Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

Another interpretation: He speaks of Moses, with whom He spoke by speech and by vision, as it is said, "Mouth to mouth I speak with him" (Numbers 12:8). "To Your pious one" (Psalms 89:20), for he was of the tribe of Levi, as it is said, "And of Levi he said: Your Tummim and Your Urim be with Your pious one" (Deuteronomy 33:8). "And You said, I have set help upon a mighty one" (Psalms 89:20): a load too heavy for six hundred thousand was easy for Moses. "I have exalted one chosen from the people" (Psalms 89:20). "Had it not been for Moses His chosen one" (Psalms 106:23).

Rabbi Tanchuma opened: "There is gold and abundance of rubies, but lips of knowledge are a precious vessel" (Proverbs 20:15). In the way of the world, a man may have silver and gold and precious stones and pearls and every good desire in the world, but if there is no knowledge in him, what benefit has he? A proverb says: you have acquired knowledge, what do you lack? you lack knowledge, what have you acquired? "There is gold," in the freewill offering of the Tabernacle, as it is written, "And this is the offering you shall take from them: gold" (Exodus 25:3). "And abundance of rubies," this is the offering of the princes, "And the princes brought the onyx stones" (Exodus 35:27). "But lips of knowledge are a precious vessel," because the soul of Moses was downcast within him; he said, all of them brought their offering to the Tabernacle, but I brought nothing. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: by your life, your speech is more precious to Me than all of these. Know it, for of all of them the Speech called only to Moses, as it is said, "And He called to Moses." What is written above the matter, in the section of the Tabernacle? "As the LORD commanded Moses." A parable: to a king who commanded his servant and said, build me a palace. On everything he built, he would write upon it the name of the king. He built walls and wrote on them the king's name; he raised pillars and wrote on them the king's name; he roofed it with beams and wrote on them the king's name. In time the king entered the palace, and on everything he looked at he found his name. The king said: all this honor my servant did for me, and I am within and he is without; call him to enter inside. So too, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, make Me a Tabernacle, on everything he made he wrote, "As the LORD commanded Moses." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: all this honor Moses did for Me, and I am within and he is without; He called him to enter inside, therefore it says, "And He called to Moses." A parable: to a king who entered a province, and with him dukes and governors and generals, and the people did not know which of them was the most beloved, except the one to whom the king turns his face and speaks. So Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders, we do not know which was beloved, except the one whom the Holy One, blessed be He, calls; He called Moses and spoke with him, so we know he was the most beloved of all; therefore it says, "And He called to Moses." A parable: to a king who entered a province, with whom does he speak first, if not with the governor of the province, because he is occupied with the sustenance of the province. So Moses was occupied with the purity of Israel; he said, "This you may eat," and this you may not eat, "These you may eat of all that are in the water" (Leviticus 11:9), "And these you shall hold in abomination among the birds," "And this is unclean for you" (Leviticus 11:29); therefore it says, "And He called to Moses."

"And He called to Moses" (Leviticus 1:1). But to Adam He did not call, for it is written, "And the LORD God called to the man" (Genesis 3:9); yet there is no disgrace for a king to speak with his tenant farmer. "And the LORD spoke to him"; and with Noah He did not first call, for it is written, "And God spoke to Noah" (Genesis 8:15); yet there is no disgrace for a king to speak with his herdsman. "And He called to Moses" - but to Abraham He did not call, for it is written, "And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham" (Genesis 22:15); yet there is no disgrace for a king to speak with his innkeeper. "And He called to Moses" - and not as with Abraham. Concerning Abraham it is written, "And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham," the angel calls and the Speech speaks; but here the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I am the One who calls and I am the One who speaks, as it is said, "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosper" (Isaiah 48:15).

"And He called to Moses" (Leviticus 1:1). Moses had ten names. As it is said, "And his Jewish wife" (1 Chronicles 4:18) - this is Jochebed, named so because she raised up Jews in the world. "She bore Jered" - this is Moses, who brought the Torah down from above to below. Another interpretation: because he brought the Divine Presence down from above to below.

Another interpretation: the term "Jered" denotes nothing but kingship, as you say, "May he have dominion from sea to sea" (Psalms 72:8), and it is written, "For he had dominion over all the region beyond the River" (1 Kings 5:4). "The father of Gedor" (1 Chronicles 4:18) - many who built fences [protectors] arose for Israel, and this one was the father of them all. "Heber" - because he joined [hibber] the children to their Father in heaven.

Another interpretation: "Soco" - because he turned aside the punishment from coming into the world; "the father of Socoh" - for he was the father of the prophets who gaze [sochin] by the holy spirit; in Arabia they call a prophet "sochaya." "Jekuthiel" - because he made the children hope [mekavvin] in their Father in heaven. "The father of Zanoah" - he came and made them put aside [hizniḥan] that sin, as it is written, "And he scattered it upon the water" (Exodus 32:20). "And these are the sons of Bithiah" (1 Chronicles 4:18) - the Holy One, blessed be He, said to her: He was not your son, yet you called him your son; you too are not My daughter, yet I call you My daughter. "Whom Mered took" - this is Caleb. He rebelled [marad] against the counsel of the spies, and she rebelled against the counsel of her father; let the rebel come and take the rebellious woman. He saved the flock and she saved the shepherd. Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Ilai says: Tobiah was also his name, as it is written, "And she saw that he was good [tov]" (Exodus 2:2). Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Ami said: Shemaiah was his name, as it is written, "And Shemaiah son of Nethanel the scribe wrote them down" (1 Chronicles 24:6). Shemaiah - because God heard [shama el] his prayer. "Son of Nethanel" - a son to whom the Torah was given [nittenah] from the hand of God. "The scribe" - because he was the scribe of Israel. "The Levite" - because he was from the tribe of Levi. "Before the king and the princes" - before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, and His court. "And Zadok" - this is Aaron the priest. "And Ahimelech" - because he was the brother of a king. "Son of Abiathar" - a son on whose account the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave [vitter] the matter of the calf. Rabbi Joshua son of Korha says: Levi was also his name, after the root of his family. And Moses - behold, ten. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: By your life, of all the names you have, I call you only by the name that Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, called you, "and she called his name Moses" (Exodus 2:10). Hence, "And He called to Moses."

Rabbi Eleazar said: "And He called to Moses," while all Israel listened; and Scripture came only to give honor to Moses. They raised an objection: "a voice to him," "a voice toward him" - Moses heard, and all Israel did not hear. This is no difficulty: the one case is at Sinai, the other in the Tent of Meeting. And if you wish, say it is no difficulty: the one refers to the calling, the other to the speaking. Rabbi Eleazar pointed out a contradiction: it is written, "And Moses was not able to enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud rested upon it" (Exodus 40:35), and it is written, "And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud" (Exodus 24:18). This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, took hold of Moses and brought him into the cloud.

"And He called to Moses" - He set the calling before the speaking. The Torah taught proper conduct [derech eretz], that a person should not say a word to his fellow unless he has first called to him. Rabbi Menassia said: From where do we learn that one who speaks a matter to his fellow is under the rule of "he shall not speak" until his fellow says to him, "Speak"? As it is said, "from the Tent of Meeting, saying" (Leviticus 1:1). This is what Scripture says: "The king has brought me into his chambers" (Song of Songs 1:4) - this is Moses, as it is said, "And He called to Moses." From here they said: any sage who has no discernment, a carcass is better than he. Know that this is so: go and learn from Moses, father of wisdom, father of the prophets, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and miracles were done by his hand - "marvelous works in the land of Ham, terrible things by the Red Sea" (Psalms 106:22) - and he ascended to the heights of heaven and brought down the Torah and busied himself with the work of the Tabernacle; even so he did not enter within until He called to him, as it is said, "And He called to Moses." And elsewhere it says, "And God called to him from the midst of the bush" (Exodus 3:4): at the bush He made a pause between the calling and the speaking, but in the Tent of Meeting there was no pause in it.

Another interpretation of "And He called to Moses" at the bush: to what may the matter be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who was angry at his servant and commanded that he be confined in prison; when he gives orders to the messenger, he gives them only from outside. But in the Tent of Meeting, when he is rejoicing with his children and his children are rejoicing with him, when he gives orders to the messenger, he gives them only from within, as one who seats him between his knees, like the hand of a man upon his son; therefore it is said, "And He called to Moses." "And He called and spoke" - He set the calling before the speaking. Is this not a matter of logic? Speech is stated here and speech is stated at the bush; just as the speech at the bush had the calling set before the speaking, so too here. [The argument is tested and refined through analogy: the bush was the first of the divine utterances, while the Tent of Meeting was not; Sinai shows that even speech which is not the first still had calling set before it; Sinai was to all Israel, the Tent was not.] What feature is common to them all? They are speech, and from the mouth of the Holy One to Moses, with the calling set before the speaking; so too every instance that is speech from the mouth of the Holy One to Moses has the calling set before it. [One might limit this to speech accompanied by fire, excluding the Tent of Meeting, which had no fire.] Therefore the verse teaches, "And He called and spoke" - He set the calling before the speaking. One might think the calling was only for that single utterance; from where do we learn it for all the utterances in the Torah? The verse teaches, "from the Tent of Meeting": whatever is from the Tent of Meeting had the calling set before the speaking. One might think the calling was only for the formal utterances [dibberot]; from where also for sayings [amirot] and commands [tzivvuyim]? Rabbi Simeon said: the verse teaches "speak," "and spoke," to include also the sayings and the commands. One might think also for the pauses; the verse teaches "and spoke" - the calling was for speech and not for the pauses. And what purpose did the pauses serve? To give Moses respite to reflect between one section and another and between one subject and another. And this is an argument from the lighter to the weightier: if one who heard from the mouth of the Holy One and spoke by the holy spirit needed to reflect between section and section and between subject and subject, then an ordinary person learning from an ordinary person, how much more so. And from where that all the callings were "Moses, Moses"? The verse teaches, "And God called to him from the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses" (Exodus 3:4); for Scripture need not have said "and said," but it teaches that all the callings were "Moses, Moses." And from where that to every calling he answered "Here I am"? The verse teaches, "and he said, Here I am"; for Scripture need not have said "and he said," but it teaches that to every calling he answered "Here I am." "Moses, Moses," "Abraham, Abraham" (Genesis 22:11), "Jacob, Jacob" (Genesis 46:2), "Samuel, Samuel" (1 Samuel 3:10) - an expression of affection, an expression of urging.

Another interpretation: "Moses, Moses" - he was the same Moses before he was spoken with and the same Moses after he was spoken with. "To him" - to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah son of Bathyra said: thirteen utterances were stated in the Torah to Moses and to Aaron, and corresponding to them thirteen exclusions were stated, to teach you that it was not to Aaron that the word was spoken but to Moses, that he should tell Aaron. And these are they: "And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him" (Numbers 7:89), "and he heard the voice speaking to him," and "He spoke to him"; "And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you" (Exodus 25:22); "where I will meet with you" (Exodus 30:6); "to speak to you there" (Exodus 29:42); "that which is commanded" (Exodus 34:34); "all that I shall command you" (Exodus 34:34); "And it came to pass on the day when the LORD spoke to Moses" (Exodus 6:28); "And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day when the LORD spoke with Moses" (Numbers 3:1). "And He called to Moses and the LORD spoke to him" - it excluded Aaron from all of them.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: In three places it is stated in the Torah that there was speech to Moses, in the land of Egypt, at Mount Sinai, and in the Tent of Meeting. Regarding the land of Egypt, what does it say? "On the day the LORD spoke to Moses" (in the land of Egypt) excluded Aaron from the words spoken in the land of Egypt. Regarding Mount Sinai, what does it say? "And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day the LORD spoke with Moses at Mount Sinai" (Numbers 3:1) excluded Aaron from the words spoken at Mount Sinai. Regarding the Tent of Meeting, what does it say? "And He called to Moses" excluded Aaron from the words spoken in the Tent of Meeting. Rabbi Eliezer says: Behold it says, "And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by My glory" (Exodus 29:43). I am destined to meet with them and to be sanctified among them. When was this? On the eighth day, as it is said, "And all the people saw, and they shouted, and they fell on their faces" (Leviticus 9:24). Or does it speak only to grant a meeting for the divine speech? Scripture teaches, "And I will meet with you," the meeting was with you and not with all Israel. I would exclude Israel, who were not fit to ascend the mountain, but not exclude the elders, who were fit to ascend the mountain. I would exclude the elders, who did not appear in the speech with Moses, but not exclude the sons of Aaron, who appeared in the speech with Moses. I would exclude the sons of Aaron, who were not met in the speech with Moses, but not exclude Aaron, who was met in the speech with Moses. Scripture teaches, "Which I will meet with you there" (Exodus 25:22), the meeting was with you and not with all of them. Or shall I exclude them from the meeting but not exclude them from the words spoken? Scripture teaches, "And I will speak with you" (Exodus 25:22). I would exclude Israel but not the elders, exclude the elders but not the sons of Aaron, exclude the sons of Aaron but not Aaron himself. Scripture teaches, "to speak to you", the speech was with you and not with all of them. One might think they did not hear the speech but did hear the voice. Scripture teaches, "a voice to him." I would exclude Israel but not the elders, the elders but not the sons of Aaron, the sons of Aaron but not Aaron himself. Scripture teaches, "a voice to him." I would exclude all of them but not exclude the ministering angels, since not one of them may enter his place until he is called. Scripture teaches, "a voice to him, a voice to him", Moses heard the voice and none of them heard the voice. "From the Tent of Meeting", this teaches that the voice was cut off and did not go outside the Tent. One might think it was because the voice was low. Scripture teaches, "And he heard the voice" (Numbers 7:89). There is no need for Scripture to say "the voice" except to refer to "the voice" that is explained in the Writings, as it is said, "The voice of the LORD is in power, the voice of the LORD is in majesty, the voice of the LORD breaks cedars, and the LORD shattered the cedars of Lebanon, the voice of the LORD hews flames of fire" (Psalms 29:4-7). If so, why is it said, "from the Tent of Meeting"? Rather, it teaches that the voice was cut off and did not go outside the Tent of Meeting. Similarly you say, "And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court." One might think it was because the voice was low. Scripture teaches, "like the voice of the Almighty when He speaks." If so, why is it said, "as far as the outer court"? Rather, once it reached the outer court it was cut off. "From the Tent of Meeting." One might think from the whole house. Scripture teaches, "from above the cover" (Numbers 7:89). One might think from above the entire cover. Scripture teaches, "from between the two cherubim" (Numbers 7:89), the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I am not as one refuting the words of my teacher but as one adding to his words. And the glory of which it is said, "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" (Jeremiah 23:24), see how dear Israel are, that for this they caused this abundant glory, as it were, to compress itself to speak from above the cover, from between the two cherubim.

Rabbi Dosa says: Behold it says, "For no man shall see Me and live." In their lifetimes they do not see, but they do see at the hour of their death. And so it says, "Before Him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and he whose soul He did not keep alive" (Psalms 22:30). Rabbi Akiva says: "For no man shall see Me and live", even the living creatures that bear the throne do not see the glory. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I am not as one refuting the words of my teacher but as one adding to his words. "For no man shall see Me and live", even the ministering angels, whose life is eternal life, do not see the glory. "Saying", go out and say to them words of persuasion, it is for your sake that He speaks with me. And so we find that during all thirty-eight years that Israel were in the wilderness and were as ones rebuked by Heaven, there was no speech with Moses, as it is said, "And it came to pass, when all the men of war had finished dying from among the people, that the LORD spoke to me, saying." Elazar ben Dahavai says: One might think He spoke with him for his own sake. Scripture teaches, "saying", it was for the sake of Israel that He spoke with him, and He did not speak with him for his own sake.

Another interpretation: One might think He spoke with him only for the sake of the congregation. Scripture teaches, "saying", He did speak with him also for his own sake.

Another interpretation: "saying", go out and tell them, and bring back to Me their reply. And from where do we know that Moses would go out and speak with them? As it is said, "And he would go out and speak to the children of Israel what he was commanded" (Exodus 34:34). And from where do we know that Moses would bring back words before the Almighty? As it is said, "And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD" (Exodus 19:8). Since it says, "And the LORD spoke to him," I might understand from the Tent of Meeting itself. Scripture teaches, "And I will meet with you there and speak with you from above the cover." It is impossible to say from the Tent of Meeting, since it already says "from above the cover," and it is impossible to say "from above the cover," since it already says "from the Tent of Meeting." How can these two verses be upheld? This is a principle in the Torah: two verses set one against the other and contradicting one another remain in place until a third verse comes and decides between them. And what does Scripture teach by saying, "And when Moses came into the Tent of Meeting" (Numbers 7:89)? Scripture tells that Moses would enter and stand in the Tent, and a voice would descend from the highest heavens to between the two cherubim, and he would hear the voice speaking from within.

"And He called from the Tent of Meeting." Rabbi Elazar said: Although the Torah was given as a protective fence to Israel at Sinai, they were not punished for it until it was repeated to them in the Tent of Meeting. A decree written and sealed enters the province, yet the people of the province are not punished for it until it is made public to them in the town square of the province. So too, although the Torah was given to Israel at Sinai, they were not punished for it until it was repeated to them in the Tent of Meeting. This is what is written, "Until I brought him to my mother's house" (Song of Songs 3:4), this is Sinai, "and to the chamber of her who conceived me," this is the Tent of Meeting, for from there Israel were commanded with instruction. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the nations of the world had known how the Tent of Meeting was good for them, they would have surrounded it with tents and encampments. You find that before the Tabernacle was set up, the nations of the world would hear the voice of the divine speech and be shaken out of their pavilions. This is what is written, "For who is there of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire (as you have heard) and lived?" (Deuteronomy 5:23). Rabbi Simon said: The speech went out with two faces, one a drug of life for Israel and one a drug of death for the nations of the world. This is what is written, "as you have heard and lived", you hear and live, and the nations of the world hear and die. Rabbi Yitzchak said: Before the Tabernacle was set up, prophecy was found among the nations of the world. Once the Tabernacle was set up, it departed from them, as it is said, "I held him and would not let him go" (Song of Songs 3:4). They said to him: But Balaam prophesied. He said to them: He prophesied for the good of Israel, as it is said, "Who has counted the dust of Jacob," "He has beheld no iniquity in Jacob" (Numbers 23:21), "For there is no divination in Jacob" (Numbers 23:23), "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob," "A star shall step forth from Jacob" (Numbers 24:17), "And one shall have dominion out of Jacob" (Numbers 24:19). What is the difference between the prophets of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world? Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said: The Holy One, blessed be He, reveals Himself to the nations of the world only with half speech. What is the difference between Moses and all the prophets? Rabbi Yehudah bar Rabbi Ilai said: All the prophets saw through seven glasses, this is what is written, "And it was like the appearance of the vision that I saw" (Ezekiel 43:3) and so on. But Moses saw through a single glass, as it is said, "and a vision and not in riddles." And the Rabbis say: All the prophets saw through a soiled glass, this is what is written, "And I multiplied vision, and by the hand of the prophets I gave parables" (Hosea 12:11), but Moses saw through a polished glass, this is what is written, "and the likeness of the LORD he beholds." Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya said: It is like a king who revealed himself to his household in his own manner. For in this world the Divine Presence reveals itself to individuals, but in the time to come, "And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the LORD has spoken" (Isaiah 40:5).

"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them" (Leviticus 1:2). This is what Scripture says, "Is Ephraim a precious son to Me, is he a child of delight?" (Jeremiah 31:19). Who is a child of delight? A child of two, a child of three years. Rabbi Acha in the name of Rabbi Levi bar Sisi: A child of four, a child of five years. "For as often as I speak of him", that is, My speaking is enough in him, even when I speak with him I cannot bear without him. "For as often as I speak of him", for surely My speech is in him. A parable of a king who had a fine garment, and he would command his servant and say to him, "Fold it, shake the dust from it, give your attention to it." The servant said to him, "My lord the king, of all the garments you have, you command me only about this one?" He said to him, "Because I press it to my body." So Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the world, of the seventy nations You have in Your world, You command me only concerning Israel?" He said, "Because I cling them to My body." Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: Even the Scriptures gave honor to Israel. Here you say, "A man, when he brings of you," but when it comes to another matter, "A man, when there shall be of you in the skin of his flesh," is not written here, but only, "A man, when there shall be in the skin of his flesh."

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said two lines about this. "However, there shall be no needy among you" (Deuteronomy 15:4), but when it comes to another matter, "For the needy shall not cease from your midst" is not written here, but only "from the midst of the land" (Deuteronomy 15:11). Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said another line about it: "These shall stand to bless the people" (Deuteronomy 27:12), but when it comes to another matter, "these shall stand to curse the people" is not written here, but only, "And these shall stand for the curse," and moreover, when retribution comes to the world the righteous suppress it, as it is said, "And these shall stand over the curse."

Rabbi Berekhiah said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Let your offering be like the offering of Adam the first man. Just as Adam the first man, who had everything in his domain, did not offer from the robbed and from the violently taken, so too you shall not offer from the robbed and from the violently taken. And if you do so, "it shall please the LORD better than an ox or a bullock that has horns and hoofs" (Psalms 69:32)."

"Speak to the children of Israel" (Leviticus). "And he shall lay his hand": the children of Israel lay their hands, but the nations of the world do not lay their hands. Now which is the broader rule, the rule of waving or the rule of laying on of hands? The rule of waving is broader than the rule of laying on of hands, for waving applies both to something that has the breath of life in it and to something that has no breath of life in it, while laying on of hands applies only to something that has the breath of life in it. If you have excluded the nations from waving, which is broad, should you not all the more exclude them from laying on of hands, which is narrow? You might say: in this respect waving is broader and laying on of hands narrower, or in that respect laying on of hands is broader and waving narrower, for laying on of hands applies to all partners together while waving does not apply to all partners together. And if you have excluded them from waving, which is narrow in this respect, should you exclude them from laying on of hands, which is broad in this respect? Behold, because there is in laying on of hands what is not in waving, and in waving what is not in laying on of hands, Scripture must say "Speak to the children of Israel and he shall lay his hand": the children of Israel lay their hands, but the nations do not lay their hands. The children of Israel [the sons] lay their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay their hands. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: women may lay their hands as an option. Rabbi Yose said: Abba Elazar said to me, once we had a calf for a peace offering, and we brought it out to the Court of the Women, and the women laid their hands on it. Is there laying on of hands for women? Rather, it was for the spiritual ease of the women. One might think they should not lay their hands on burnt offerings, since burnt offerings do not require waving, but they may lay their hands on peace offerings, since peace offerings require waving; therefore Scripture says "and you shall say to them" to include all that is stated in the matter: just as women do not lay their hands on burnt offerings, so they do not lay their hands on peace offerings.

All lay their hands except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, since these are not of sound mind. A gentile likewise: the children of Israel lay their hands, but the nations do not lay their hands. But the blind person, what is the reason he does not lay his hands? Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi differed. One said: laying on of hands is derived from the elders of the congregation. The other said: it is derived from the burnt offering brought for the festival appearance. According to the one who derives it from the festival appearance offering, why does he not learn it from the elders of the congregation? Because we derive an individual's case from an individual's case and do not derive an individual's case from a communal case. And according to the one who learns it from the elders of the congregation, why does he not learn it from the festival appearance offering? Because we derive a matter in which laying on of hands is written in its own context from a matter in which laying on of hands is written in its own context, thereby excluding the festival appearance offering, which itself is learned from the freewill burnt offering. A reciter recited before Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi: "And he brought the burnt offering and performed it according to the rule" (Leviticus) means according to the rule of the freewill burnt offering, teaching about the obligatory burnt offering that it requires laying on of hands. "A man": to include the converts. "Of you": to exclude the apostates. And what did you see to reason thus? Say rather "of you" to include apostates and "a man" to exclude converts! After Scripture both broadened and narrowed, Scripture says "the children of Israel": just as the children of Israel are those who accepted the covenant, so converts are those who accept the covenant; this excludes apostates, who do not accept the covenant. If so, just as the children of Israel are the children of those who accepted the covenant, so apostates are the children of those who accepted the covenant; this would exclude converts, who are not the children of those who accepted the covenant. Therefore Scripture says "of you." And now do not say otherwise than: just as Israel accepted the covenant, so converts accept the covenant; this excludes apostates, who do not accept the covenant.

It was taught: "of you" and not all of you, to exclude the apostates. "Of you": among you I have made a distinction, and not among the nations. "From the animal": to include people who resemble an animal. From here the sages said: we accept offerings from the transgressors of Israel so that they may return in repentance, except for the apostate, the one who pours a libation of wine [to idols], and the one who desecrates the Sabbath in public. This very passage poses a difficulty: you said "of you" and not all of you, to exclude the apostate, and then you taught that we accept offerings from the transgressors of Israel. This is not a difficulty: the first clause speaks of one who is an apostate against the entire Torah, the middle clause of one who is an apostate regarding a single matter. But consider the last clause: "except for the apostate, the one who pours a libation of wine, and the one who desecrates the Sabbath in public." What sort of apostate is this? If an apostate against the entire Torah, that is the first clause; if an apostate regarding a single matter, it contradicts the middle clause. Rather, this is what it means: except for one who is an apostate so as to pour libations [to idols] and to desecrate the Sabbath in public; and one who is an apostate to idolatry is regarded as an apostate against the entire Torah.

But is this not derived from here: "from the people of the land" (Leviticus 4:27), excluding the apostate? Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: "which may not be done, in error, and he becomes guilty; or his sin becomes known to him" (Leviticus 4:22-23) means that one who would turn back once he knows brings an offering for his unwitting sin, while one who would not turn back once he knows does not bring an offering for his unwitting sin. We asked: what is the practical difference between them? Rav Hamnuna said: the case of an apostate regarding eating forbidden fat who brought an offering for [unwitting consumption of] blood is the difference between them, one view treating the sin offering and the other the burnt offering; and both teachings are necessary. For had Scripture taught only the sin offering, one might think it is rejected because it is for atonement, but the burnt offering, which is a gift, might be accepted from him; and had Scripture taught only the burnt offering, one might think it is rejected because it is not an obligation, but the sin offering, which is an obligation, might be accepted from him; therefore both are taught. And wherever Scripture writes "animal" is it a term of degradation? Is it not written, "man and animal You save, O LORD" (Psalms 36:7), and Rav Yehudah said these are people who are shrewd in knowledge yet make themselves humble like an animal? There "man and animal" is written together; here "animal" stands alone. And wherever "man and animal" is written together is it a term of excellence? Is it not written, "I will sow the house of Israel, the seed of man and the seed of animal" (Jeremiah 31:26)? There the verse divided them, the seed of man on its own and the seed of animal on its own. "A man when he brings of you": one might think this is a decree; therefore Scripture says "when he brings," so it is only voluntary. "An offering to the LORD": that he should designate it as consecrated before offering it, the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: how do we know a person should not say "to the LORD a burnt offering," "to the LORD a sin offering," "to the LORD a meal offering," "to the LORD a peace offering"? Scripture says "an offering to the LORD" [naming the offering first, then the LORD]. And is this not an argument from the lesser to the greater? If, regarding one who is about to consecrate, the Torah said he should mention the name of Heaven only upon the offering, how much more should one not mention the name of Heaven in vain.

We learned there: one who says "konam," "konach," or "konas" has used substitute terms for "offering." Regarding these substitute terms, Rabbi Yochanan said they are a foreign tongue. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said they are language the sages devised so that one might vow by them, and likewise it says, "in the month which he had devised from his own heart" (1 Kings 12:33). And what is the reason the sages instituted substitute terms? So that one would not say "offering." But let him say "offering"? Perhaps he will say "an offering to the LORD." But let him say "an offering to the LORD"? Perhaps he will say "to the LORD" and not say "offering," and so bring forth the name of Heaven in vain. And it was taught, Rabbi Shimon says, and so on.

Rabbi Yose says: wherever "offering" is stated, it states the LORD's name with the letters yod and heh, so as not to give the heretics an opening to lord it over [the verse]. "An offering to the LORD from the animal": one might think even a wild beast, which is called an animal, as in the matter stated, "This is the animal which you may eat: ox, sheep, lambs, and goat, deer and gazelle and roebuck" (Deuteronomy 14:4-5); therefore Scripture says "cattle and flock." One might think he should not bring [a wild beast], but if he did bring it, it would be valid, like one whose master said to him, "bring me wheat," and he brought him wheat and barley, having added to his master's words; therefore Scripture says "cattle and flock you shall offer": you have among animals only cattle and flock. To what is this comparable? To one whose master said to him, "bring only wheat," and if he added to the wheat he transgresses his master's words. As for one who offers up the limbs of a wild beast upon the altar, Rabbi Yochanan said he transgresses a positive commandment, for "animal" yes, a wild beast no, and a prohibition that arises from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment. Reish Lakish said he does not transgress a positive commandment; that verse is for guidance. Rava raised an objection: had it said only "an offering to the LORD, an animal," I would have said a wild beast is included in animal, and so on. This is a refutation of Reish Lakish, a refutation.

"From the animal": to exclude the animal that mounted [a human] and the animal that was mounted [by a human]. But is this not derived by logic? If a blemished animal, with which no transgression was committed, is disqualified from the altar, then an animal that mounted or was mounted, with which a transgression was committed, all the more so should be disqualified for the altar. But consider one who plowed with an ox and a donkey together: this proves otherwise, for a transgression was committed with them and yet they are valid for the altar. No: if you spoke of one who plowed with an ox and a donkey, where they are not subject to death, would you say the same of an animal that mounted or was mounted, which are subject to death? Take back what you brought. I have only the case where the transgression was established by two witnesses; whence the case established by one witness or by the owner? Rabbi Yishmael said: I shall reason. If a blemished animal, where the testimony of two does not disqualify it from being eaten, yet the testimony of one disqualifies it from being offered, then an animal that mounted or was mounted, where the testimony of two disqualifies it from being eaten, is it not logical that the testimony of one witness should disqualify it from being offered? Rabbi Akiva said to him: no; if you spoke of a blemished animal, whose blemish is visible, would you say the same of an animal that mounted or was mounted, whose disqualification is not visible? Since their disqualification is not visible, they should not be disqualified for the altar; therefore Scripture says "from the animal," to exclude the animal that mounted and the one that was mounted. Then why do I need the verse, since this comes from logic? Rav Ashi said to him: because the original logic can be refuted, for one might object, what of a blemished animal whose blemish is recognizable, would you say the same of an animal that mounted or was mounted whose disqualification is not recognizable; since their disqualification is not recognizable they should be valid for the altar; therefore Scripture says "from the animal," to exclude the one that mounted. Rabbi Yishmael says: the Torah is expounded by thirteen principles: from the argument of lesser to greater, from a general statement and a specific one. How so? "From the animal" is a general statement, "from the cattle and from the flock" is a specific one; in a general statement followed by a specific one, the general includes only what is in the specific.

"From the cattle": to exclude the worshipped animal. But is this not derived by logic? If the harlot's hire and the price of a dog, whose overlay is permitted, are forbidden for the altar, then a worshipped animal, whose overlay is forbidden, all the more so should be forbidden for the altar. Or the reverse: if the harlot's hire and the price of a dog, which are forbidden for the altar, have their overlay permitted, then a worshipped animal, which is permitted for the altar, all the more so should have its overlay permitted. If so, you have nullified "You shall not covet the silver and gold upon them" (Deuteronomy 7:25). I will uphold "You shall not covet the silver and gold upon them" for a thing that has no breath of life in it, but for a thing that has the breath of life in it, since they are permitted, their overlay should be permitted; therefore Scripture says "from the cattle," to exclude the worshipped animal. And when it says "from the cattle" a second time, lower down, where Scripture need not have said it, it serves only to exclude the torn animal. But is this not derived by logic? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for ordinary use, is forbidden for the altar, then a torn animal, which is forbidden for ordinary use, is it not logical that it should be disqualified for the altar? Blood and forbidden fat prove otherwise, for they are forbidden for ordinary use yet valid for the altar. No: if you spoke of fat and blood, which come from a permitted thing, would you say the same of a torn animal, which is wholly forbidden? The pinching of the bird's neck proves otherwise, for it is wholly forbidden to a layman yet valid for the altar. No: if you spoke of the pinching of the bird, whose sanctity forbids it, would you say the same of this, whose sanctity does not forbid it; since its sanctity does not forbid it, it should not be disqualified for the altar. If you have answered thus, then when Scripture says "from the cattle" lower down, it serves only to exclude the torn animal.

Rav Ashi said: Because one can refute the source of this law from the outset. From where do we derive that a mortally wounded animal (a treifah) is barred from the altar? If from the blemished animal — what is distinctive about the blemished animal is that one who offers it is treated as one who offers a valid sacrifice? Rav Acha, son of Rava, said to him: Let the animal delivered by caesarean section prove the point, for one who offers it is not treated as offering a valid sacrifice, and yet it is permitted to a layman but forbidden to the Most High. But what is distinctive about the caesarean-born animal is that it is not sanctified as a firstborn? Then let the blemished animal prove it. And what is distinctive about the blemished animal is that one who offers it is treated as offering a valid sacrifice? Then let the caesarean-born animal prove it. And the reasoning comes full circle: the case of this one is not like the case of that one, yet the common feature of both is that they are permitted to a layman but forbidden to the Most High; all the more so the mortally wounded beast, which is forbidden even to a layman, should be forbidden to the Most High. But what is the common feature of these two? That their defect is visible — whereas you cannot say this of the mortally wounded beast, whose defect is not visible. For this reason a verse is needed. And is the mortally wounded beast derived from here? It is derived from there — "from the watering-place of Israel" (Ezekiel 45:15), meaning from what is permitted to Israel. Both are necessary. For had we only "from the watering-place of Israel," I would have said it excludes only a case that never had a fit moment, like fruit of the first three years and mixed seed of the vineyard; but where it had a fit moment, say it becomes fit. So the Merciful One said "all that passes" (Ezekiel 20:37). And had the Merciful One written only "all that passes," I would have said it excludes only an animal that became mortally wounded and was afterward consecrated; but one consecrated and only afterward wounded — since at the moment of consecration it was fit, say it becomes fit. Therefore both are necessary.

Rabbi Yehudah says: the words "this," "it," "the burnt offering" are all limiting terms — excluding an offering slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood went outside the courtyard hangings, such that if it went up onto the altar it must come down. Rabbi Shimon says: "burnt offering" — I know only a valid burnt offering. From where do I include one slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, one whose blood went outside the hangings, one left overnight, one taken outside, one rendered impure, leftover meat, one slaughtered beyond its proper time or place, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those unfit, one whose blood was meant to be placed above and was placed below or meant below and placed above, meant within and placed outside or meant outside and placed within, and the Passover offering and the sin offering slaughtered not for their own sake? Scripture says "the law of the burnt offering" — one law for all that ascend, that if they have gone up they shall not come down. One might think I should also include the beast used for bestiality or as its object, one set aside for idolatry or already worshiped, the harlot's fee and the price of a dog, the mixed breed, the mortally wounded, and the caesarean-born. Scripture says "this." And what made you include these and exclude those? After Scripture included and excluded, I include those whose disqualification arose within the realm of the sacred, and I exclude those whose disqualification did not arise within the sacred. But is this derived from here — it is derived from there: "from the animal" excludes the beast of bestiality, "from the herd" excludes the worshiped one. And further, is the mixed breed derived from here — it is derived from there: "an ox or a sheep" (Leviticus 22:27) excludes a mixed breed, "or a goat" excludes a hybrid offspring; two verses are needed, one for the unconsecrated animal and one for the consecrated.

"From the flock" — to exclude the animal set aside for idolatry; "from the flock" — to exclude the goring ox. Rabbi Shimon said: because there is something in the beast used for bestiality not found in the goring ox, and something in the goring ox not found in the other. With the beast of bestiality, coercion is treated like consent; with the goring ox it is not. The goring ox pays a ransom after the owner's death; the beast of bestiality does not. And there is something in the beast of bestiality not found in the worshiped animal: the beast of bestiality is forbidden whether one's own or another's, while a worshiped animal of one's own is forbidden but another's is permitted; the covering of the beast of bestiality is permitted, but the covering of a worshiped one is forbidden. Therefore Scripture had to mention them all. And perhaps I should reverse it: "from the animal" to exclude the worshiped one, "from the herd" to exclude the beast of bestiality and its object? There the matter is settled from the context of the verse: concerning the beast it is written, "a woman shall not stand before an animal to lie with it," and concerning the herd it is written, "they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox" (Psalms 106:20). And this teacher derives it from elsewhere, as the Rabbis taught: the beast of bestiality and its object, the one set aside or already worshiped, the price of a dog, the mixed breed, and the mortally wounded are like consecrated animals upon which a passing blemish preceded their consecration, and they require a permanent blemish to be redeemed, as it says, "for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them" (Leviticus 22:25). What is the scriptural teaching? The text is incomplete and should be read: from where that they are forbidden? As it says, "for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them." And a master said: anything in which a blemish disqualifies, corruption disqualifies; and anything in which a blemish does not disqualify, corruption does not disqualify, as it says, "their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them." And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: wherever "corruption" is mentioned, it refers only to sexual sin and idolatry — sexual sin, as it is written, "for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth," and idolatry, as a graven image, "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a graven image" (Deuteronomy 4:16). And he who derives it from "from the animal" does not find "for their corruption is in them" instructive; while he who derives it from "for their corruption is in them" reads "from the animal, from the herd and from the flock" as excluding the aged, the sick, and the foul-smelling. As another taught: "from the sheep and from the goats you shall take" (these are limiting terms) excludes the aged, the sick, and the foul-smelling; and the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that "from the sheep and from the goats you shall take" is simply the manner of Scripture's speech.

"You shall offer" — this teaches that the burnt offering may come as the freewill gift of two partners. But could this not be reasoned out? The bird burnt offering comes as a vow and a freewill gift, and the animal burnt offering comes as a vow and a freewill gift; just as the bird offering, coming by vow and gift, may come from the freewill gift of two, so the animal burnt offering may come from the gift of two. Or go this other way: the meal offering comes by vow and gift, and the animal burnt offering by vow and gift; just as the meal offering does not come from the gift of two, so the animal burnt offering should not come from the gift of two. Let us see which it resembles: we derive a thing entirely consumed by the altar fire from a thing entirely consumed by the fire, and let the meal offering, not wholly consumed, offer no proof. Or go this way: derive a thing brought as a public obligation from a thing brought as a public obligation, and let the bird offering, not brought as a public obligation, offer no proof. Scripture says "you shall offer" — teaching that it comes from the freewill gift of two. "Your offering" — this teaches that it may come as a freewill gift of the community. But could this not be reasoned? The meal offering comes by vow and gift, and the animal burnt offering by vow and gift; just as the meal offering does not come as a community freewill gift, so the animal burnt offering should not. No: if you said this of the meal offering, which does not come from the gift of two, will you say it of the animal burnt offering, which does come from the gift of two? Let the bird offering prove it — it comes from the gift of two yet not as a community gift. No: if you said this of the bird offering, which does not come as a public obligation, will you say it of the animal burnt offering, which does? Let the peace offerings prove it — they come as a public obligation yet not as a community freewill gift. So you too should not be astonished if the animal burnt offering, though it comes as a public obligation, does not come as a community freewill gift. Scripture says "your offering" — teaching that it does come as a community freewill gift. Another argument: if the individual, who does not bring an obligatory burnt offering each day, brings a freewill animal burnt offering, then the community, which does bring an obligatory burnt offering each day, surely should bring a freewill animal burnt offering. No: if you said this of the individual, who brings a freewill meal offering, will you say it of the community, which does not bring a freewill meal offering? Let the partners prove it — they bring no freewill meal offering yet bring a freewill animal burnt offering. What is distinctive of partners is that they also bring a freewill bird offering; will you say the community brings a freewill animal burnt offering, when it brings no freewill bird offering? And the back-and-forth continues — the meal offering proves that the community brings a thing as obligation yet not as freewill gift. So you should not be astonished if, though the community brings the burnt offering as obligation, it does not bring it as a freewill gift. Scripture says "your offering" — teaching that it comes as a community freewill gift.

Another matter: "your offering" — from the place the individual brings, from there the community brings. "Burnt offering" (Leviticus 1:3): why does Scripture say it? One might think all these disqualifications apply only to a freewill burnt offering; from where the obligatory burnt offering? Scripture says "burnt offering" — both the freewill and the obligatory; all these disqualifications apply to it. From where that they apply to a substituted offering? Scripture says "if a burnt offering," to include the substitute. From where to peace offerings? It is a matter of inference and of "his offering," to include the peace offerings. "From the herd" — this is what we said, to exclude the mortally wounded. "A male" — and not a female. When it says "male" again below, that teaches only to exclude one of doubtful sex and a hermaphrodite. For could this not be reasoned? If peace offerings, fit to be brought female as male, are unfit to be brought of doubtful sex or hermaphrodite, then the burnt offering, unfit to be brought female, surely should not be brought of doubtful sex or hermaphrodite. The argument is tested against the sin offering, the firstborn, the tithe — and finally Scripture says "male, and not female," and the repeated "male" comes only to exclude the doubtful and the hermaphrodite. "Unblemished" — just as if it is not unblemished it is not acceptable, so if it is not in this manner it is not acceptable. "He shall offer it unblemished" — Rabbi Yose says, he shall inspect it and offer it. Rabbi Yose said: I have heard that one who brings and slaughters the Sabbath daily offering unexamined is liable for a sin offering and must bring another daily offering. "To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" — he tends to it and brings it to the entrance. Why does it say "he shall offer, he shall offer"? From where, if a burnt offering became mixed with another burnt offering, with unconsecrated animals, or with its substitute, that he offers them? Scripture says "he shall offer, he shall offer." One might think even mixed with disqualified animals unfit to be offered; Scripture says "he shall offer it" — excluding what is mixed with the disqualified. And the back-and-forth proceeds through mixtures with inner and outer sin offerings, peace offerings and thanksgiving, firstborn, tithe, and Passover, until "he shall offer it" teaches: it alone is offered, not what is mixed with others. "He shall offer it" — this teaches that the court compels him. One might think against his will; Scripture says "of his own will." How then? They compel him until he says, "I am willing." So too you find with bills of divorce: they compel him until he says, "I am willing." Those owing valuation-vows are distrained; those owing sin offerings and guilt offerings are not distrained; those owing burnt offerings and peace offerings are distrained, even though there is no atonement for him until he consents, as it says "of his own will" — they compel him until he says, "I am willing." "And you shall make" is a warning to the court to compel you.

One who says, "let his sin offering not atone for him" — Abaye says it does not atone, and Rava says it does atone. Where he said "let it not be offered," all agree it does not atone; what is the reason? Because it is written, "he shall offer it of his own will." But where they disagree is where he said, "let it be offered, but let it not atone." Abaye says it does not atone, since he said "let it not atone." Rava says it does atone: since he said "let it be offered," atonement comes of its own accord. And Rava later retracted his view.

Ulla said: from where that despair of recovery does not transfer ownership? As it says, "and you have brought the stolen, and the lame, and the sick" (Malachi 1:13) — the stolen is compared to the lame: just as the lame has no remedy at all, so the stolen has no remedy at all. Rava said: it is derived from here — "his offering," and not the stolen one. When? If you say before the owner despaired of recovery, why is a verse needed? Rather it must be after the owner despaired of recovery. Learn from this.

"Before the LORD" (Leviticus 1:4): "and he shall lay his hand" — there is no laying on of hands at a private altar. "Northward before the LORD" (Leviticus 1:11) — there is no north side at a private altar. Now which measure is the broader, the rule of the north or the rule of laying on of hands? The rule of laying on of hands is the lesser of the two, for the north side applies to both the offerings of an individual and the offerings of the community, while laying on of hands applies only to the offerings of an individual. If I have excluded the broader rule of the north, shall I not exclude the lesser rule of laying on of hands? You say: in this respect the north is broader and laying on of hands is narrower; or in that respect laying on of hands is broader and the north is narrower? Laying on of hands applies to offerings of the highest sanctity and to offerings of lesser sanctity, while the north applies only to offerings of the highest sanctity. If I have excluded the narrower rule of the north, shall I not exclude the broader rule of laying on of hands? Since there is in laying on of hands what is not in the north, and in the north what is not in laying on of hands, Scripture must say "before the LORD, and he shall lay his hand" — there is no laying on of hands at a private altar; "northward before the LORD" — there is no north side at a private altar. "Before the LORD, and he shall lay his hand" — even though he laid his hand outside, let him return and lay his hand inside.

(Leviticus 1:4) Our Rabbis taught: How does one perform the laying-on of hands? The sacrificial animal stands in the north with its face to the west, and the one laying on hands stands in the east with his face to the west. He places his two hands between the two horns of the animal, provided that nothing interposes between him and the animal. He makes confession: over a sin offering, the iniquity of the sin offering; over a guilt offering, the iniquity of the guilt offering; and over a burnt offering, the iniquity of failing in the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, the corner of the field, and the tithe of the poor [the unfulfilled positive commands the burnt offering atones for]. These are the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: a burnt offering comes only for a positive command and for a negative command that has been transformed into a positive one. On what point do they disagree? Rabbi Yirmiyah said: they disagree about the prohibition of eating carrion. One master holds it is a full-fledged negative command, and the other master holds it is not a full-fledged negative command. Abaye said: all agree that the prohibition of carrion is a full-fledged negative command, and here they disagree about the verse "you shall leave them" (Leviticus 19:10). One master holds "you shall leave" implies from the outset, and the other master holds it implies now. What is the difference between a private altar and a communal altar? The laying-on of hands, slaughter in the north, the placing of blood all around, the waving, and the bringing near. Rabbi Yehudah says: there is no meal offering on a private altar; also priestly service, the garments of ministry, the vessels of ministry, the pleasing aroma, a partition for the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. But the matters of time, leftover sacrifice, and impurity are equal in both. Laying-on of hands, as it is written "before the LORD" and "he shall lay his hand"; slaughter in the north, as it is written "on the side of the altar northward" (Leviticus 1:11); blood all around, as it is written "and the sons of Aaron the priests shall dash" and so on; waving, as it is written "and he shall wave"; bringing near, as it is written "and he shall bring it near to the altar" (Leviticus 2:8). Rav Sheshet said: according to the one who holds there is a meal offering on a private altar, there are bird offerings on a private altar; according to the one who holds there is no meal offering on a private altar, there are no bird offerings on a private altar. What is the reason? "And they sacrificed peace sacrifices" (slaughtered animals) and not birds, slaughtered animals and not meal offerings. Priestly service, as it is written "and the priest shall dash" (Leviticus 17:6); garments of ministry, as it is written "seven days shall the priest wear them" (Exodus 29:30); vessels of ministry, as it is written "and they shall take all the vessels of ministry"; the pleasing aroma, as it is written "a pleasing aroma to the LORD"; a partition for the blood, as it is written "and the net shall reach to the middle of the altar" (Exodus 27:5); and that one need not have washed hands and feet, as it is written "when they come into the Tent of Meeting they shall wash with water" (Exodus 30:20). "And he shall lay his hand" his hand and not the hand of his slave, his hand and not the hand of his agent, his hand and not the hand of his wife. Why do I need all of these? They are all necessary. For had the Merciful One written only one, I would have said: this is to exclude a slave, who is not obligated in the commandments, but an agent, who is obligated in the commandments, and a man's wife, who is like himself, let me say he may lay on hands through them. And if it had taught us these two, who are not regarded as his own body, but his wife, who is regarded as his own body, let me say he may lay on hands through her therefore all are necessary.

"His hand" and not the hand of his son, and not the hand of his slave, and not the hand of his agent. "His hand upon the head" and not his hand upon the neck, "upon the head" and not upon the flanks. I might exclude all of these and yet not exclude the breast, and there is an argument for it: if the head, which does not require waving, requires the laying-on of hands, then the breast, which does require waving, is it not logical that it should require the laying-on of hands? Therefore Scripture says "upon the head" and not upon the breast. I might think that only a voluntary burnt offering requires the laying-on of hands. How do we know an obligatory burnt offering does? There is an argument for it: an obligatory burnt offering is called here a burnt offering, and a voluntary burnt offering is called here a burnt offering; just as the voluntary burnt offering requires the laying-on of hands, so too the obligatory burnt offering requires the laying-on of hands. No: if you have said this of the voluntary burnt offering, which has no substitute of a bird to exempt it from the laying-on of hands, will you say it of the obligatory burnt offering, which has a substitute of a bird to exempt it from the laying-on of hands and since it has a bird substitute to exempt it, let it not require the laying-on of hands? Therefore Scripture says "a burnt offering" both the voluntary burnt offering and the obligatory burnt offering, this one and that one require the laying-on of hands. I might think that only a burnt offering of cattle requires the laying-on of hands. How do we know a burnt offering of the flock does? There is an argument for it: a burnt offering of cattle is called here a burnt offering, and a burnt offering of the flock is called here a burnt offering; just as the burnt offering of cattle requires the laying-on of hands, so too the burnt offering of the flock requires it. No: if you have said this of the offspring of cattle, whose libations are increased, will you say it of the offspring of the flock, whose libations are decreased and since its libations are decreased, let it not require the laying-on of hands? Therefore Scripture says "a burnt offering" both the burnt offering of cattle and the burnt offering of the flock require the laying-on of hands. I might think that even the burnt offering of a bird requires the laying-on of hands. Therefore Scripture says "the burnt offering" to exclude the burnt offering of a bird.

"And it shall be accepted for him" (Leviticus 1:4) teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, looks with favor on the one who brings it. For what does the Holy One look with favor upon him? If you should say it is for matters that carry the death penalty of the court, death at the hand of Heaven, excision at the hand of Heaven, the forty lashes, sin offerings and guilt offerings, behold, their punishment has already been stated. Rather, for what does the Holy One look with favor upon him? For a positive commandment and for a negative commandment that carries with it a remedy of positive action. Rabbi Shimon says: "And it shall be accepted for him" and "for his sacrifice" together teach that even though he did not perform the laying-on of hands, the sacrifice is accepted. "And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him" refers to that which makes atonement. And what makes atonement for him? This is the blood, as it is said, "for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life" (Leviticus 17:11). I know only of clean blood; from where do I learn unclean blood? When it says, "And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things" (Exodus 28:38), which iniquity does he bear? If the iniquity of refuse-thought sacrifice, it has already been said, "It is an abomination, it shall not be accepted" (Leviticus 19:7). If the iniquity of leftover sacrifice, it has already been said, "it shall not be reckoned." So which iniquity does he bear? The iniquity of impurity, which is permitted from its general rule in a public offering. I know only the iniquity of the blood; from where do I learn the handful, the frankincense, the incense, the priests' meal offering, the anointed priest's meal offering, and the meal offering of the libations? Scripture teaches, "for all their holy gifts" (Exodus 28:38). I know only of the offerings of men; from where do I learn those of women? I know only of those of Israel; from where do I learn those of converts and of slaves? Scripture teaches, "the iniquity of the holy things" (Exodus 28:38), which includes them. Since we have found that there is no atonement except through blood, why does Scripture say "and he shall lay his hand and it shall be accepted"? To teach that if he performed the laying-on of hands, which is a remainder of the commandment, it is as though atonement had not yet been made for him until he does so. Rabbi Shimon says: That which he is responsible to provide, he is liable for; and that which he is not responsible to provide, he is not liable for. What is the implication? Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: Since he said "upon me," it is as though he carries it upon his shoulder. Rami bar Chama said: We require the laying-on of hands to be done with all one's strength. For if it should enter your mind that we do not require all one's strength, what is he actually doing? Let him just lay his hand lightly. They raised an objection: "Speak to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 1:2) means the sons of Israel lay on hands, but the daughters of Israel do not lay on hands; and the rest of the passage teaches that women were permitted to lay on hands merely to give them satisfaction of spirit. But if it should enter your mind that we require the laying-on of hands to be done with all one's strength, would we perform a service upon the holy things merely for the satisfaction of the women? Indeed we always require it to be done with full strength, for he says to them, "Press lightly with your hands" [the woman lays a hand without exerting force]. If so, then what is taught there, "not because the laying-on of hands applies to women"? It should simply derive that there is no laying-on of hands for women at all. This is what it means: not because the laying-on of hands is of binding significance for women, since there is no real laying-on of hands for them at all, but the whole matter is done to give the women satisfaction of spirit.

"And he shall lay his hand and slaughter" (Leviticus 1:4-5): in the place where they lay on hands, they slaughter; slaughter follows immediately upon the laying-on of hands. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: There are three things that must follow immediately one after another. Prayer must follow immediately upon the blessing of redemption; slaughter must follow immediately upon the laying-on of hands; and the blessing must follow immediately upon the washing of the hands. Abbaye said: Also, blessing in the work of their hands follows immediately upon the presence of a Torah scholar, as it is said, "I have observed the signs, and the LORD has blessed me on your account" (Genesis 30:27). If you wish, learn it from here: "And the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house" on Joseph's account (Genesis 39:5).

Prayer must follow immediately upon the blessing of redemption: "May the words of my mouth be acceptable" (Psalms 19:15), and what is written after it? "May the LORD answer you in the day of trouble" (Psalms 20:2). Slaughter must follow immediately upon the laying-on of hands: "and he shall lay his hand and slaughter" (Leviticus 1:4-5). The blessing must follow immediately upon the washing of the hands: "Lift up your hands in holiness" (Psalms 134:2). Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: Whoever joins the slaughter immediately to the laying-on of hands, the disqualification of refuse-thought does not touch that sacrifice. And whoever joins the blessing immediately to the washing of the hands, the Accuser does not lodge a charge against that meal. And whoever joins prayer immediately to the blessing of redemption, the Accuser does not lodge a charge against him that whole day.

It was taught: Rabbi Yose says: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that the laying-on of hands is required. About what did they disagree? About whether slaughter must follow immediately upon the laying-on of hands. The House of Shammai say it need not, and the House of Hillel say it must. (Leviticus 1:5) Those who are otherwise unfit, if they slaughtered, their slaughter is valid. But all of these, if they slaughtered, it is valid only after the fact; from the outset, it is not permitted. They raised a contradiction: "and he shall slaughter" teaches that slaughter performed by a non-priest is valid, for slaughter is valid when done by non-priests, by women, by slaves, and by the impure, even with the most holy offerings. Or perhaps it is valid only with priests? You said: From where would such a notion even come? From the general rule stated, "You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar" (Numbers 18:7). One might think this includes slaughter; Scripture teaches, "and he shall slaughter the bull before the LORD, and the sons of Aaron shall bring near" (Leviticus 1:5), meaning that from the receiving of the blood and onward it is the duty of the priesthood. This teaches that slaughter is valid when done by a non-priest, and the same law applies even from the outset. And because the teaching wished to include the impure, for whom it is not permitted from the outset, there is a decree lest they touch the flesh, so it taught "if they slaughtered." But for the impure, after the fact, it is fine. They raised a contradiction: "and he shall lay his hand and slaughter" teaches that just as the laying-on of hands is done by the clean, so too the slaughter is by the clean. This is by rabbinic decree. Why is the laying-on of hands different, since "before the LORD" is written of it? Of slaughter too is "before the LORD" written. It is possible to make a long knife and slaughter from outside; for the laying-on of hands too, one could insert his hand and lay it on. He holds that partial entry is called entry. Rav Chisda taught the reverse: "and he shall lay his hand and slaughter" teaches that just as slaughter is by the clean, so too the laying-on of hands is by the clean. Whose view is this? It is Shimon the Temanite's, as it was taught: "and he shall slaughter the bull before the LORD" (Leviticus 1:5) means the bull is before the LORD, but the slaughterer need not be before the LORD. Shimon the Temanite says: From where do we learn that the hands of the slaughterer must be inside, closer in than the animal being slaughtered? As it is said, "and he shall slaughter the bull before the LORD," the bull being before the LORD, and he who slaughters the bull is before the LORD. The laying-on of hands and the slaughter are both performed by day, as it is written "and he shall lay his hand and slaughter," and of slaughter it is written, "on the day you sacrifice it" (Leviticus 19:6).