The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database

Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

35 results for "laying"

1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 1.3, 3.2, 3.8, 7.18, 12.6-12.8, 15.28-15.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of •laying of hands (semikhah) •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35, 47, 57, 58, 62

1.3. "אִם־עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן־הַבָּקָר זָכָר תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יַקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לִרְצֹנוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 3.2. "וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל־רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְזָרְקוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת־הַדָּם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב׃", 3.8. "וְסָמַךְ אֶת־יָדוֹ עַל־רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְזָרְקוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֶת־דָּמוֹ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב׃", 7.18. "וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֺנָהּ תִּשָּׂא׃", 12.6. "וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה וּבֶן־יוֹנָה אוֹ־תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל־מוֹעֵד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן׃", 12.7. "וְהִקְרִיבוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ וְטָהֲרָה מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר אוֹ לַנְּקֵבָה׃", 12.8. "וְאִם־לֹא תִמְצָא יָדָהּ דֵּי שֶׂה וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי־תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְאֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה׃", 15.28. "וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר׃", 15.29. "וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּקַּח־לָהּ שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וְהֵבִיאָה אוֹתָם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃",

1.3. "If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish; he shall bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD.", 3.2. "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall dash the blood against the altar round about.", 3.8. "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tent of meeting; and Aaron’s sons shall dash the blood thereof against the altar round about.", 7.18. "And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.", 12.6. "And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest.", 12.7. "And he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth, whether a male or a female.", 12.8. "And if her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons: the one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.", 15.28. "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.", 15.29. "And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting.", 15.30. "And the priest shall offer the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.",

2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings Found in books: Balberg (2017) 157

12.6. "וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת עַד אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְשָׁחֲטוּ אֹתוֹ כֹּל קְהַל עֲדַת־יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם׃",

12.6. "and ye shall keep it unto the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at dusk.",

3. Philo of Alexandria, Questions On Exodus, 1.12 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 151

4. Philo of Alexandria, On The Embassy To Gaius, 356-357, 355 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017) 63

355. And while he was triumphing in these super-human appellations, the sycophant Isidorus, seeing the temper in which he was, said, "O master, you will hate with still juster vehemence these men whom you see before you and their fellow countrymen, if you are made acquainted with their disaffection and disloyalty towards yourself; for when all other men were offering up sacrifices of thanksgiving for your safety, these men alone refused to offer any sacrifice at all; and when I say, 'these men,' I comprehend all the rest of the Jews."

5. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 2.148 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 151

2.148. And each house is at that time invested with the character and dignity of a temple, the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who has provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions. And those who are to share in the feast come together not as they do to other entertainments, to gratify their bellies with wine and meat, but to fulfil their hereditary custom with prayer and songs of praise.

6. Mishnah, Tamid, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 51, 56

7.3. "בִּזְמַן שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל רוֹצֶה לְהַקְטִיר, הָיָה עוֹלֶה בַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַסְּגָן בִּימִינוֹ. הִגִּיעַ לְמַחֲצִית הַכֶּבֶשׁ, אָחַז הַסְּגָן בִּימִינוֹ וְהֶעֱלָהוּ. הוֹשִׁיט לוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן הָרֹאשׁ וְהָרֶגֶל, וְסָמַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וּזְרָקָן. הוֹשִׁיט הַשֵּׁנִי לָרִאשׁוֹן שְׁתֵּי הַיָּדַיִם, נוֹתְנָן לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְסָמַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וּזְרָקָן. נִשְׁמַט הַשֵּׁנִי וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיוּ מוֹשִׁיטִין לוֹ שְׁאָר כָּל הָאֵבָרִין, וְהוּא סוֹמֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וְזוֹרְקָן. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה, הוּא סוֹמֵךְ וַאֲחֵרִים זוֹרְקִין. בָּא לוֹ לְהַקִּיף אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מֵהֵיכָן הוּא מַתְחִיל, מִקֶּרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית. נָתְנוּ לוֹ יַיִן לְנַסֵּךְ, הַסְּגָן עוֹמֵד עַל הַקֶּרֶן וְהַסּוּדָרִים בְּיָדוֹ, וּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים עַל שֻׁלְחַן הַחֲלָבִים וּשְׁתֵּי חֲצוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף בְּיָדָם, תָּקְעוּ וְהֵרִיעוּ וְתָקְעוּ. בָּאוּ וְעָמְדוּ אֵצֶל בֶּן אַרְזָא, אֶחָד מִימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ. שָׁחָה לְנַסֵּךְ, וְהֵנִיף הַסְּגָן בַּסּוּדָרִין, וְהִקִּישׁ בֶּן אַרְזָא בַּצֶּלְצָל, וְדִבְּרוּ הַלְוִיִּם בַּשִּׁיר. הִגִּיעוּ לְפֶרֶק, תָּקְעוּ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ הָעָם. עַל כָּל פֶּרֶק, תְּקִיעָה. וְעַל כָּל תְּקִיעָה, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. זֶה הוּא סֵדֶר הַתָּמִיד לַעֲבוֹדַת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיִבָּנֶה בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ, אָמֵן:",

7.3. "If the high priest wished to burn the offerings [himself], he would go up the ascent with the deputy high priest at his right. When he reached the middle of the ascent the deputy took hold of his right hand and helped him up. The first [of the other priests] then handed to him the head and the foot and he laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then handed to the first the two fore legs. And he handed them to the high priest who laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then went away. In the same way all the other limbs were handed to him and he laid his hands on them and threw them [on to the altar fire]. If he wanted, he could lay his hands and let others throw [them] on the fire. He then went around the altar. From where did he begin? From the southeastern corner; from there he went to the northeastern, then to the northwestern and then to the southwestern. They there handed him the wine for libation. The deputy high priest stood on the corner/horn of the altar with the flags in his hand, and two priests on the table of the fats with two trumpets in their hands. They blew a teki’ah, a teru’ah and a teki’ah. They then went and stood by Ben Arza, one on his right hand and one on his left. When he bent down to make the libation the deputy high priest waved the flags and Ben Arza struck the cymbals and the Levites sang the psalm. When they came to a pause they blew a teki’ah, and the public bowed down. At every pause there was a teki’ah and at every teki’ah a bowing down. This was the order of the regular daily sacrifice for the service of our Lord. May it be His will that it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.",

7. Mishnah, Taanit, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), (in)significance of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 133

4.2. "אֵלּוּ הֵן מַעֲמָדוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כח), צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי, וְכִי הֵיאַךְ קָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָרֵב, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, הִתְקִינוּ נְבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מִשְׁמָרוֹת. עַל כָּל מִשְׁמָר וּמִשְׁמָר הָיָה מַעֲמָד בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, שֶׁל לְוִיִּם, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרְאֵלִים. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּשְׁמָר לַעֲלוֹת, כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם עוֹלִים לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר מִתְכַּנְּסִין לְעָרֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְאִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית: \n",

4.2. "What are the ma’amadot? Since it is said, “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food” (Numbers 28:2). Now how can a man’s offering be offered and he is not present? [Therefore] the former prophets instituted twenty-four mishmarot (guards). For each mishmar there was a ma’amad [at the Temple] in Jerusalem consisting of priests, Levites and Israelites. When the time came for the mishmar to go up [to Jerusalem] the priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem and the Israelites of that mishmar assembled in their cities and read the story of creation.",

8. Mishnah, Pesahim, 5.5-5.7, 5.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), and priests •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings Found in books: Balberg (2017) 157, 159

5.5. "הַפֶּסַח נִשְׁחָט בְּשָׁלֹשׁ כִּתּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשָׁחֲטוּ אֹתוֹ כֹּל קְהַל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, (שמות יב) קָהָל וְעֵדָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל. נִכְנְסָה כַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, נִתְמַלֵּאת הָעֲזָרָה, נָעֲלוּ דַלְתוֹת הָעֲזָרָה. תָּקְעוּ, הֵרִיעוּ וְתָקָעוּ. הַכֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים שׁוּרוֹת שׁוּרוֹת, וּבִידֵיהֶם בָּזִיכֵי כֶסֶף וּבָזִיכֵי זָהָב. שׁוּרָה שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ כֶּסֶף כֶּסֶף, וְשׁוּרָה שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ זָהָב זָהָב. לֹא הָיוּ מְעֹרָבִין. וְלֹא הָיוּ לַבָּזִיכִין שׁוּלַיִם, שֶׁמָּא יַנִּיחוּם וְיִקְרַשׁ הַדָּם: \n", 5.6. "שָׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל וְקִבֵּל הַכֹּהֵן, נוֹתְנוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וּמְקַבֵּל אֶת הַמָּלֵא וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרֵיקָן. כֹּהֵן הַקָּרוֹב אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ זוֹרְקוֹ זְרִיקָה אַחַת כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד: \n", 5.7. "יָצְתָה כַת רִאשׁוֹנָה וְנִכְנְסָה כַת שְׁנִיָּה. יָצְתָה שְׁנִיָּה, נִכְנְסָה שְׁלִישִׁית. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כָּךְ מַעֲשֵׂה הַשְּׁנִיָּה וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית. קָרְאוּ אֶת הַהַלֵּל. אִם גָּמְרוּ שָׁנוּ, וְאִם שָׁנוּ שִׁלְּשׁוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁלְּשׁוּ מִימֵיהֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִימֵיהֶם שֶׁל כַּת שְׁלִישִׁית לֹא הִגִּיעַ לְאָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע ה', מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעַמָּהּ מֻעָטִין: \n", 5.10. "קְרָעוֹ וְהוֹצִיא אֵמוּרָיו, נְתָנוֹ בְמָגִיס וְהִקְטִירָן עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. יָצְתָה כַת רִאשׁוֹנָה וְיָשְׁבָה לָהּ בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, שְׁנִיָּה בַּחֵיל, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת. חֲשֵׁכָה, יָצְאוּ וְצָלוּ אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן: \n",

5.5. "The pesah is slaughtered in three divisions, as it is said, “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it” (Exodus 12:6): “assembly,” “congregation,” and “Israel.” The first division entered, the Temple court was filled, and they closed the doors of the Temple court. They sounded a teki'ah, a teru'ah, and a teki'ah. The priests stood in rows, and in their hands were basins of silver and basins of gold, a row which was entirely of silver was of silver, and a row which was entirely of gold was of gold, they were not mixed. And the basins did not have flat bottoms, lest they put them down and the blood becomes congealed.", 5.6. "The Israelite killed [the lamb]; And the priest caught [the blood]. He would hand it to his colleague and his colleague [would hand it] to his colleague. And he would receive the full [basin] and give back the empty one. The priest nearest the altar would sprinkle it once over against the base [or the altar].", 5.7. "The first division [then] went out and the second entered; the second went out and the third entered. As did the first, so did the second and the third. They recited the Hallel. If they finished it, they repeated, and if they repeated [and were not finished yet], they recited it a third time, though they never did recite it a third time. Rabbi Judah says: the third division never reached, “I love Lord for he hears” (Psalms, because the people for it were few.", 5.10. "Then he tore it and took out its inner fats, placed them in a tray and burnt them on the altar. The first division went out and sat down on the Temple mount, the second [sat] in the hel, while the third remained in its place. When it grew dark they went out and roasted their pesah lambs.",

9. Mishnah, Parah, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 58

5.4. "שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁחֲתָכָהּ לְחַטָּאת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יַטְבִּיל מִיָּד. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, יְטַמֵּא וְיַטְבִּיל. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לְקַדֵּשׁ, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּקָטָן, וּפוֹסֵל בְּאִשָּׁה וּבְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס: \n",

5.4. "A reed pipe that was cut [for use as a container] for the hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it must be immersed immediately. Rabbi Joshua ruled: he defiles it and then immerses it. All are eligible to prepare the mixture, except a deaf mute, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Judah says a minor is eligible, but disqualifies a woman and a hermaphrodite.",

10. Mishnah, Arakhin, 5.6, 6.3, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35

5.6. "חַיָּבֵי עֲרָכִים, מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן. חַיָּבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן. חַיָּבֵי עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים, מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַצֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א), לִרְצוֹנוֹ, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, רוֹצֶה אָנִי. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, רוֹצֶה אָנִי: \n", 6.3. "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, חַיָּבֵי עֲרָכִין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וּמִטָּה מֻצַּעַת וְסַנְדָּלִין וּתְפִלִּין. לוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא לְבָנָיו. אִם הָיָה אֻמָּן, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְלֵי אֻמָּנוּת מִכָּל מִין וָמִין. חָרָשׁ, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי מַעֲצָדִין וּשְׁתֵּי מְגֵרוֹת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה אִכָּר, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶת צִמְדּוֹ. חַמָּר, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶת חֲמוֹרוֹ: \n", 8.7. "מַחֲרִים אָדָם אֶת קָדָשָׁיו, בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וּבֵין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. אִם נֶדֶר, נוֹתֵן אֶת הַדָּמִים. אִם נְדָבָה, נוֹתֵן אֶת טוֹבָתוֹ. שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה, אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בְּשׁוֹר זֶה לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ עוֹלָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. הַבְּכוֹר, בֵּין תָּמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם, מַחֲרִימִין אוֹתוֹ. כֵּיצַד פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ. הַפּוֹדִין אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בִּבְכוֹר זֶה, לִתְּנוֹ לְבֶן בִּתּוֹ אוֹ לְבֶן אֲחוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר תַּקְדִּישׁ, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַל תַּקְדִּישׁ. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר תַּקְדִּישׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אַל תַּקְדִּישׁ, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אַל תַּקְדִּישׁ, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר תַּקְדִּישׁ. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה, מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי, וְאֵין אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ: \n",

5.6. "With regard to those who made a vow of value: they take a pledge from them. With regard to those obligated to bring a hatat or asham: they do not take a pledge. With regard to those obligated to bring an olah or a shelamim: they do take a pledge. And even though he is not atoned for unless he is willing [to pay his obligation], as it is said: “willingly” (Leviticus 1:3), they coerce him until he says: I agree. The same is true in the case of divorce documents: they coerce him until he says: I agree.", 6.3. "Even though they said: they take pledges from those who owe vows of value, they allow him food for thirty days, clothing for twelve months, bed and bedding, shoes and tefillin. For himself, but not for his wife and children. If he was a craftsman, they leave him two tools of every kind. If he was a carpenter, they leave him two axes and two saws. Rabbi Eliezer says: if he was a farmer, they leave him his yoke [of oxen]. If a donkey driver, they leave him his donkey.", 8.7. "A man may proscribe his holy things, whether they are most holy things or less holy things. If [they had been] consecrated as a vow, he must give their value, if as a freewill-offering, he must give what it is worth to him. [If he said:] “Let this ox be an olah,” one estimates how much a man would pay for the ox to offer it as an olah, which he was not obliged [to offer]. A first-born, whether unblemished or blemished, may be proscribed. How can it be redeemed? They estimate what a man would give for this first-born in order to give it to the son of his daughter or to the son of his sister. Rabbi Ishmael says: one verse says, [All first-born males] you shall sanctify,” (Deuteronomy 15:19) and another verse says: [“The first-borns among beasts] no man shall sanctify it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall sanctify,” since it was said already: “No man shall sanctify,” and it is impossible to say: “No man shall sanctify,” since it is also said: “You shall sanctify”? Therefore resolve [thus]: you may sanctify it by consecrating its value [to the owner], but you may not sanctify it by consecrating it to the altar.",

11. Mishnah, Nazir, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35

3.6. "מִי שֶׁנָּזַר נְזִירוּת הַרְבֵּה וְהִשְׁלִים אֶת נְזִירוּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא לָאָרֶץ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, נָזִיר שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נָזִיר בַּתְּחִלָּה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְהִילְנִי הַמַּלְכָּה, שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנָהּ לַמִּלְחָמָה, וְאָמְרָה, אִם יָבֹא בְנִי מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה בְשָׁלוֹם אֱהֵא נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וּבָא בְנָהּ מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְהָיְתָה נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים. וּבְסוֹף שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים עָלְתָה לָאָרֶץ, וְהוֹרוּהָ בֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁתְּהֵא נְזִירָה עוֹד שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אֲחֵרוֹת. וּבְסוֹף שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נִטְמֵאת, וְנִמְצֵאת נְזִירָה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת שָׁנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֹא הָיְתָה נְזִירָה אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה: \n",

3.6. "If one vows a long naziriteship of and completes his naziriteship and afterwards comes to the land [of Israel]: Beth Shammai says that he is a nazirite for thirty days, But Beth Hillel says that his naziriteship begins again. It happened that Queen Helena, when her son went to war, said: “If my son returns in peace from the war, I shall be a nazirite for seven years.” Her son returned from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. At the end of the seven years, she went up to the land [of Israel] and Beth Hillel instructed her to be a nazirite for a further seven years. Towards the end of this seven years, she contracted ritual defilement, and so altogether she was a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Judah said: she was a nazirite only for fourteen years.",

12. Mishnah, Menachot, 9.7-9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 54, 56, 58, 151

9.7. "כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר אֵין בָּהֶם סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִן הַפַּר הַבָּא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד טְעוּנִים סְמִיכָה, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַפָּסַח. וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ וּמֵבִיא נְסָכִים וּמֵמִיר: \n", 9.8. "הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, סוּמָא, וְנָכְרִי, וְהָעֶבֶד, וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ, וְהָאִשָּׁה. וּסְמִיכָה, שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה, עַל הָרֹאשׁ, בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיִם. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין שׁוֹחֲטִין, וְתֵכֶף לַסְּמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה: \n",

9.7. "None of the communal offerings require the laying on of hands except the bull that is offered for [the transgression by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the scapegoat. Rabbi Shimon says: also the he-goat offered for [the sin] of idol worship. All the offerings of an individual require the laying on of hands except the first-born, the cattle tithe, and the pesah. And an heir may lay his hands [on his father’s offering], and he may bring the libations for it, and can substitute [another animal for it].", 9.8. "All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.",

13. Mishnah, Megillah, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 58

2.4. "הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּקָטָן. אֵין קוֹרִין אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה, וְלֹא מָלִין, וְלֹא טוֹבְלִין, וְלֹא מַזִּין, וְכֵן שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם לֹא תִטְבֹּל, עַד שֶׁתָּנֵץ הַחַמָּה. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִשֶּׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, כָּשֵׁר:"

2.4. "All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid."

14. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.1, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 51, 52, 58

1.1. "הַכֹּל חַיָּבִין בָּרְאִיָּה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְטֻמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, וְנָשִׁים, וַעֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵינָם מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, הַחִגֵּר, וְהַסּוּמָא, וְהַחוֹלֶה, וְהַזָּקֵן, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת בְּרַגְלָיו. אֵיזֶהוּ קָטָן, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִרְכּוֹב עַל כְּתֵפָיו שֶׁל אָבִיו וְלַעֲלוֹת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת, דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֶאֱחֹז בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו וְלַעֲלוֹת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים: \n", 2.2. "יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין: \n",

1.1. "All are obligated to appear [at the Temple], except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor, a person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, a lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot. Who is a minor? Whoever is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel say: whoever is unable to hold his father’s hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said: “Three regalim” (Exodus 23:14).", 2.2. "Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.",

15. Mishnah, Shekalim, 1.5, 7.6-7.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 58, 62

1.5. "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים, אִם שָׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּׁקְלוּ, אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִנֵּי זָבִין וְקִנֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. (אֲבָל) נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת, מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁנִּדָּר וְנִדָּב, מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל שֶׁאֵין נִדָּר וְנִדָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן הוּא מְפֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עזרא ד) לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ: \n", 7.6. "אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן, נָכְרִי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁלַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִין מִשֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵבָה מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵמָה הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה: \n", 7.7. "עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נֵאוֹתִים בָּהֶן, וְעַל הַפָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ, וְעַל הַקִּנִּין הַפְּסוּלוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ בָאוֹת מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּנִּין, מְסַפֵּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת: \n",

1.5. "Even though they said, “they don’t exact pledges from women, slaves or minors, [yet] if they paid the shekel it is accepted from them. If a non-Jew or a Samaritan paid the shekel they do not accept it from them. And they do not accept from them the bird-offerings of zavin or bird-offerings of zavot or bird-offerings of women after childbirth, Or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But vow-offerings and freewill-offerings they do accept from them. This is the general rule: all offerings which can be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do accept from them, but offerings which cannot be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do not accept from them. And thus it is explicitly stated by Ezra, as it is said: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God” (Ezra 4:3).", 7.6. "Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth].", 7.7. "[They further decreed] concerning the salt and the wood that the priests may benefit from them. And concerning the [red] heifer that using its ashes is not considered sacrilege. And concerning bird-offerings which had become unfit [for sacrifice], that [others] should be offered [in their place] out of public funds. Rabbi Yose says: the one who supplied the bird-offerings was bound to supply [those which had to be offered in the place of] those which had become unfit.",

16. Mishnah, Gittin, 2.5, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 58, 62

2.5. "הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִכְתֹּב אֶת הַגֵּט, אֲפִלּוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. הָאִשָּׁה כוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּטָּהּ, וְהָאִישׁ כּוֹתֵב אֶת שׁוֹבְרוֹ, שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְחוֹתְמָיו. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן וְסוּמָא וְנָכְרִי: \n", 3.3. "הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ, מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר, כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם לָאו, פָּסוּל. מְצָאוֹ בַחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִדְלֻסְקְמָא, אִם מַכִּירוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְהִנִּיחוֹ זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה, נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַנְּשׂוּאָה לְכֹהֵן וְהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה בְחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חַטָּאתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם: \n",

2.5. "All are qualified to write a get, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor. A woman may write her own get and a man his own receipt [for the ketubah], since the document is upheld only by its signatures. All are qualified to bring a get except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person and a non-Jew.", 3.3. "One who brings a get and loses it on the way: If he finds it immediately it is valid, and if not it is not valid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a folder if he recognizes it, it is valid. If one brings a get and left [the husband] when [the husband] was an old man or sick, he should deliver it to her on the presumption that he is still alive. If the daughter of an ordinary Israelite is married to a priest and her husband goes abroad, she continues eating terumah on the presumption that he is still alive. If a man sends a sin-offering from abroad they sacrifice it on the presumption that he is still alive.",

17. Mishnah, Yoma, 3.8, 4.2, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 51

3.8. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ, וּפָרוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 4.2. "קָשַׁר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית בְּרֹאשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ כְנֶגֶד בֵּית שִׁלּוּחוֹ, וְלַנִּשְׁחָט כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁיךָ. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 6.2. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָווּ פָּשְׁעוּ חָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָנָּא בַּשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָווּ וְשֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעֲזָרָה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹמְעִים שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִפִּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, הָיוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וְנוֹפְלִים עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n",

3.8. "He came to his bull and his bull was standing between the Ulam and the altar, its head to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands on the eastside facing the west. And he lays both his hands upon it and confesses. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 4.2. "He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the goat which was to be sent away, and he placed it at the gate where it was later to be sent away, and on the goat that was to be slaughtered [he placed a thread of crimson wool on its neck] at the place of the slaughtering. He came to his bull a second time, pressed his two hands upon it and made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 6.2. "He then came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and he made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! They have done wrong, they have transgressed, they have sinned before You, Your people the House of Israel. Please, in the name of Hashem (Bashem)! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which your people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear God’s name explicated coming out of the high priest’s mouth, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces and say “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”",

18. Mishnah, Negaim, 14.8, 14.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 51, 58

14.8. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הָאָשָׁם, וְסָמַךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו, וּשְׁחָטוֹ, וְקִבְּלוּ שְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים אֶת דָּמוֹ, אֶחָד בִּכְלִי, וְאֶחָד בַּיָּד. זֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל בַּכְּלִי, בָּא וּזְרָקוֹ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְזֶה שֶׁקִּבֵּל בַּיָּד, בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הַמְּצֹרָע. וְהַמְּצֹרָע טָבַל בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמְּצֹרָעִים. בָּא וְעָמַד בְּשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה: \n", 14.12. "מְצֹרָע עָנִי שֶׁהֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר, יָצָא. וְעָשִׁיר שֶׁהֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָנִי, לֹא יָצָא. מֵבִיא אָדָם עַל יְדֵי בְנוֹ, עַל יְדֵי בִתּוֹ, עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ קָרְבַּן עָנִי, וּמַאֲכִילָן בַּזְּבָחִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר, וְכֵן כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁהִיא חַיָּבֶת: \n",

14.8. "He comes to the guilt-offering and he puts his two hands on it. He then slaughters it. Two priests receive its blood, one in a vessel and the other in his hand. He who received it in the vessel proceeded to sprinkle it on the wall of the altar. The one who received it in his hand would approach the metzora. The metzora had in the meantime immersed himself in the chamber of the metzoraim. He would come and stand at the Nikanor gate. Rabbi Judah says: he did not require immersion.", 14.12. "A poor metzora who brought the sacrifice of a rich man has fulfilled his duty; But a rich metzora that brought the sacrifice of a poor man has not fulfilled his duty. A man may bring a poor man's sacrifice for his son, his daughter, his slave or his female, and thereby enable them to eat of the offerings. Rabbi Judah says: for his wife also he must bring the sacrifice of a rich man; and the same applies to any other sacrifice to which she is liable.",

19. Tosefta, Arakhin, 3.1, 3.14-3.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35

3.1. "האומר הרי עלי שרביט מלא קומתו מביא מלא קומתו שרביט שאינו נכפף. מעשה באמה של רימטיא שהיתה בתה חולה ואמרה אם תעמוד בתי מחוליה אתן משקלה זהב עמדה מחוליה עלתה לירושלים ושקלתה זהב."

20. Mishnah, Temurah, 1.17, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 54, 58

3.4. "וַהֲלֹא אַף הַנְּדָבָה עוֹלָה הִיא. מַה בֵּין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אֶלָּא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא בָאָה חוֹבָה, הוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ וּמֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ נְסָכִין, וּנְסָכֶיהָ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה כֹהֵן, עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהִיא בָאָה נְדָבָה, אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ נְסָכִין, וּנְסָכֶיהָ מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן, עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ שֶׁל אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר: \n",

3.4. "But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].",

21. Tosefta, Menachot, 10.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings Found in books: Balberg (2017) 157

22. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35

23. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.8, 2.10-2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 51, 52, 54, 56

24. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), (in)significance of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 63

2.6. However, it is not a very easy thing to go over this man’s discourse, nor to know plainly what he means; yet does he seem, amidst a great confusion and disorder in his falsehoods, to produce, in the first place, such things as resemble what we have examined already, and relate to the departure of our forefathers out of Egypt;

25. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), and priests Found in books: Balberg (2017) 159

26. Tosefta, Temurah, 1.17, 3.9 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), and priests •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings Found in books: Balberg (2017) 157, 158

27. Palestinian Talmud, Betzah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017) 53, 54

28. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017) 51, 53, 54

29. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017) 52

30. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), and priests Found in books: Balberg (2017) 158

50a. איתיביה רבי יצחק נפחא לר' אמי (ויקרא ד, יב) והוציא את כל הפר שיוציא את כולו,ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת אמר רב פפא בעור ובשר ופרש דכולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בדם מר סבר דם איקרי פר ומר סבר דם לא איקרי פר,אמר רב אשי מסתברא כמאן דאמר דם איקרי פר דכתיב (ויקרא טז, ג) בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש בפר בן בקר אטו בקרניה מעייל ליה אלא בדמו וקרי ליה פר,ואידך במה הוכשר אהרן לבא אל הקדש בפר בן בקר לחטאת,ותיפוק ליה דחטאת שמתו בעליה היא וחטאת שמתו בעליה למיתה אזלא א"ל רבין בר רב אדא לרבא אמרי תלמידיך אמר רב עמרם חטאת צבור היא ולא למיתה אזלא,דתנן אמר לו ר"מ והלא פר יום הכפורים וחביתי כהן גדול ופסח דקרבן יחיד הוא ודוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה לאו מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דצבור,ולטעמיך דקתני אמר לו רבי יעקב והלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים וחגיגה דקרבן צבור ואין דוחין לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר דיחיד,אלא לתנא קמא קא מהדר ליה דשמעיה דקאמר קרבן צבור דוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה וקרבן יחיד אינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה אמר לו רבי מאיר קרבן יחיד כללא הוא והלא פר יום הכפורים וחביתי כהן גדול ופסח דקרבן יחיד הוא ודוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה,ואמר לו רבי יעקב קרבן צבור כללא הוא והלא פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים וחגיגה דקרבן צבור הוא ואין דוחין לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה,אלא נקוט האי כללא בידך כל שזמנו קבוע דוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה אפילו ביחיד וכל שאין זמנו קבוע אינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה ואפילו בצבור,איתיביה אביי פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולם ימותו וכן שעירי עבודת כוכבים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולם ימותו דברי רבי יהודה רבי (אליעזר) ורבי שמעון אומרים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת צבור מתה,אמר ליה מאי פר פר העלם דבר של צבור והא של יוה"כ קתני כי קתני אדשעיר,והתניא פר של יוה"כ ושעיר של יום הכפורים שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולם ימותו דברי רבי יהודה רבי (אליעזר) ורבי שמעון אומרים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת צבור מתה,לא תימא שאין חטאת צבור מתה אלא אימא שאין חטאת השותפין מתה ומאי נפקא מינה,דלא מייתו כהנים פר בהוראה,ת"ש דבעי ר' (אליעזר)

50a. § b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raised an objection to Rabbi Ami: “And he shall remove the entire bull /b outside the camp” (Leviticus 4:12). This verse speaks of a bull that has been slaughtered and its fats and sacrificial parts have been burned, which proves that even after it has been slaughtered, it is still called a bull. Rabbi Ami replied: The animal itself is not called a bull at this stage; rather, it means b that he should remove the entire /b carcass, all that remains of the bull.,The Gemara raises another difficulty by citing a verse: b “And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, /b whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp” (Leviticus 16:27). Once again, the verse proves that even after it has been slaughtered and its blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, the animal is still called a bull. b Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that /b when it is intact, b with its hide, its flesh, and its excrement, /b it is called a bull. b When they disagree /b is with regard b to /b the b blood. One Sage holds /b that its b blood is called a bull, and one Sage holds /b that b blood /b alone b is not called a bull. /b , b Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable /b to say b in accordance with the one who said /b that b blood is called /b part of the b bull, as it is written: “With this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull” /b (Leviticus 16:3). b Is that to say /b that b he brings /b it b in, /b to the Holy of Holies, b with its horns? Rather, /b he enters b with its blood, and /b yet the Torah b calls that “a bull.” /b This proves that the blood itself is called a bull.,The Gemara asks: b And the other one, /b who maintains that blood is not called a bull, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers that he can explain the verse as follows: b With what did Aaron become qualified to enter the sacred place? With /b his bringing of b a young bull for a sin-offering. /b However, the blood itself, which he brings inside, is not called a bull.,§ The Gemara returns to the issue of a replacement High Priest entering with the blood of the first bull: b And let him derive /b the answer to this problem from the fact b that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died. /b After all, the bull of the first High Priest is a sin-offering and its owner has died. Since there is a principle that b a sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die, /b this should resolve the dilemma. b Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say /b that b Rav Amram said /b that the sin-offering bull of the High Priest b is a communal sin-offering, /b as the High Priest brings it both on his own behalf and for his fellow priests, and a communal sin-offering b is not left to die. /b , b As we learned /b in a mishna in tractate i Temura /i that i tanna’im /i debate which offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity. b Rabbi Meir said to him: But /b consider b the Yom Kippur bull, and the meal-offering resembling a wafer /b brought specially by the b High Priest, and /b the b Paschal offering, /b each of which b is an individual offering and overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity. /b Since Rabbi Meir says that these are individual offerings, is it b not /b correct to say b by inference that there is one who says that /b these offerings are b communal? /b ,The Gemara rejects this proof. b And according to your reasoning, /b consider b that /b which was b taught /b there: b Rabbi Ya’akov said to him: But /b there are the cases of the b bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goats for /b a sin of b idolatry, /b and the b Festival peace-offering, which /b are all b communal offerings and override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. /b According to the above reasoning, it can be claimed b by inference that there is one who says that /b these are b individual /b offerings, which is incorrect., b Rather, /b Rabbi Meir b responded to the first i tanna /i , as he heard him say /b in the form of a general principle: b Communal sacrifices override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but individual sacrifices override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. /b In response to this claim, b Rabbi Meir said to him: /b Is this statement with regard to b an individual offering /b a general b principle? But /b consider b the Yom Kippur bull, and the meal-offering resembling a wafer /b of the b High Priest, and /b the b Paschal offering, /b each of which b is an individual offering and overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity. /b , b And Rabbi Ya’akov responded to /b the first i tanna /i from a different perspective: Is this statement with regard to b a communal offering /b a general b principle, /b which overrides ritual impurity? b But /b there are the cases of the b bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goats for /b a sin of b idolatry, /b and the b Festival peace-offering, which /b are all b communal offerings and override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. /b , b Rather, grasp this principle: Any /b offering b that /b has b a fixed time /b for its sacrifice b overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity even if /b it is an b individual /b offering; b and any /b offering b of no fixed time overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity, and /b this is the case b even /b if it b is a communal /b offering. With regard to the issue at hand, as the emphasis of both Rabbi Meir’s and Rabbi Ya’akov’s statements is whether the offerings they referred to override Shabbat and ritual impurity, not their classification as individual or communal offerings, nothing can be inferred from their comments in this regard. Consequently, it remains possible that the bull of the High Priest is an individual offering.,§ b Abaye raised an objection to /b Rava: Is the bull of the High Priest an individual offering? But we learned in a i baraita /i : With regard to the b bull and /b the b goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and he separated others in their stead, /b and the first animals were subsequently found, b all /b of the second set b shall /b be left to b die. And likewise, goats for /b a sin of b idolatry that were lost and he separated others in their stead, all of them shall /b be left to b die. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall /b be left to b graze until they become unfit, /b whereupon b they are sold and their proceeds go /b for a b free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not /b left to b die. /b This proves that the Yom Kippur bull is called a communal sin-offering.,Rava b said to /b Abaye: b What bull /b is referred to here? A b bull for an unwitting communal sin. /b Abaye retorted: b But /b the i baraita /i b taught: of Yom Kippur, /b which clearly indicates that it is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rava answered: b When /b the i tanna /i of this i baraita /i b taught: /b of Yom Kippur, he was referring only b to the goat. /b That is, the i baraita /i should be read as follows: The communal bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which is also a communal offering.,Abaye further asks: b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b the bull of Yom Kippur and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost and he separated others in their stead, /b and the first animals were subsequently found, b all /b of the second set b shall /b be left to b die. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall /b be left to b graze until they become unfit, /b whereupon b they are sold and their proceeds go /b for a b free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not /b left to b die. /b This i baraita /i explicitly states that the bull of Yom Kippur is considered a communal offering.,Rava answered him: b Do not say: As a communal sin-offering is not /b left to b die. Rather, say: As a sin-offering of partners is not /b left to b die. /b Since some of the partners are still alive, the sin-offering is not left to die. The bull of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is considered a sin-offering of partners because it atones not only for the High Priest, but for his fellow priests, as well. The Gemara asks: b And /b if ultimately the bull is not left to die, b what is /b the b practical difference /b whether the bull of the High Priest is considered a communal sin-offering or a sin-offering of partners? Why did Rava insist on calling it a sin-offering of partners?,The Gemara answers b that /b there is a difference between these two categories with regard to a court that issues an incorrect ruling to an entire community, e.g., a tribe of Israel, and the people act in accordance with that ruling. The i halakha /i in this case is that the court must bring a bull for an unwitting communal sin. Rava insisted on referring to the bull that atones for all of the priests on Yom Kippur as a sin-offering of partners, not a communal sin-offering, for the following reason: If a court composed of priests issued a mistaken ruling, and the priests acted in accordance with that teaching, the b priests do not bring a bull for /b this b ruling, /b as they are not considered a community but a large partnership.,The Gemara offers another solution to the question. b Come /b and b hear, as Rabbi Elazar raised /b the following b dilemma: /b

31. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35

66b. והא קא עביד עבודה בקדשים כהלל דתניא אמרו עליו על הלל מימיו לא מעל אדם בעולתו אלא מביאה חולין לעזרה ומקדישה וסומך ידו עליה ושוחטה,פסח בשבת היכי מצי מקדיש ליה והתנן אין מקדישין ואין מעריכין ואין מחרימין ואין מגביהין תרומה ומעשרות כל אלו ביום טוב אמרו קל וחומר בשבת,הני מילי בחובות שאין קבוע להן זמן אבל בחובות שקבוע להן זמן מקדישין דאמר רבי יוחנן מקדיש אדם את פסחו בשבת וחגיגתו ביו"ט,והלא מחמר מחמר כלאחר יד מחמר כלאחר יד נמי נהי דאיסורא דאורייתא ליכא איסורא מדרבנן מיהא איכא,היינו דקא בעי מיניה דבר שיש לו היתר מן התורה ודבר שבות עומד לפניו לעקרו כלאחר יד במקום מצוה מאי אמר להן הלכה זו שמעתי ושכחתי אלא הניחו להן לישראל אם אין נביאים הן בני נביאים הן:,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המתיהר אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו אם נביא הוא נבואתו מסתלקת ממנו אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו מהלל דאמר מר התחיל מקנטרן בדברים וקאמר להו הלכה זו שמעתי ושכחתי אם נביא הוא נבואתו מסתלקת ממנו מדבורה דכתיב (שופטים ה, ז) חדלו פרזון בישראל חדלו עד שקמתי דבורה שקמתי אם בישראל וגו' וכתיב (שופטים ה, יב) עורי עורי דבורה עורי עורי דברי שיר וגו',ר"ל אמר כל אדם שכועס אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו אם נביא הוא נבואתו מסתלקת ממנו אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו ממשה דכתיב (במדבר לא, יד) ויקצוף משה על פקודי החיל וגו' וכתיב (במדבר לא, כא) ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא הבאים למלחמה זאת חוקת התורה אשר צוה ה' את משה וגו' מכלל דמשה איעלם מיניה,אם נביא הוא נבואתו מסתלקת ממנו מאלישע דכתיב (מלכים ב ג, יד) לולי פני יהושפט מלך יהודה אני נושא אם אביט אליך ואם אראך וגו' וכתיב (מלכים ב ג, טו) ועתה קחו לי מנגן והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו יד ה' וגו',אמר רבי מני בר פטיש כל שכועס אפילו פוסקין עליו גדולה מן השמים מורידין אותו מנלן מאליאב שנאמר (שמואל א יז, כח) ויחר אף אליאב בדוד ויאמר למה [זה] ירדת ועל מי נטשת מעט הצאן ההנה במדבר אני ידעתי את זדונך ואת רוע לבבך כי למען ראות המלחמה ירדת וכי אזל שמואל לממשחינהו בכלהו כתיב (שמואל א טז, ח) לא בזה בחר ה' ובאליאב כתיב (שמואל א טז, ז) ויאמר ה' אל שמואל אל תביט אל מראהו ואל גבה קומתו כי מאסתיהו מכלל דהוה רחים ליה עד האידנא:,אשכחן תמיד ופסח דדחו שבת דדחו טומאה מנא לן אמרי כי היכי דיליף פסח מתמיד לענין שבת הכי נמי יליף תמיד מפסח לענין טומאה,ופסח גופיה מנא לן אמר רבי יוחנן דאמר קרא (במדבר ט, י) איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש איש נדחה לפסח שני ואין ציבור נידחין לפסח שני אלא עבדי בטומאה,אמר ליה ר"ש בן לקיש לרבי יוחנן אימא איש נדחה לפסח שני ציבור לית להו תקנתא לא בפסח ראשון ולא בפסח שני,אלא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מהכא (במדבר ה, ב) וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש יאמר טמאי מתים ואל יאמר זבין ומצורעין ואני אומר אם טמאי מתים משתלחין זבין ומצורעין לא כל שכן

66b. b But /b surely b he did work with consecrated /b animals, using the lambs and goats that had been consecrated as sacrifices to transport the knife, and it is forbidden to make use of consecrated animals. The Gemara answers that the person acted here b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Hillel, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b They said about Hillel /b that b no one ever misused his burnt-offering. /b How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance, but b rather he would bring it /b in an b unconsecrated /b state b to the Temple courtyard and /b there he would b consecrate it, and /b then immediately he would b place his hand on its /b head b and slaughter it. /b On that day, those who used their Paschal lambs and goats to transport knives consecrated their animals only after they arrived in the Temple courtyard.,The Gemara asks: If so, b how could they consecrate the Paschal offerings /b that year when Passover eve occurred b on Shabbat? Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b One may not consecrate /b animals, b take a valuation vow, consecrate /b objects for use by the priests or the Temple, b or separate i terumot /i and tithes. They stated all of these /b prohibitions with regard to b a Festival, /b and it is b an i a fortiori /i inference /b that these activities are prohibited b on Shabbat /b as well, for the Sages decreed that one should not engage in these activities because they are similar to business transactions and weekday activities.,The Gemara answers: b This /b prohibition of consecrating an animal as a sacrifice on Shabbat or a Festival b applies only to obligatory /b sacrifices b that do not have a set time /b to be brought. b But obligatory /b sacrifices b that have a set time, /b such as the Paschal lamb, b one may consecrate /b even on Shabbat. b For Rabbi Yoḥa said: A person may consecrate his Paschal lamb on Shabbat and his Festival peace-offering on the Festival. /b Since these sacrifices must be brought on a specific day, they may be consecrated on that day even when it is Shabbat or a Festival, as the Sages did not uphold their decree in this circumstance.,The Gemara asks: b But is he not driving a laden animal? /b One who leads a lamb that is carrying a knife is considered as one who is driving a laden animal, which is prohibited on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: It is b driving a laden animal in an unusual manner, /b as a lamb is not typically used to carry loads. The Gemara asks: b Even driving a laden animal in an unusual manner /b is problematic; b granted that there is no prohibition by Torah law, /b but b there is at least a rabbinic prohibition. /b When one performs a prohibited act on Shabbat in an unusual manner, he does not transgress a Torah prohibition, but nonetheless, he violates a rabbinic prohibition.,The Gemara answers: b This is /b precisely b what /b the sons of Beteira b asked /b Hillel: If there is b an act that is permitted by Torah law, and a rabbinic decree stands before it /b and disallows it, b what /b is the law with regard to the permissibility of b uprooting /b the rabbinic decree b in an unusual manner, in a situation /b in which one does so in order to fulfill b a mitzva? /b Bringing the sacrifice is a mitzva, whereas leading the animal while it carries a knife is an unusual way of violating a rabbinic prohibition. Is this permitted? Hillel b said to them: I /b once b heard this i halakha /i but I have forgotten /b it. b But leave /b it b to the Jewish people /b and rely on them to come up with a solution on their own, for b if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets. /b ,With regard to the incident with Hillel, b Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts haughtily, if he is a /b Torah b scholar, his wisdom departs from him; /b and b if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. /b The Gemara explains: That b if he is a /b Torah b scholar, his wisdom departs from him /b is learned b from Hillel, for the Master said /b in this i baraita /i : Hillel b began to rebuke them with words. /b Because he acted haughtily, he ended up b saying to them: I /b once b heard this i halakha /i , but I have forgotten /b it, as he was punished for his haughtiness by forgetting the law. That b if he is a prophet his prophecy departs from him /b is learned b from Deborah, as it is written: “The villagers ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, I arose a mother in Israel” /b (Judges 5:7). For these words of self-glorification, Deborah was punished with a loss of her prophetic spirit, b as it is written /b later that it was necessary to say to her: b “Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song” /b (Judges 5:12), because her prophecy had left her.,Similarly, b Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a /b Torah b scholar, his wisdom departs from him, /b and b if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. /b The Gemara explains: That b if he is a /b Torah b scholar his wisdom departs from him /b is learned b from Moses, as it is written: “And Moses became angry with the officers of the host, /b the captains over thousands and the captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14). b And /b what was his punishment? As b it is written /b afterward: b “And Elazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle: This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded Moses” /b (Numbers 31:21), which proves b by inference that /b this law b had become hidden from Moses due to /b his anger.,And that b if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him, /b we learn b from Elisha, as it is written /b that he became angry with the king of Israel and said to him: b “Were it not that I have regard for the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you” /b (II Kings 3:14), b and it is /b afterward b written: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played that the hand of the Lord came upon him” /b (II Kings 3:15). Because Elisha became angry with the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit departed from him and a minstrel was needed to rouse it anew., b Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Whoever becomes angry, even if greatness has been apportioned to him from heaven, he is lowered /b from his greatness. b From where do we /b derive this? b From Eliab, /b David’s older brother, b as it is stated: “And Eliab’s anger burned against David and he said: Why did you come down, and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle” /b (I Samuel 17:28); we see that Eliab became angry. b And when Samuel went to anoint him /b after God had told him that one of Yishai’s sons was to be the king, b concerning all of /b the other brothers b it is written: “The Lord has not chosen this one” /b (I Samuel 16:8), b whereas with regard to Eliab it is written: “And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not at his appearance, nor at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him” /b (I Samuel 16:7). This proves b by inference that until now He had loved him, /b and it was only at this point that Eliab was rejected. Had it not been for his anger, Eliab would have been fit for greatness; but owing to this shortcoming, God rejected him.,The Gemara raises an additional question incidental to the previous discussion proving that the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat: b We have found /b proofs that b the daily offering and the Paschal lamb override Shabbat. From where do we /b derive b that they /b also b override ritual impurity? /b For we have a tradition that if the entire community is ritually impure, they nonetheless offer the communal sacrifices and the Paschal lamb. b They say: Just as /b the law governing the b Paschal lamb is derived from /b the law governing b the daily offering in regard to /b the overriding of b Shabbat, so too the /b law concerning the b daily offering is derived from /b the law concerning b the Paschal lamb in regard to ritual impurity; /b just as the Paschal lamb overrides communal impurity, so does the daily offering.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b the Paschal lamb itself, from where do we /b derive that if most of the nation is ritually impure, the sacrifice is offered anyway? b Rabbi Yoḥa said: For the verse states: /b “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: b Any man /b of you or your generations b who shall be impure by reason of a corpse, /b or on a distant journey, he shall keep the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall keep it, and eat it with i matzot /i and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:10–11). We can infer from here that b a /b single b individual /b or a group of individuals are b deferred to the second i Pesaḥ /i /b if they are ritually impure, b but the /b entire b community /b or the majority thereof b is not deferred to the second i Pesaḥ /i ; rather, they observe /b the first i Pesaḥ /i b in /b a state of b ritual impurity. /b , b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: /b This verse cannot serve as proof, for you can b say /b that it is to be understood as follows: A single b individual /b or a group of individuals is b deferred to the second i Pesaḥ /i , /b but b the community has no remedy, neither on the first i Pesaḥ /i nor on the second i Pesaḥ /i . /b , b Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish /b rejected this proof and b said /b that a different proof may be brought b from here: /b “Command the children of Israel b that they send out from the camp any leper and any i zav /i and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” /b (Numbers 5:2). b Let /b the verse b say /b only that they are to send out b those who are ritually impure due to a corpse, and not say /b anything about b i zavin /i and lepers, and I would say /b this law on my own through an i a fortiori /i inference: b If those ritually impure due to a corpse, /b whose impurity is not so severe as it is contracted from an external source, b are sent out /b from the camp, with regard to b i zavin /i and lepers /b who are the source of their own impurity, b all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that they should be sent out? Thus, the verse contains unnecessary information.

32. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 35

9b. כי קאמר רבי מאיר בנדר בנדבה לא קאמר והא קתני כנדבותם, נדר בנזיר ובקרבן תני נדב בנזיר ובקרבן,מאי שנא נודר דלא דלמא אתי בה לידי תקלה נדבה נמי לא דלמא אתי בה לידי תקלה,כהלל הזקן דתניא אמרו על הלל הזקן שלא מעל אדם בעולתו כל ימיו מביאה כשהיא חולין לעזרה ומקדישה, וסומך עליה ושוחטה,הניחא נדבה דקרבנות נדבה דנזירות מאי איכא למימר סבר לה כשמעון הצדיק,דתניא אמר (רבי) שמעון הצדיק מימי לא אכלתי אשם נזיר טמא אלא אחד פעם אחת בא אדם אחד נזיר מן הדרום וראיתיו שהוא יפה עינים וטוב רואי וקווצותיו סדורות לו תלתלים אמרתי לו בני מה ראית להשחית את שערך זה הנאה,אמר לי רועה הייתי לאבא בעירי הלכתי למלאות מים מן המעיין ונסתכלתי בבבואה שלי ופחז עלי יצרי ובקש לטורדני מן העולם אמרתי לו רשע למה אתה מתגאה בעולם שאינו שלך במי שהוא עתיד להיות רימה ותולעה העבודה שאגלחך לשמים,מיד עמדתי ונשקתיו על ראשו. אמרתי לו בני כמוך ירבו גוזרי נזירות בישראל עליך הכתוב אומר איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר נזיר להזיר לה',מתקיף לה רבי מני מאי שנא אשם נזיר טמא דלא אכל דאתי על חטא כל אשמות נמי לא ליכול דעל חטא אתו,אמר ליה רבי יונה היינו טעמא כשהן תוהין נוזרין וכשהן מטמאין ורבין עליהן ימי נזירות מתחרטין בהן ונמצאו מביאין חולין לעזרה,אי הכי אפילו נזיר טהור נמי נזיר טהור לא דאמודי אמיד נפשיה דיכול לנדור,ואיבעית אימא

9b. b When Rabbi Meir said /b that one should abstain from making vows, he was referring only b to a vow; he did not say it with regard to a gift /b offering. The Gemara asks: b But it is taught /b in the mishna that if one said: b Like the gift offerings /b of the virtuous, b he has vowed with regard to /b becoming b a nazirite or /b bringing b an offering; /b this indicates that the virtuous vow to become nazirites and bring offerings. The Gemara answers: b Teach /b the mishna in the following emended formulation: b He has volunteered with regard to /b becoming b a nazirite or /b bringing b an offering. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different about one who vows, /b i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, b which is not /b proper to do due to the concern that b perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block /b and not bring b it /b promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should b also not /b designate a particular animal as a b gift /b offering due to the concern that b perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. /b Once the animal is consecrated, anyone who unwittingly benefits from it, e.g., by shearing it or working with it, transgresses the prohibition against misusing consecrated property.,The Gemara answers: In the case of a gift offering, he can act b like Hillel the Elder. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b They said about Hillel the Elder that no person misused his burnt-offering in his lifetime. /b How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance; rather, b he would bring it when it was unconsecrated to /b the Temple b courtyard and /b there he would b consecrate it, and /b then immediately he would b place his hand on its /b head b and slaughter it. /b Consequently, there was no opportunity to misuse it.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well /b with regard to voluntary b gifts /b in the context b of offerings, /b but with regard to the b voluntary /b acceptance b of naziriteship, what is there to say? /b There is still room for concern that he will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Shimon HaTzaddik. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days /b as a priest, b I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite except /b for b one /b occasion. b One time, a particular man who was a nazirite came from the South and I saw that he had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and the fringes of his hair were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see /b that made you decide b to destroy this beautiful hair of yours /b by becoming a nazirite? A nazirite must shave off his hair at the completion of his term. If he becomes impure before the completion of his term, he shaves off his hair and starts his term of naziriteship again., b He said to me: I was a shepherd for /b my b father in my city, /b and b I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection [ i babavua /i ] /b in the water b and my /b evil b inclination quickly overcame me and sought to expel me from the world. I said to /b myself: b Wicked one! Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours? /b Why are you proud b of someone who will eventually be /b food in the grave b for worms and maggots, /b i.e., your body? I swear b by the /b Temple b service that I shall shave you for /b the sake of b Heaven. /b ,Shimon HaTzaddik continues the narrative: b I immediately arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him: My son, may there be more who take vows of naziriteship like you among the Jewish people. About you the verse states: “When /b either b a man /b or a woman b shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” /b (Numbers 6:2). This is an example of voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, i.e., becoming a nazirite with entirely pure intentions rather than as a rash statement, e.g., while in a fit of anger., b Rabbi Mani strongly objects to /b the statement of Shimon HaTzaddik. b What is different about the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite that /b Shimon HaTzaddik b did not eat, because it came as a result of sin /b when the individual violated the terms of his naziriteship by becoming impure? b Let him also not eat all /b other b guilt-offerings, as they /b too b come as a result of sin. /b , b Rabbi Yona said to him: This is the reason: When they regret /b their misdeeds b they become nazirites, and when they become ritually impure and the days of /b their b naziriteship are increased, /b as they must become pure and then begin their terms of naziriteship again, b they regret /b having become nazirites. b They will then turn out to be bringing non-sacred /b animals b into /b the Temple b courtyard. /b Since they do not wish to bring the offerings of a nazirite, their offerings are undesirable, and it is as though the animals are non-sacred.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b then Shimon HaTzaddik should have abstained from eating b even /b the offerings of b a ritually pure nazirite as well /b for the same reason; perhaps he too regretted his decision to become a nazirite. The Gemara answers: In the case of b a pure nazirite /b there is b no /b concern b because he assessed himself /b and realized b that /b he was b able to vow /b and to keep his vow for the term of his naziriteship. However, in the case of a ritually impure nazirite, where the naziriteship was extended for longer than he had estimated due to his contracting impurity, there is concern that he regrets having become a nazirite.,The Gemara suggests a different answer to the question of the identity of the i tanna /i whose opinion is expressed in the mishna. b And if you wish, say: /b

33. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) Found in books: Balberg (2017) 57

93a. if the repeated term “his offering” is not needed to counter the i a fortiori /i inferences, b why do I /b need these three b verses? /b The Gemara explains: One instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of another /b person. Another instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of a gentile. /b The third instance of b “his offering” /b serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,§ The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then b the heir /b is regarded as the offering’s owner. Therefore, he b places /b his b hands /b on the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and 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., b Rav Ḥaya taught /b a i baraita /i b in the presence of Rava: An heir does not place hands /b on an offering he inherited, and b an heir cannot substitute /b a non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b The heir places /b his b hands /b on the offering, b and brings /b the accompanying b libations, and he can substitute /b a non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?,Rav Ḥaya b said to /b Rava: b Should I reverse /b the current version of the i baraita /i to have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava b said to him: No, /b as b whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An heir places hands, /b and b an heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands, /b and b an heir cannot effect substitution. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? /b He expounds the term b “his offering” /b as teaching that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b one’s father’s offering /b that one inherited. b And /b furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda b derives /b the i halakha /i concerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is b the initial stage of consecration, from /b the i halakha /i concerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is b the final stage of consecration: Just as /b with regard to b the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place /b his b hands, so too, /b with regard to b the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution. /b , b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ] /b animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of i hamer yamir /i serving b to include the heir /b as one capable of effecting substitution. b And /b furthermore, b they derive /b the i halakha /i concerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the b final stage of consecration, from /b the i halakha /i concerning who can effect substitution, which is b an initial stage of consecration: Just as /b with regard to b the initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too, /b with regard to b the final stage of consecration, an heir places /b his b hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, what do they do with this /b term: b “His offering”? /b The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of a gentile. /b Another instance of b “his offering” /b teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, b but not /b on b an offering of another /b person. The third instance of b “his offering” /b serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,The Gemara clarifies: b And Rabbi Yehuda does not hold /b that one of the mentions serves b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands, /b so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. b Alternatively, /b if b he holds /b that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must b derive /b that one does not place hands on the offering of b a gentile or /b of b another /b person b from /b the same b one /b mention in the b verse, /b which b leaves him two /b more mentions in the b verses. One /b he expounds to teach that on b “his offering” /b he places hands, b but not /b on b his father’s offering /b that he inherited, b and the other /b mention remains b to include all /b the b owners of /b a jointly owned b offering in /b the requirement of b placing hands. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do /b with the use of the doubled form b in this /b verse: “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ]”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it to include a woman /b among those who can effect substitution. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Since the entire matter /b of substitution b is stated /b in the Torah b only in the masculine form, what /b is the reason that b we ultimately /b come b to include a woman? The verse states: /b “If b he shall substitute [ i hamer yamir /i ],” /b using a doubled form., b And /b as for b the Rabbis, they derive /b that a woman can effect substitution b from /b the term: b “And if” /b (Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase “and if he shall substitute.” b And Rabbi Yehuda does not expound /b the term b “and if” /b at all., strong MISHNA: /strong b Everyone /b who brings an animal offering b places hands /b upon its head, b except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, /b a Canaanite b slave, the agent /b of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, b and a woman. /b , b And /b the requirement of b placing hands is a non-essential mitzva; /b therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.,The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning b on the head /b of the offering b with two hands. And in the /b same b location /b in the Temple b that one places hands, one slaughters /b the animal. b And immediately following /b the rite of b placing hands, /b the b slaughter /b is performed., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: b Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor /b do not place their hands on the offering, b as they are not mentally competent. /b The exclusion of b a gentile /b is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them” (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that b the children of Israel place hands /b upon their offerings, b but gentiles do not place /b their b hands /b upon their offerings. b But /b with regard to b a blind person, what is the reason /b that he does b not /b place his hands on his offering?, b Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi /b disagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. b One said /b that it is b derived /b from a verbal analogy between the mention of b placing hands /b in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of b placing hands /b stated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed b by /b the b Elders of /b the b congregation, /b i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see i Sanhedrin /i 34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person., b And /b the other b one said /b that it is b derived /b from a verbal analogy between the mention of b placing hands /b in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of b placing hands /b stated with regard to the b burnt offering of appearance /b brought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see i Ḥagiga /i 2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who said /b that the exclusion of a blind person is derived b from /b the b burnt offering of appearance, what is the reason /b that b he does not derive /b this b from /b the placing of hands performed by the b Elders of /b the b congregation? /b

34. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah) •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of Found in books: Balberg (2017) 53

16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין

16b. b The first /b members of each pair b served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i . /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i ; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say /b the opposite: b Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i and Shimon ben Shataḥ /b was the b i Nasi /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who taught b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not kill a conspiring witness. /b This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order b to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed. /b Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., b Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; /b if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. b And they are not flogged /b if they are liable to such a penalty, b unless they are both found to be conspirators. And /b if they testified falsely that someone owed money, b they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b ,Hearing this, b Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule /b on any matter of b law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The i baraita /i further relates: b All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed /b individual, to request forgiveness, b and his voice was heard /b weeping. b The people thought that it was the voice of that executed /b person, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai b said to them: It is my voice, /b and b you /b shall b know /b that it is so, b for tomorrow, /b i.e., sometime in the future, b he will die, and his voice will no /b longer b be heard. /b Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as b perhaps /b ben Tabbai b appeased /b the executed individual in the World-to-Come. b Or, /b alternatively, the latter may have b prosecuted him by the law /b of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: b Whose /b opinion does b this /b i baraita /i follow? b Granted, if you say /b it is in accordance b with /b that of b Rabbi Meir, /b who b said /b that b Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy i Nasi /i /b while b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was i Nasi /i , that /b explains why b he /b had previously b issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ /b to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. b But if you say /b that the i baraita /i is in accordance with b the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i /b and b Shimon ben Shataḥ /b the b i Nasi /i , /b why did he need to make such a commitment? b May /b the b deputy i Nasi /i issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of /b the b i Nasi /i ? /b ,The Gemara refutes this: b No; what /b did he mean by b accepting upon himself /b not to rule on his own? b He spoke /b with regard b to joining /b the ruling of others: b Even /b with regard to b joining /b the ruling of others, b I will also not join /b until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered. /b The Gemara asks: b To where did /b Menaḥem b depart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray. /b Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. b Rava said: He departed for the king’s service. /b He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him /b to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ b Rav Shemen bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ i shevut /i ] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands /b on the head of an offering on a Festival b is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree /b because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet b the greatest /b scholars b of each generation disputed it. /b ,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This b is obvious. /b Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was b necessary for him /b to state it because it is b a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva. /b In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: b This too is obvious. /b In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes b to exclude /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that b they disagree with regard to the actual /b obligation of b placing hands, /b i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. b He /b therefore b teaches us /b that b it is a rabbinic decree /b that is the subject b of their dispute, /b not the requirement itself., b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b You can b learn from here, /b from this dispute, that the mitzva of b placing hands /b requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but b we also require /b that one places his hands b with all his strength. For if it enters your mind /b that b we do not require all his strength, what /b prohibition b does one violate /b by placing his hands? b Let him place /b them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., b The Gemara raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b “Speak to the children of [ i benei /i ] Israel” /b (Leviticus 1:2). The word i benei /i literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands, b but the daughters of Israel do not place /b them. b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place /b their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., b Rabbi Yosei said: /b The Sage b Abba Elazar related to me /b the following incident: b On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed /b their hands b on it. /b We did this b not because there /b is an obligation of b placing hands in /b the case of b women, but in order to please the women, /b by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, b if it enters your mind /b that b we require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b would b we perform work with consecrated /b offerings b in order to please /b the b women? /b Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from this /b that b we do not require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength? /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b Actually, I /b could b say to you /b that b we do require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b but here they allowed women to place their hands b by saying to them: Ease your hands /b and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: b If so, /b then the reason formulated as: b Not because there /b is an obligation to b place hands in /b the case of b women, /b is irrelevant to this law. b Let him derive /b the permission for women to do so from the reason that b it is not /b considered b placing hands at all. /b If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., b Rabbi Ami said: He stated one /b reason b and another. One /b reason is b that it is not /b considered b placing hands at all, /b as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; b and another /b reason is that they allowed it b in order to please the women. /b , b Rav Pappa said: Learn from this /b that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its b sides are /b likewise b prohibited, for if it enters your mind /b to say that the b sides are permitted, /b they could have told the women b to place /b their hands b on the sides, /b i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from this /b that the b sides are prohibited? /b

35. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laying of hands (semikhah), in individual offerings •laying of hands (semikhah), participation of •laying of hands (semikhah), person who performs Found in books: Balberg (2017) 54

20b. והביא כל צאן קדר שבירושלים והעמידן בעזרה ואמר כל מי שרוצה לסמוך יבא ויסמוך ואותו היום גברה ידן של בית הלל וקבעו הלכה כמותן ולא היה שם אדם שערער בדבר כלום:,שוב מעשה בתלמיד אחד מתלמידי ב"ה שהביא עולתו לעזרה לסמוך עליה מצאו תלמיד אחד מתלמידי ב"ש אמר לו מה זו סמיכה אמר לו מה זו שתיקה שתקו בנזיפה והלך לו,אמר אביי הלכך האי צורבא מרבנן דאמר ליה חבריה מלתא לא להדר ליה מלתא טפי ממאי דאמר ליה חבריה דאיהו אמר ליה מה זו סמיכה וקא מהדר ליה מה זו שתיקה:,תניא אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי ומה במקום שאסור להדיוט מותר לגבוה מקום שמותר להדיוט אינו דין שמותר לגבוה אמרו להם בית שמאי נדרים ונדבות יוכיחו שמותר להדיוט ואסור לגבוה,אמרו להם בית הלל מה לנדרים ונדבות שאין קבוע להם זמן תאמר בעולת ראייה שקבוע לה ' זמן אמרו להם בית שמאי אף זו אין קבוע לה זמן דתנן מי שלא חג ביום טוב ראשון של חג חוגג והולך כל הרגל כולו ויום טוב האחרון של חג,אמרו להם בית הלל אף זו קבוע לה זמן דתנן עבר הרגל ולא חג אינו חייב באחריותו,אמרו להם בית שמאי והלא כבר נאמר לכם ולא לגבוה אמרו להם בית הלל והלא כבר נאמר לה' כל דלה' אם כן מה תלמוד לומר לכם לכם ולא לכותים לכם ולא לכלבים:,אבא שאול אומרה בלשון אחרת ומה במקום שכירתך סתומה כירת רבך פתוחה במקום שכירתך פתוחה אינו דין שכירת רבך פתוחה וכן בדין שלא יהא שולחנך מלא ושולחן רבך ריקן,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר נדרים ונדבות קרבין ביום טוב ומר סבר אין קרבין ביום טוב,אמר רב הונא לדברי האומר נדרים ונדבות אין קרבין ביום טוב לא תימא מדאורייתא מחזא חזו ורבנן הוא דגזרי בהו גזירה שמא ישהה,אלא אפילו מדאורייתא נמי לא חזו דהא שתי הלחם דחובת היום נינהו וליכא למגזר שמא ישהה ואינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יו"ט:,איבעיא להו לדברי האומר נדרים ונדבות אין קרבין בי"ט עבר ושחט מאי רבא אמר זורק את הדם על מנת להתיר בשר באכילה רבה בר רב הונא אמר זורק את הדם על מנת להקטיר אימורין לערב,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו נטמא בשר או שאבד לרבא לא זריק לרבה בר רב הונא זריק,מיתיבי כבשי עצרת ששחטן שלא לשמן או ששחטן בין לפני זמנן בין לאחר זמנן הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל ואם היתה שבת לא יזרוק ואם זרק

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database