His Offering and the Hand That Leans Upon It

"And he shall lay his hand" (Leviticus 3:2), and not his son's hand, and not his servant's hand (this is written in hint 438). "His offering," and not the firstborn. For one might suppose, is this not an argument from logic? If peace-offerings, whose sanctity is not from the womb, require the laying on of hands, then the firstborn, whose sanctity is from the womb, surely should require the laying on of hands. But there is room to refute: what of peace-offerings, which require the laying on of hands and libations and the breast and the thigh? Now the proof from logic is merely a supporting allusion. Then why are the verses needed? "His offering," and not his fellow's offering; "his offering," and not a gentile's offering; "his offering," to include all owners of an offering for the laying on of hands. It was taught: an heir lays on hands, an heir makes a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: an heir does not lay on hands, an heir does not make a substitute. What is Rabbi Judah's reason? It is written "his offering," and not his father's offering, and he derives the start of consecration from the end of consecration: just as at the end an heir does not lay on hands, so at the start an heir does not make a substitute. And the Sages? "He shall surely exchange" (Leviticus 27:10) includes the heir, and they derive the end from the start: just as at the start an heir makes a substitute, so at the end an heir lays on hands. And the Sages, what do they do with "his offering"? "His offering," not a gentile's; "his offering," not his fellow's; "his offering," to include all owners of an offering for the laying on of hands. And Rabbi Judah, what does he do with "he shall surely exchange"? He needs it to include the woman, for it was taught: since the whole matter speaks only in the masculine, how in the end do we include the woman? Therefore it teaches "he shall surely exchange." And the Sages derive the woman from "and if," while Rabbi Judah does not expound "and if." "His offering, his offering, his offering" includes all owners of an offering. And is this not an argument from logic? If the wave-offering, which applies to living and slaughtered animals, is diminished when partners join, then the laying on of hands, which applies only to living animals, surely should be diminished with partners; therefore Scripture teaches "his offering, his offering, his offering" to include all owners of an offering. "His offering," and not the firstborn; for is this not logic? If peace-offerings, whose sanctity is not from the womb, require hands, then the firstborn, whose sanctity is from the womb, surely should; therefore it teaches "his offering," and not the firstborn. "His offering," and not the tithe of animals; for if peace-offerings, which are not in the category of "stand and bring," require hands, then the tithe, which is in the category of "stand and bring," surely should; therefore it teaches "his offering," and not the tithe. "His offering," and not the Passover-offering; for if peace-offerings, upon which Scripture has not heaped extra commands, require hands, then the Passover-offering, upon which Scripture has heaped extra commands, surely should; therefore it teaches "his offering," and not the Passover-offering.