntary burnt offering.**


###### Menachot 93b:3
[Menachot 93b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:3)

דְּתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הָעֹלָה וַיַּעֲשֶׂהָ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט עוֹלַת נְדָבָה, לִימֵּד עַל עוֹלַת חוֹבָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה סְמִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as a *tanna* taught** in a *baraita* **in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba:** With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: **“And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordinance”** (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: **In accordance with the ordinance of a voluntary burnt offering.** Accordingly, this verse **teaches about** every **obligatory burnt offering,** including the burnt offering of appearance, **that it requires placing hands,** just as a voluntary burnt offering does.


###### Menachot 93b:4
[Menachot 93b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:4)

וְהָעֶבֶד וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ וְהָאִשָּׁה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יָדוֹ״ – וְלֹא יַד עַבְדּוֹ, ״יָדוֹ״ – וְלֹא יַד שְׁלוּחוֹ, ״יָדוֹ״ – וְלֹא יַד אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: A Canaanite **slave, the agent** of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, **and a woman** do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these *halakhot*, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. **“His hand”** (Leviticus 3:2), **but not the hand of his** Canaanite **slave; “his hand”** (Leviticus 3:8), **but not the hand of his agent; “his hand”** (Leviticus 3:13), **but not the hand of his wife.**


###### Menachot 93b:5
[Menachot 93b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:5)

כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא, אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חַד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי עֶבֶד, דְּלָאו בַּר מִצְוֹת, אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ דְּבַר מִצְוָה הוּא, וּשְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ, אֵימָא לִסְמוֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **all these** three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions **are necessary,** as **had the Merciful One written** only **one** exclusion, **I would say** that it serves **to exclude** only a Canaanite **slave, as** since **he is not commanded in mitzvot** it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. **But** with regard to **an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and** there is a principle that the halakhic status of **a person’s agent is like** that of **himself,** one might **say** that he **could place** his **hands** on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent.


###### Menachot 93b:6
[Menachot 93b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:6)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, דְּלָאו כְּגוּפֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ דִּכְגוּפֵיהּ דָּמְיָא, אֵימָא תִּיסְמֹךְ – צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Merciful One **taught us** only **these two** *halakhot*, one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, **as they are not considered like his own flesh. But** with regard to **his wife, who is considered like his own flesh,** one might **say** that **she places** her **hands** on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is **necessary** to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.


###### Menachot 93b:7
[Menachot 93b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:7)

סְמִיכָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְסָמַךְ״ ״וְנִרְצָה״, וְכִי סְמִיכָה מְכַפֶּרֶת? וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בַּדָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ, שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִסְמִיכָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר, וְכִיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: The requirement of **placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **“And he shall place his hand** upon the head of the burnt offering, **and it shall be accepted for him** to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The *baraita* asks: **But does** the rite of **placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement** effected **only through** the presentation of the **blood? As it is stated** with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, **for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement”** (Leviticus 17:11). **Rather,** the verse serves **to say to you that if one treated placing hands** as though it were **a non-essential mitzva** and therefore neglected to perform it, then **the verse ascribes him** blame **as though he did not effect atonement; but** nevertheless, in actuality, the offering **atones** for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.


###### Menachot 93b:8
[Menachot 93b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:8)

וְתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי תְנוּפָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: ״לִתְנוּפָה לְכַפֵּר״, וְכִי תְּנוּפָה מְכַפֶּרֶת? וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בַּדָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ, שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִתְנוּפָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר, וְכִיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to waving in this way:** “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering **to be waved to effect atonement** for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The *baraita* asks: **Does waving** the offering **effect atonement? Isn’t atonement** effected **only through** the presentation of **the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement”** (Leviticus 17:11). **Rather,** the verse serves **to say to you that if one treated waving** as though it were **a non-essential mitzva** and therefore neglected to perform it, then **the verse ascribes him** blame **as though he did not effect atonement; but** nevertheless, in actuality, the offering **effects atonement** for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.


###### Menachot 93b:9
[Menachot 93b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:9)

עַל הָרֹאשׁ, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יָדוֹ עַל הָרֹאשׁ״ – וְלֹא יָדוֹ עַל הַצַּוָּאר, ״יָדוֹ עַל הָרֹאשׁ״ – וְלֹא יָדוֹ עַל הַגַּבַּיִים, ״יָדוֹ עַל הָרֹאשׁ״ – וְלֹא יָדוֹ עַל הֶחָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further states that placing hands is performed by leaning **on the head** of the offering. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with **“his hand upon the head”** (Leviticus 3:2), **but not** with **his hand on the neck** of the animal; with **“his hand upon the head”** (Leviticus 3:8), **but not** with **his hand on the back** of the animal; with **“his hand upon the head”** (Leviticus 3:13), **but not** with **his hand on the breast** of the animal.


###### Menachot 93b:10
[Menachot 93b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:10)

כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי צַוָּאר, דְּלָא קָאֵי בַּהֲדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ, אֲבָל גַּבּוֹ דְּקָאֵי לַהֲדֵי רֹאשׁוֹ אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **all these** three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions **are necessary,** as **had the Merciful One written** only **one** exclusion, **I would say** that it serves **to exclude** only the animal’s **neck, as it is not level with the head of** the animal. **But** with regard to **its back, which is level with its head,** one might **say** that it is **not** precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is **necessary** to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back.


###### Menachot 93b:11
[Menachot 93b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:11)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תְּרֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אִיתְרַבִּי לִתְנוּפָה, אֲבָל חָזֶה דְּאִיתְרַבִּי לִתְנוּפָה, אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Torah **taught us** only **these two** *halakhot*, one would have excluded only the neck and the back, **as** those parts are **not included in** the **waving** of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. **But** with regard to the animal’s **breast, which is included in the waving** of the offering, one might say that it is **not** precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is **necessary** to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast.


###### Menachot 93b:12
[Menachot 93b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:12)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יָדוֹ עַל הַצְּדָדִין, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא בִּירָאָה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: ״יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״, וְלָא יָדוֹ עַל הַצְּדָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one placed **his hand on the sides** of the animal’s head, **what is** the *halakha*; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says** that the verse: “And he shall place **his hand upon the head of** the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand **on** the top of **its head and not** with **his hand on the sides** of its head.


###### Menachot 93b:13
[Menachot 93b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:13)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מַטְלֵית מַהוּ שֶׁתָּחוֹץ? תָּא שְׁמַע: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַזֶּבַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:** If one’s hands were wrapped in **a cloth, what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether the cloth is regarded as **an interposition** between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from a *baraita*, which states: The rite is valid **provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering.**


###### Menachot 93b:14
[Menachot 93b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:14)

וּבִשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁתֵּי יָדָו״, כְּתִיב ״יָדוֹ״ וּכְתִיב ״שְׁתֵּי״, זֶה בָּנָה אָב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״יָדוֹ״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁתַּיִם, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״אַחַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed **with two hands.** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Reish Lakish said: As the verse states** with regard to the Yom Kippur service: **“And Aaron shall place both his hands [*yadav*]** upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word *yadav*, meaning: His hands, is written without a second *yod*, and so if read without vowels it reads as: **His hand. But it is** also **written “both,”** which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. **This established a paradigm** that in **any place where it is stated** in the Torah: **His hand, there are here two** hands, **unless the verse** explicitly **specifies** that there is only **one.**


###### Menachot 93b:15
[Menachot 93b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:15)

אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אַמְרַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, וְלָא אַמְרַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. שְׁמַע רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְאִיקְּפַד, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״יָדוֹ״ תַּרְתֵּי נִינְהוּ, לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב ״יָדָיו״ ״יָדָיו״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Elazar went and stated this *halakha* in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard** about this **and became angry.** He **said to** Rabbi Elazar: **If it enters your mind** that **wherever it is written: His hand,** the meaning is that **there are** actually **two** hands, then **why do I** ever need the Torah **to write: His hands, his hands,** i.e., *yadav* in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?


###### Menachot 93b:16
[Menachot 93b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:16)

אַקְשִׁי לֵיהּ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע ״יָדָיו״, ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה״, ״יָדָיו רָב לוֹ״, ״שִׂכֵּל אֶת יָדָיו״ – אִישְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **raised objections against him** from **twenty-four** occasions where the Torah writes: **His hands,** for example: **“His own hands [*yadav*] shall bring** the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); **“his hands [*yadav*] shall contend for him,** and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); **“Guiding his hands [*yadav*] wittingly,** for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar **was silent,** as he had no response.


###### Menachot 93b:17
[Menachot 93b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:17)

לְבָתַר דְּנָח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תֵּימָא לִי, ״יָדָיו״ דִּסְמִיכָה קָאָמְרִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**After** Reish Lakish had **calmed down, he said to** Rabbi Elazar: **What is the reason** that **you did not say to me** the following: When I established that paradigm, **I was speaking** only about the term: **His hands [*yadav*], with regard to placing hands.** But with regard to other *halakhot*, when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”


###### Menachot 93b:18
[Menachot 93b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:18)

בִּסְמִיכָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּסְמֹךְ אֶת יָדָיו עָלָיו וַיְצַוֵּהוּ״, סְמִיכָה דִּבְהֵמָה קָאָמְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **also with regard to placing hands it is written,** concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: **“And he placed his hands [*yadav*] upon him** and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [*yadav*] instead of: His hand [*yado*]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, **I was speaking** only about the term: His hands [*yadav*], **with regard to placing hands** on **an animal** offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.


###### Menachot 93b:19
[Menachot 93b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:19)

וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, תֵּכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה. מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, שֶׁתֵּכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And in the** same **location** in the Temple **that one places hands, one slaughters** the animal. **And immediately following** the rite of **placing hands,** the **slaughter** is performed. The Gemara asks: **What is** the mishna **saying?** The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that **this** is what the mishna **is saying: In the** same **location** in the Temple **that one places hands one slaughters** the animal, **because immediately following** the rite of **placing hands,** the **slaughter** is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first.


###### Menachot 93b:20
[Menachot 93b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/93b:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** חוֹמֶר בַּסְּמִיכָה מִבַּתְּנוּפָה, וּבַתְּנוּפָה מִבַּסְּמִיכָה – שֶׁאֶחָד מֵנִיף לְכׇל הַחֲבֵרִים, וְאֵין אֶחָד סוֹמֵךְ לְכׇל הַחֲבֵרִים. חוֹמֶר בַּתְּנוּפָה – שֶׁהַתְּנוּפָה נוֹהֶגֶת בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד וּבְקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is an aspect of greater **stringency with regard to placing hands than** there is **with regard to waving, and** there is an aspect of greater stringency **with regard to waving than** there is **with regard to placing hands.** The stringency with regard to placing hands is **that** if several people are partners in bringing an offering, **one** of them **waves** the offering **on behalf of all the** other **partners, but one cannot** fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone **places hands on behalf of all the** other **partners;** rather, each member must place hands himself. **The stringency with regard to waving** is **that waving is practiced in** the cases of both **offerings of an individual,** e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, **and in** the cases of **communal offerings,** e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on *Shavuot*, which are waved together with the two loaves;