Menachot Daf 92 (מנחות דף צ״ב)
Daf: 92 | Amudim: 92a – 92b | Date: 12 Nisan 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (92a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Resolving the ewe libation question from a Shekalim mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִסְכֵי רְחֵלָה בְּכַמָּה? וּפָשְׁטִינָא לֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין: גְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ נִסְכֵי צֹאן שֶׁל גְּדוֹלִים וְשֶׁל קְטַנִּים, שֶׁל זְכָרִים וְשֶׁל נְקֵבוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אֵילִים.
English Translation:
How much wine is used for the libations of a ewe? And I resolved this question from that which is stated in a mishna (Shekalim 14b): Generally, the wine for libations would be procured from the supplies of the Temple. One bringing an offering would pay the Temple treasurer for the quantity of wine required, and then the treasurer would give him a token as a receipt indicating what had been paid for. The individual would then proceed to the official appointed over the Temple’s supplies to collect the wine he had paid for. If the token had the word: Kid, it could be used to collect wine for libations for sheep, whether large or small, male or female, except for those of rams. Evidently, the same quantity is required for the libations of ewes as for lambs.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the previous daf’s discussion about ewe libations. Rav Pappa resolved Rava’s test question from a practical mishna about Temple tokens. The “kid” token covered libations for all sheep — large or small, male or female — except rams. Since ewes fall into the non-ram category, they receive the same libation quantity as lambs (a quarter-hin). This practical system confirms the halakhic conclusion derived on the previous daf: there is no age-based distinction within female sheep.
Key Terms:
- רְחֵלָה = Ewe; a mature female sheep
- גְּדִי = Kid; the Temple token for standard sheep libations (quarter-hin)
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: which communal offerings require semikha (placing hands)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵין בָּהֶן סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִן הַפָּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף שָׂעִיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: For all communal offerings there is no mitzva of placing hands on the head of the offering, except for the bull that comes to atone for a community-wide violation of any one of the mitzvot that was perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, where the judges of the Sanhedrin are required to place their hands upon its head (see Leviticus 4:13–21); and the scapegoat brought on Yom Kippur, upon which the High Priest places his hands (see Leviticus, chapter 16). Rabbi Shimon says: Also in the case of the goat that comes to atone for a community-wide perpetration of idol worship that occurred due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, the judges of the Sanhedrin are required to place their hands upon its head (see Numbers 15:22–26).
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf shifts to an entirely new topic: semikha (the laying of hands on an offering’s head). The mishna establishes that communal offerings generally do not require semikha, with only two (or three, according to Rabbi Shimon) exceptions. The first tanna lists two: the bull for an erroneous communal ruling (par he’elem davar) and the Yom Kippur scapegoat. Rabbi Shimon adds a third: the goat brought when the Sanhedrin erroneously permits idol worship. This dispute will generate an extensive Gemara discussion.
Key Terms:
- סְמִיכָה = Placing hands; pressing both hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered
- פָּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת = The bull for all the mitzvot; brought when the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous ruling
- שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ = The scapegoat; sent to the wilderness on Yom Kippur
- שָׂעִיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה = The goat for idol worship; brought for a communal error regarding idolatry
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Individual offerings require semikha, except bekhor, ma’aser, and Pesach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַפֶּסַח.
English Translation:
All offerings of an individual require placing hands, except for the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna turns to individual offerings. The general rule is that all individual offerings require semikha — the owner presses both hands on the animal’s head before slaughter. Three exceptions are listed: the firstborn (which is automatically sacred from birth), the animal tithe (consecrated by the counting process), and the Paschal offering. Each exception will be derived from scripture in the Gemara.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר = Firstborn offering; automatically sacred from birth
- מַעֲשֵׂר = Animal tithe; every tenth animal passing under the rod
- פֶּסַח = Paschal offering; the lamb slaughtered on Erev Pesach
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
An heir can perform semikha, bring libations, and substitute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ, וּמֵבִיא נְסָכִים, וּמֵימֵר.
English Translation:
The mitzva of placing hands is performed by the owner of the offering. The mishna adds: And if the owner died, then the heir is regarded as the offering’s owner and so he places his hands on the offering and brings the accompanying libations. And furthermore, he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief but important ruling establishes that the heir inherits the full “ownership” status regarding the offering. Three specific owner-dependent acts are listed: semikha (which can only be performed by the owner), bringing libations (which are the owner’s responsibility), and the ability to make a temurah (substitution). This has practical implications for cases where someone consecrates an offering and then dies before it is sacrificed.
Key Terms:
- יוֹרֵשׁ = Heir; the inheritor of the deceased owner’s obligation
- מֵימֵר = He can substitute; the ability to create a temurah
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon vs. Rabbi Yehuda: which two communal offerings require semikha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵין בָּהֶן סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִפַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵין בָּהֶן סְמִיכָה, וְאֶת מִי אָבִיא תַּחְתֵּיהֶם – שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: For all communal offerings there is no mitzva of placing hands, except for the bull that comes to atone for a community-wide violation of any one of the mitzvot, and the goats that come to atone for a community-wide violation of the prohibition of idol worship; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no mitzva of placing hands with regard to the goats that come to atone for idol worship. But if this is the halakha, which offering shall I bring in their place? The scapegoat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita sharpens the dispute. Both Tannaim agree there are exactly two communal offerings that require semikha. They disagree on which two: Rabbi Shimon says the bull for erroneous rulings and the goat for idol worship. Rabbi Yehuda says the bull for erroneous rulings and the scapegoat. The fixed number of two is significant and is addressed in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- וְאֶת מִי אָבִיא תַּחְתֵּיהֶם = And which shall I bring in their place; Rabbi Yehuda’s search for the second case
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Why must there be exactly two? A tradition of two communal semikha instances
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מְעַיֵּיל? אָמַר רָבִינָא: גְּמִירִי שְׁתֵּי סְמִיכוֹת בְּצִבּוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita with a question: Why does Rabbi Yehuda search for an additional case? Is it not possible not to insert an additional case? Ravina said: It is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands is required for communal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina explains the premise: there is a fixed tradition (gemiri) that exactly two communal offerings require semikha. Neither Rabbi Yehuda nor Rabbi Shimon disputes this number — they only disagree on which two. This tradition constrains the debate: if one case is certain (the bull for erroneous rulings), the dispute is over the identity of the second.
Key Terms:
- גְּמִירִי = It is learned as a tradition; a received halakha
- שְׁתֵּי סְמִיכוֹת = Two instances of placing hands; the fixed number for communal offerings
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon’s challenge: semikha requires the owner, but the High Priest is not the scapegoat’s owner
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵין סְמִיכָה אֶלָּא בִּבְעָלִים, וְזֶה – אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו סוֹמְכִין בּוֹ! אָמַר לוֹ: אַף זֶה – אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: How can you include the scapegoat as one of the two cases requiring the placing of hands? Isn’t it the halakha that placing hands can be performed only by the offering’s owner, i.e., the one who will achieve atonement through the sacrifice of the offering? And with regard to this offering, the scapegoat, it is Aaron the High Priest or whichever of his sons serves as High Priest who places his hands on it, and yet it is not he who achieves atonement through it. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: With regard to this offering as well, that halakha is fulfilled because Aaron and his sons are considered owners, as they also achieve atonement through it together with the rest of the community.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fundamental challenge: semikha must be performed by the “owner” — the one who achieves atonement through the offering. On the scapegoat, the High Priest performs semikha. But according to Rabbi Shimon, the scapegoat atones for Israelites, not priests. The High Priest is therefore not the “owner” and cannot perform valid semikha. Rabbi Yehuda counters that the scapegoat atones for everyone, including priests, making the High Priest a legitimate owner.
Key Terms:
- סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים = Placing hands by the owners; only the one who achieves atonement performs semikha
- מִתְכַּפְּרִין = They achieve atonement; the priests are included in the scapegoat’s atonement (Rabbi Yehuda)
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yirmeya: they each follow their established reasoning about Yom Kippur atonement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates on the dispute. Rabbi Yirmeya said: And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, who disagree as to whether the High Priest achieves atonement through the scapegoat, each follow their standard line of reasoning.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya identifies this as an application of a broader dispute about the Yom Kippur atonement structure. The disagreement about semikha on the scapegoat is not independent — it flows directly from how each Tanna understands the distribution of atonement across the various Yom Kippur offerings.
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The Yom Kippur atonement structure: Leviticus 16:33 — each phrase atones for different things
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – זֶה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, ״וְאֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – זֶה הֵיכָל, ״מִזְבֵּחַ״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ הָעֲזָרוֹת, ״כֹּהֲנִים״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעָן, ״עַל כׇּל עַם הַקָּהָל״ – אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ הַלְוִיִּם.
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: At the end of the passage delineating the Yom Kippur Temple service, the verse states: “He shall bring atonement upon the sanctum of the sacred, and upon the Tent of Meeting and the altar he shall effect atonement; and upon the priests and upon all the people, shall he bring atonement” (Leviticus 16:33). “He shall bring atonement upon the sanctum of the sacred”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the Holy of Holies. “And upon the Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary. “And the altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning. “He shall effect atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards. “And upon the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning. “And upon all the people”; these are the Israelites. “Shall he bring atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita unpacks Leviticus 16:33, assigning each phrase to a specific object or group that receives atonement on Yom Kippur. The verse covers both physical spaces (Holy of Holies, Sanctuary, altar, courtyards) and people (priests, Israelites, Levites). The crucial question — addressed in the next segments — is whether all these groups are atoned for through a single offering (the scapegoat) or through different offerings.
Key Terms:
- לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים = The innermost sanctum; the Holy of Holies
- הֵיכָל = The Sanctuary; the main hall of the Temple building
- עֲזָרוֹת = The courtyards; the Temple precincts
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yehuda: all are equated — the scapegoat atones for everyone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּשְׁווּ כּוּלָּן לְכַפָּרָה אַחַת, שֶׁמִּתְכַּפְּרִין בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
All of them are equated with regard to the fact that they are all atoned for through one atonement, i.e., that they are atoned for by the scapegoat for all transgressions other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda’s position: the verse equates all groups (priests, Israelites, Levites) in that they all receive atonement through a single offering — the scapegoat. For non-Temple-defilement sins, everyone achieves atonement through the High Priest’s confession over the scapegoat. This is why Rabbi Yehuda considers the High Priest a legitimate “owner” for semikha purposes.
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Shimon: priests are atoned through the bull, not the scapegoat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּם שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – כָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁוִּידּוּי שֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת – כָּךְ וִידּוּי שֶׁל פָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the blood of the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary atones for Israelites for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, so too, the blood of the bull of the High Priest, whose blood presentation is also performed inside the Sanctuary, atones for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. And just as the confession made over the scapegoat atones for Israelites for other transgressions, so too, the confession made over the bull atones for the priests for other transgressions. It is apparent from the baraita that it is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the scapegoat atones for both Israelites and priests, and consequently the High Priest may be considered an owner with regard to the mitzva of placing hands.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon presents a parallel structure: Israelites have their pair of atonement offerings (goat’s blood for Temple defilement + scapegoat confession for other sins), and priests have their own parallel pair (bull’s blood for Temple defilement + bull confession for other sins). The scapegoat serves Israelites only, not priests. This is why Rabbi Shimon denies that the High Priest is an “owner” of the scapegoat — he achieves atonement through the bull, not the scapegoat.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו = Defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; a specific category of transgression
- שְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת = Other transgressions; all sins besides Temple defilement
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon concedes they are equated — but each group has its own atonement mechanism
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא וַדַּאי הוּשְׁווּ? אִין, הוּשְׁווּ דִּבְנֵי כַּפָּרָה נִינְהוּ, מִיהוּ כֹּל חַד וְחַד מְכַפֵּר בִּדְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Shimon’s opinion: And according to Rabbi Shimon, one can ask: Weren’t both Israelites and priests certainly equated in the verse in Leviticus? In what way are they equated in the verse? The Gemara explains: Yes, according to his opinion they are equated in that they are all subject to atonement on Yom Kippur, but each one of the groups achieves atonement in its own way. The priests achieve atonement through the bull brought by the High Priest and his confession, while the Israelites and Levites achieve atonement through the confession over the scapegoat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon reads the verse’s equation as structural, not substantive. All groups are “equated” in the sense that Yom Kippur provides atonement for all of them. But the mechanism differs: priests have their own dedicated atonement channel (the bull), while Israelites and Levites have theirs (the scapegoat). The equality is in the completeness of the system, not in the identity of the vehicle.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Summary: the dispute charted out
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, יִשְׂרָאֵל מְכַפְּרִי בְּדַם שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים, וְכֹהֲנִים בְּפַר שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מְכַפְּרִי בְּוִידּוּי שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – בִּשְׁאָר עֲבֵירוֹת נָמֵי, כֹּהֲנִים בְּוִידּוּי דְּפַר מִתְכַּפְּרִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara summarizes: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, Israelites achieve atonemment through the presentation of the blood of the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, and the priests achieve atonemment through the presentation of the blood of the bull of Aaron, i.e., of the High Priest. And for other transgressions, both these Israelites and those priests achieve atonement through the confession made over the scapegoat. But according to Rabbi Shimon, for other transgressions as well, the priests achieve atonement through the confession made over the bull of the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides a clear summary chart. The key difference: Rabbi Yehuda has priests and Israelites converging on the scapegoat for non-Temple sins, while Rabbi Shimon keeps them entirely separate — priests always through the bull, Israelites always through the goat/scapegoat.
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
Supporting citation from Shevuot: Rabbi Yehuda vs. Rabbi Shimon on priestly atonement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְקָתָנֵי: אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, מָה בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֲנִים וּלְכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ? אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
This understanding of their dispute is just like that which is taught in a mishna (Shevuot 2b): Israelites and priests and the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, achieve atonement from the scapegoat equally. What is the difference between Israelites, priests, and the anointed priest? It is only that the bull of the High Priest that he offers on Yom Kippur atones for the priests for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, whereas the Israelites achieve atonement for defiling caused by them through the goats that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the Shevuot mishna as direct support for the characterization of the dispute. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the scapegoat atones equally for all — Israelites, priests, and the High Priest — with only one difference: for Temple defilement, priests have their own vehicle (the bull). This confirms Rabbi Yehuda’s view that the High Priest achieves atonement through the scapegoat and is therefore a valid “owner” for semikha.
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon in Shevuot: separate atonement tracks for priests and Israelites
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל – כָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁוִּידּוּיוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל – כָּךְ וִידּוּיוֹ שֶׁל פָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, just as the blood of the goat, whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, atones for Israelites, so too, the blood of the bull of the High Priest, whose blood presentation is also performed inside the Sanctuary, atones for the priests. And for all other transgressions, just as the confession made over the scapegoat atones for Israelites, so too, the confession made over the bull atones for the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon’s parallel structure is confirmed from Shevuot: the entire atonement system runs on two parallel tracks that never merge. Israelites: goat blood (Temple defilement) + scapegoat confession (other sins). Priests: bull blood (Temple defilement) + bull confession (other sins). The scapegoat is exclusively for Israelites.
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Scriptural source: “the bull” — only the bull requires semikha, not the idol worship goats
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְסָמְכוּ זִקְנֵי הָעֵדָה אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ הַפָּר״ – פַּר טָעוּן סְמִיכָה, וְאֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree as to whether or not the goats that come for a community-wide violation of the prohibition against idol worship require the rite of placing hands. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bull that comes to atone for a community-wide violation of one of the mitzvot: “And the elders of the congregation shall place their hands upon the head of the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 4:15). The verse specifies that this requirement applies to the bull to indicate that, with regard to offerings brought for community-wide transgressions, only the bull requires placing hands, but the goats brought for idol worship do not require placing hands; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda derives the exclusion from the specificity of “the bull” in Leviticus 4:15. By emphasizing “the bull,” the verse implies that only this particular communal offering requires semikha by the elders — not other communal sin offerings like the idol worship goats.
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Shimon: “the bull” specifies who performs semikha, not whether it is required
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פַּר טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בִּזְקֵנִים, וְאֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בִּזְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא בְּאַהֲרֹן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon says: Both offerings require placing hands. The verse specifies the requirement with regard to the bull because only it requires that placing hands be performed by Elders of the Sanhedrin, but the goats brought for idol worship do not require that placing hands be performed by the Elders, but rather by Aaron, i.e., the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon reads “the bull” differently. Both the bull and the idol worship goats require semikha — but the verse specifies the bull to teach that only the bull requires semikha by the elders (zekenim). The goats require semikha by the High Priest (Aaron). The exclusion is about who performs semikha, not whether it is performed.
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction between two baraitot about Rabbi Shimon’s view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״הַחַי״ – הַחַי טָעוּן סְמִיכָה, וְאֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חַי״ טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בְּאַהֲרֹן,
English Translation:
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: With regard to the Yom Kippur scapegoat, the verse states: “And Aaron shall place both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins” (Leviticus 16:21). The emphasis of “the live goat” indicates that with regard to communal offerings of goats, only the live goat, i.e., the scapegoat, requires placing hands, but the goats brought for idol worship do not require placing hands; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Both offerings require placing hands. The verse specifies the requirement with regard to the live goat to teach that it requires that placing hands be performed by Aaron, i.e., the High Priest,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a contradiction. In the first baraita, Rabbi Shimon says the idol worship goats require semikha by Aaron (the High Priest). In this second baraita, Rabbi Shimon says the scapegoat requires semikha by Aaron, implying that the idol worship goats do NOT require semikha by Aaron but rather by the elders. These two positions appear inconsistent.
Amud Bet (92b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Continuation of the contradictory baraita: idol worship goats require semikha by elders
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה בְּאַהֲרֹן, אֶלָּא בִּזְקֵנִים.
English Translation:
but the goats brought for idol worship do not require that placing hands be performed by Aaron. Rather, they require that it be performed by the Elders of the Sanhedrin. This contradicts the baraita that states that Rabbi Shimon holds that placing hands on the goats brought for idol worship is performed by the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradiction is now explicit. The first baraita has Rabbi Shimon saying the idol worship goats require semikha by Aaron; the second baraita has him saying they require semikha by the elders. One of the baraitot must be emended.
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Sheshet: the first baraita is flawed — Rabbi Shimon requires owners, and the High Priest is not the owner
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וְתִסְבְּרָא דְּהָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא? הָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: סְמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים בָּעֵינַן!
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet said: And how can you understand that this first baraita is accurate, in order to use it as the basis for a contradiction? But didn’t Rabbi Shimon say that we require that placing hands be performed by the owners, i.e., those who will achieve atonement through the offering? The goat brought for idol worship is brought to atone for the Sanhedrin and the people, not for the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet resolves the contradiction by showing that the first baraita cannot accurately represent Rabbi Shimon. Since Rabbi Shimon holds that semikha must be performed by the owners (those achieving atonement), and the idol worship goats atone for the community via the Sanhedrin (not the High Priest), the High Priest cannot perform semikha on them. The first baraita must be emended.
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Corrected version: Rabbi Yehuda derives from “the bull,” Rabbi Shimon from “the live goat”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: ״הַפָּר״ – פַּר טָעוּן סְמִיכָה, וְאֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״הַחַי״ – חַי טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בְּאַהֲרֹן, וְאֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה בְּאַהֲרֹן, אֶלָּא בִּזְקֵנִים.
English Translation:
Rather, answer that the earlier baraita teaches as follows: The verse specifies the requirement of placing hands with regard to the bull brought for a community-wide transgression to indicate that only that bull requires placing hands, but the goats brought for idol worship do not require placing hands; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse specifies the requirement of placing hands with regard to the live goat, i.e., the scapegoat, to indicate that only that live goat requires that placing hands be performed by Aaron, i.e., the High Priest, but the goats brought for a community-wide perpetration of idol worship do not require that placing hands be performed by Aaron. Rather, they require that it be performed by the Elders of the Sanhedrin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The corrected baraita assigns different verses to each Tanna. Rabbi Yehuda derives his exclusion from “the bull” (Leviticus 4:15). Rabbi Shimon derives his distinction from “the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21): the scapegoat requires Aaron’s semikha, but the idol worship goats require the elders’ semikha. This is consistent with Rabbi Shimon’s principle that semikha must be performed by the owners.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
What Rabbi Shimon was really saying to Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכִי קָא אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בָּעוּ סְמִיכָה, וְאִי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ דְּלָא בָּעוּ סְמִיכָה – בְּאַהֲרֹן הוּא דִּשְׁמִיעַ לָךְ, וּמִיעוּטָא מֵ״הַחַי״ הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And this is what Rabbi Shimon was saying to Rabbi Yehuda: Goats brought for idol worship require placing hands. And if you heard a tradition that they do not require placing hands, it is only with regard to the fact that it is not to be performed by Aaron, i.e., the High Priest, that you heard that tradition, and the exclusion of the High Priest from having to place hands is derived from the term “the live goat.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon concedes that Rabbi Yehuda may have a tradition that the idol worship goats lack semikha — but argues that the tradition was actually about who performs semikha, not whether it is performed. The exclusion is only of the High Priest (Aaron), not of semikha entirely. The elders still perform it.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Why does Rabbi Yehuda need a verse if there is a tradition of only two communal semikha cases?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְמָה לִי לְמַעֹטִינְהוּ מִקְּרָא? וְהָא אָמַר רָבִינָא: גְּמִירִי שְׁתֵּי סְמִיכוֹת בְּצִבּוּר, גִּירְסָא בְּעָלְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara questions Rabbi Yehuda’s statement: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need to exclude the goats brought for idol worship from the requirement of placing hands by deriving this exclusion from a verse? Didn’t Ravina say that it is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands is required for communal offerings? Accordingly, once it has been established that placing hands is required for the bull brought for a community-wide transgression and for the scapegoat, it follows that it is not required in any other case. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the tradition Ravina cited is merely a well-known statement. It is not a tradition that was transmitted to Moses; rather, the Sages formulated it to remember the halakha that they derived from the verses.
קלאוד על הדף:
A key clarification about the nature of the tradition. Rabbi Yehuda does not treat it as a halakha leMoshe miSinai but rather as a summary mnemonic (girsa be’alma) — a teaching device that encapsulates the derived halakha. The actual derivation comes from the verses, and the “tradition” merely aids memory. This has implications for how much authority the tradition carries.
Key Terms:
- גִּירְסָא בְּעָלְמָא = Merely a well-known statement; a mnemonic, not a Sinaitic tradition
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
From where does Rabbi Shimon derive that idol worship goats require semikha?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּבָעֲיָא סְמִיכָה – מְנָלַן?
English Translation:
The Gemara questions Rabbi Shimon’s statement: And according to Rabbi Shimon, from where do we derive that the goats brought for idol worship require placing hands?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that Rabbi Shimon includes the idol worship goats, the Gemara asks for his scriptural source.
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
“Of the goat” — Rabbi Yehuda includes Nahshon’s goat; Rabbi Shimon includes idol worship goats
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָפְקָא לַן מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן לִסְמִיכָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לִסְמִיכָה, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנִים טְעוּנָה סְמִיכָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that we derive it from that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When a king sins…he shall bring for his offering an unblemished male goat. And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat” (Leviticus 4:22–24). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds “of the goat” is to include the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon (see Numbers 7:12–17) in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The term “of the goat” serves to include the goats brought as sin offerings for communal idol worship in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering, as Rabbi Shimon would say: Any sin offering whose blood enters inside the Sanctuary requires placing hands.
קלאוד על הדף:
The seemingly redundant phrase “of the goat” (hashair) in Leviticus 4:24 provides the source. Rabbi Yehuda uses it to include Nahshon’s inaugural goat offering. Rabbi Shimon uses it to include the idol worship goats. Rabbi Shimon adds a broader principle: any sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary (not just on the outer altar) requires semikha. The idol worship goat’s blood enters the Sanctuary, qualifying it.
Key Terms:
- שְׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן = Nahshon’s goat; the goat sin offering brought during the Tabernacle inauguration
- כׇּל חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנִים = Any sin offering whose blood enters inside; a principle connecting interior blood presentation to semikha
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
“As Rabbi Shimon would say” is merely a mnemonic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמָה לִי לְמֵימְרָא ״שֶׁהָיָה״? סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara questions the concluding statement of the baraita: Why do I need the baraita to state: As Rabbi Shimon would say? The statement would appear to explain that Rabbi Shimon’s ruling is merely an expression of a principle that he held, while the baraita itself explains that Rabbi Shimon derived the matter from the repetition of the word “goat.” The Gemara explains: The statement is not presenting the basis of his ruling but is merely a mnemonic to aid in remembering it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The principle “any sin offering whose blood enters inside requires semikha” is not the actual derivation (which comes from the word “goat”) but rather a memory device. This distinction is important: the halakha is grounded in the verse, not in an independent logical principle.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנָא = A mnemonic; a memory aid, not a source of law
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Why not include the Yom Kippur goat instead of the idol worship goat?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא: שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים! דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא, דִּמְכַפֵּר עַל עֲבֵירוֹת מִצְוָה יְדוּעָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara questions why Rabbi Shimon expounds the word “goat” as referring to goats brought for idol worship: But why not say that the word “goat” includes the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: It is more reasonable to include a goat offering that is similar to the offering mentioned in that verse, i.e., the goat of a king, which atones for known transgressions of a mitzva. A goat brought for idol worship is similar in this regard, whereas the goat brought on Yom Kippur atones specifically for transgressions of which the transgressor is unaware.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara uses the principle of similarity (dumya). The verse discusses the goat of a king (nasi), which atones for a known sin. The idol worship goat is more similar — it also atones for a known transgression (the erroneous ruling permitting idolatry was known to the Sanhedrin). The Yom Kippur goat atones for unknown sins. Greater similarity determines which offering is included.
Key Terms:
- עֲבֵירוֹת מִצְוָה יְדוּעָה = Known transgressions; sins the perpetrator is aware of
- דּוּמְיָא = Similar to; the principle of analogy
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Why does Rabbi Shimon need a verse if the tradition already requires two communal semikha cases?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרָבִינָא דְּאָמַר: גְּמִירִי שְׁתֵּי סְמִיכוֹת בְּצִיבּוּר, קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי?
English Translation:
The Gemara questions why Rabbi Shimon needs a verse at all: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said: It is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands is required for communal offerings, why do I need any verses, i.e., why do I need the word “goat,” to include goats brought for idol worship in the requirement of placing hands? Since he holds that the priests do not achieve atonement through the scapegoat, perforce the goat brought to atone for idol worship must require placing hands, as otherwise there would not be two instances.
קלאוד על הדף:
If there is a tradition of exactly two communal semikha cases, and Rabbi Shimon excludes the scapegoat (since he denies it is the High Priest’s offering), then the idol worship goat must be the second case by default. Why, then, does he need a verse?
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Both the tradition and the verse are necessary
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיצְטְרִיךְ הִלְכְתָא, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: The halakha learned by tradition was necessary, and the exposition of the verses was necessary as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Both sources serve complementary functions. Neither alone is sufficient, as the following segments explain.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Without the tradition: the verse alone would include communal peace offerings via kal vachomer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאִי מִקְּרָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: As, if the halakha were to be derived only from the verse, I would say through an a fortiori inference that even communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs brought with the two loaves on the festival of Shavuot, require placing of the hands.
קלאוד על הדף:
Without the tradition limiting semikha to exactly two communal offerings, the verse might be used to derive additional cases through kal vachomer (a fortiori reasoning). Specifically, one could argue that communal peace offerings (the Shavuot lambs) should require semikha.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
The kal vachomer from the Menachot 61a mishna about three types requiring three mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי קֻשְׁיָא אַמַּתְנִיתִין דְּהָךְ פִּירְקָא, דְּ״כׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת״, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין טְעוּנִין שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: This is like the difficulty raised against the mishna of that chapter, i.e., Chapter Five, which begins: All the meal offerings come to be offered as matza. The mishna there states (61a): Rabbi Shimon says: There are three types of offerings that require performance of three mitzvot; in each case, two of the mitzvot apply, but not the third. The mishna continues: Peace offerings brought by individuals require placing hands on the head of the animal while the animal is still alive, and waving after it is slaughtered, but there is no obligation to wave it while it is alive. Communal peace offerings require waving both while they are alive and after they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation to place hands on them. And the guilt offering of the leper requires placing hands and waving while alive, but there is no obligation to wave it after it is slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
This cross-reference to Menachot 61a provides the kal vachomer. Individual peace offerings require semikha but not live waving. Communal peace offerings require live waving. If individual peace offerings — with fewer requirements — still require semikha, shouldn’t communal peace offerings — with more requirements — also require semikha? The tradition of exactly two cases prevents this inference.
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
The kal vachomer spelled out
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר, וִיהוּ זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: מָה שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים, טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה חַיִּים וְכוּ׳. אִיצְטְרִיךְ הִלְכְתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara there (62b) raises the following difficulty: Let us bring an a fortiori inference to the contrary, i.e., conclude that communal peace offerings should require placing hands through an a fortiori inference: If peace offerings brought by an individual, whose halakha is more lenient than that of communal peace offerings in that they do not require waving while alive, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to communal peace offerings, which do require waving when alive, is it not logical to conclude that they require placing hands? To counter this inference it was necessary to have the halakha learned by tradition to limit the requirement of placing hands to only two instances.
קלאוד על הדף:
The kal vachomer is compelling: if less-demanding individual peace offerings require semikha, certainly more-demanding communal peace offerings should too. Only the tradition of exactly two communal semikha cases blocks this inference. This is why the tradition is indispensable — without it, the verse-based derivation would overextend.
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Without the verse: the tradition alone would not identify which offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי מֵהִלְכְתָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי נִינְהוּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דּוּמְיָא דִּשְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא, דִּמְכַפֵּר עַל עֲבֵירוֹת מִצְוָה יְדוּעָה.
English Translation:
And conversely, if it were derived only from the halakha learned by tradition, without the exposition of the verse, I would say that we do not know exactly which offering other than the bull brought for a community-wide transgression requires placing hands. Therefore, the word “goat” teaches us that the second instance is a goat offering similar to the offering mentioned in that verse, specifically the goat of a king, which atones for known transgressions of a mitzva, i.e., a goat brought for idol worship.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse is also true: the tradition tells us there are exactly two cases but does not specify which ones. Without the verse’s “goat,” we would not know the second case is the idol worship goat. The verse provides the identification; the tradition provides the constraint. Each is necessary and neither is sufficient alone.
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
Returning to individual offerings: all require semikha except bekhor, ma’aser, Pesach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִבְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: All offerings of an individual require placing hands except for the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s second clause about individual offerings and begins a detailed derivation of each exclusion from scripture.
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
“His offering” excludes the bekhor — despite an a fortiori argument
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא הַבְּכוֹר, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה שְׁלָמִים שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁתָן מֵרֶחֶם טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, בְּכוֹר שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן סְמִיכָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא הַבְּכוֹר.
English Translation:
Leviticus, chapter 3, discusses peace offerings and details the obligation of placing hands. The term “his offering” is mentioned a number of times. Each time serves to emphasize that peace offerings require placing hands and to exclude another type of offering from that requirement. The Sages taught a baraita detailing which offerings are excluded and why one might have thought otherwise. “His offering” (Leviticus 3:1) requires placing hands, but not the firstborn offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If a peace offering, whose consecration does not originate from being in its mother’s womb, nevertheless requires placing hands, then with regard to a firstborn offering, whose consecration originates from the womb, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands but the firstborn offering does not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives each exclusion from the repeated phrase “his offering” (korbano) in Leviticus 3. For the bekhor: one might argue that since peace offerings (which lack womb-based sanctity) require semikha, the firstborn (which has automatic womb-based sanctity — a greater level of holiness) should certainly require semikha. The verse counters this: “his offering” — only an offering that the person voluntarily designates, not one that is automatically consecrated.
Key Terms:
- קׇרְבָּנוֹ = His offering; emphasizing personal, voluntary designation
- קְדוּשָּׁתָן מֵרֶחֶם = Their consecration from the womb; automatic sanctity
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
“His offering” excludes the animal tithe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה שְׁלָמִים שֶׁאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁמְּקַדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן סְמִיכָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
“His offering” (Leviticus 3:2) requires placing hands, but not the animal tithe offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If peace offerings, which are unlike the animal tithe in that their designation does not consecrate the animals before and after them, i.e., this unique stringency of animal tithe does not apply to them, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to an animal tithe offering, which can consecrate the animals before and after it, as in the case where the ninth or eleventh animal to be counted was mistakenly designated as the tenth animal, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands, but the animal tithe offering does not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The animal tithe has a unique stringency: when counting animals and the tenth is designated, errors in counting (the ninth or eleventh) also become consecrated. This “spreading” sanctity might suggest greater holiness than peace offerings. The kal vachomer: if peace offerings (without this power) require semikha, certainly the animal tithe (with this power) should. “His offering” counters this — the tithe is not a personal, voluntary offering.
Key Terms:
- מְקַדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו = Consecrates before and after it; the ninth and eleventh animals also become sacred
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
“His offering” excludes the Paschal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא פֶּסַח, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה שְׁלָמִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּ״עֲמוֹד וְהָבֵא״ טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, פֶּסַח שֶׁהוּא בַּ״עֲמוֹד וְהָבֵא״ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן סְמִיכָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – וְלֹא פֶּסַח.
English Translation:
The baraita concludes: “His offering” (Leviticus 3:6) requires placing hands, but not the Paschal offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If peace offerings, which are not subject to a positive mitzva to arise and bring them, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to a Paschal offering, which is subject to a positive mitzva to arise and bring it, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands, but the Paschal offering does not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Paschal offering carries a unique stringency: there is a positive commandment (amod vehave — “arise and bring”) to offer it, and failure to do so carries the severe penalty of karet. Peace offerings have no such obligation. If the less-obligatory peace offerings require semikha, the more-obligatory Pesach should certainly require it. “His offering” overrides this reasoning.
Key Terms:
- עֲמוֹד וְהָבֵא = Arise and bring; an affirmative obligation to sacrifice the Paschal offering
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
The kal vachomer arguments can all be refuted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִשְׁלָמִים שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין נְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק? קְרָאֵי אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects the inferences of the baraita: Each of these a fortiori inferences can be refuted. What is notable about peace offerings? They are notable in that they require libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. Therefore, a halakha that applies to peace offerings cannot necessarily be applied to the firstborn offering, animal tithe offering, or Paschal offering, which do not share those requirements. Accordingly, the verses that the baraita cites must be understood as a mere support, but are not actually necessary to counter the a fortiori inferences.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflates all three kal vachomer arguments with a single refutation: peace offerings have unique features (libations, breast/thigh waving) that the three excluded offerings lack. Since the kal vachomer can be “broken” (pirka), the derivations from “his offering” are not strictly necessary but serve as asmakhta (scriptural supports) for a halakha already established.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ = It can be refuted; the kal vachomer has a weakness
- תְּנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק = Waving of the breast and thigh; unique to peace offerings
- אַסְמַכְתָּא = Scriptural support; not the actual source of the halakha
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Transition: but if so, what is the actual source?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief transitional word opens the question of what the actual source is for excluding bekhor, ma’aser, and Pesach from semikha, if the verses are merely asmakhta. The continuation appears on the next daf.