but the goats brought for idol worship do not require that placing hands be performed by Aaron. Rather, they require that it be performed by the Elders of the Sanhedrin. This contradicts the baraita that states that Rabbi Shimon holds that placing hands on the goats brought for idol worship is performed by the High Priest.

Rav Sheshet said: And how can you understand that this first baraita is accurate, in order to use it as the basis for a contradiction? But didn’t Rabbi Shimon say that we require that placing hands be performed by the owners, i.e., those who will achieve atonement through the offering? The goat brought for idol worship is brought to atone for the Sanhedrin and the people, not for the High Priest.

Rather, answer that the earlier baraita teaches as follows: The verse specifies the requirement of placing hands with regard to the bull brought for a community-wide transgression to indicate that only that bull requires placing hands, but the goats brought for idol worship do not require placing hands; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse specifies the requirement of placing hands with regard to the live goat, i.e., the scapegoat, to indicate that only that live goat requires that placing hands be performed by Aaron, i.e., the High Priest, but the goats brought for a community-wide perpetration of idol worship do not require that placing hands be performed by Aaron. Rather, they require that it be performed by the Elders of the Sanhedrin.

The Gemara adds: And this is what Rabbi Shimon was saying to Rabbi Yehuda: Goats brought for idol worship require placing hands. And if you heard a tradition that they do not require placing hands, it is only with regard to the fact that it is not to be performed by Aaron, i.e., the High Priest, that you heard that tradition, and the exclusion of the High Priest from having to place hands is derived from the term “the live goat.”

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yehuda’s statement: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, why do I need to exclude the goats brought for idol worship from the requirement of placing hands by deriving this exclusion from a verse? Didn’t Ravina say that it is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands is required for communal offerings? Accordingly, once it has been established that placing hands is required for the bull brought for a community-wide transgression and for the scapegoat, it follows that it is not required in any other case. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the tradition Ravina cited is merely a well-known statement. It is not a tradition that was transmitted to Moses; rather, the Sages formulated it to remember the halakha that they derived from the verses.

The Gemara questions Rabbi Shimon’s statement: And according to Rabbi Shimon, from where do we derive that the goats brought for idol worship require placing hands?

The Gemara answers that we derive it from that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When a king sins…he shall bring for his offering an unblemished male goat. And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat” (Leviticus 4:22–24). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds “of the goat” is to include the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon (see Numbers 7:12–17) in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The term “of the goat” serves to include the goats brought as sin offerings for communal idol worship in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering, as Rabbi Shimon would say: Any sin offering whose blood enters inside the Sanctuary requires placing hands.

The Gemara questions the concluding statement of the baraita: Why do I need the baraita to state: As Rabbi Shimon would say? The statement would appear to explain that Rabbi Shimon’s ruling is merely an expression of a principle that he held, while the baraita itself explains that Rabbi Shimon derived the matter from the repetition of the word “goat.” The Gemara explains: The statement is not presenting the basis of his ruling but is merely a mnemonic to aid in remembering it.

The Gemara questions why Rabbi Shimon expounds the word “goat” as referring to goats brought for idol worship: But why not say that the word “goat” includes the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: It is more reasonable to include a goat offering that is similar to the offering mentioned in that verse, i.e., the goat of a king, which atones for known transgressions of a mitzva. A goat brought for idol worship is similar in this regard, whereas the goat brought on Yom Kippur atones specifically for transgressions of which the transgressor is unaware.

The Gemara questions why Rabbi Shimon needs a verse at all: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said: It is learned as a tradition that there are two instances in which placing hands is required for communal offerings, why do I need any verses, i.e., why do I need the word “goat,” to include goats brought for idol worship in the requirement of placing hands? Since he holds that the priests do not achieve atonement through the scapegoat, perforce the goat brought to atone for idol worship must require placing hands, as otherwise there would not be two instances.

The Gemara explains: The halakha learned by tradition was necessary, and the exposition of the verses was necessary as well.

The Gemara elaborates: As, if the halakha were to be derived only from the verse, I would say through an a fortiori inference that even communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs brought with the two loaves on the festival of Shavuot, require placing of the hands.

The Gemara explains: This is like the difficulty raised against the mishna of that chapter, i.e., Chapter Five, which begins: All the meal offerings come to be offered as matza. The mishna there states (61a): Rabbi Shimon says: There are three types of offerings that require performance of three mitzvot; in each case, two of the mitzvot apply, but not the third. The mishna continues: Peace offerings brought by individuals require placing hands on the head of the animal while the animal is still alive, and waving after it is slaughtered, but there is no obligation to wave it while it is alive. Communal peace offerings require waving both while they are alive and after they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation to place hands on them. And the guilt offering of the leper requires placing hands and waving while alive, but there is no obligation to wave it after it is slaughtered.

The Gemara there (62b) raises the following difficulty: Let us bring an a fortiori inference to the contrary, i.e., conclude that communal peace offerings should require placing hands through an a fortiori inference: If peace offerings brought by an individual, whose halakha is more lenient than that of communal peace offerings in that they do not require waving while alive, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to communal peace offerings, which do require waving when alive, is it not logical to conclude that they require placing hands? To counter this inference it was necessary to have the halakha learned by tradition to limit the requirement of placing hands to only two instances.

And conversely, if it were derived only from the halakha learned by tradition, without the exposition of the verse, I would say that we do not know exactly which offering other than the bull brought for a community-wide transgression requires placing hands. Therefore, the word “goat” teaches us that the second instance is a goat offering similar to the offering mentioned in that verse, specifically the goat of a king, which atones for known transgressions of a mitzva, i.e., a goat brought for idol worship.

§ The mishna teaches: All offerings of an individual require placing hands except for the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering.

Leviticus, chapter 3, discusses peace offerings and details the obligation of placing hands. The term “his offering” is mentioned a number of times. Each time serves to emphasize that peace offerings require placing hands and to exclude another type of offering from that requirement. The Sages taught a baraita detailing which offerings are excluded and why one might have thought otherwise. “His offering” (Leviticus 3:1) requires placing hands, but not the firstborn offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If a peace offering, whose consecration does not originate from being in its mother’s womb, nevertheless requires placing hands, then with regard to a firstborn offering, whose consecration originates from the womb, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands but the firstborn offering does not.

“His offering” (Leviticus 3:2) requires placing hands, but not the animal tithe offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If peace offerings, which are unlike the animal tithe in that their designation does not consecrate the animals before and after them, i.e., this unique stringency of animal tithe does not apply to them, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to an animal tithe offering, which can consecrate the animals before and after it, as in the case where the ninth or eleventh animal to be counted was mistakenly designated as the tenth animal, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands, but the animal tithe offering does not.

The baraita concludes: “His offering” (Leviticus 3:6) requires placing hands, but not the Paschal offering. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: If peace offerings, which are not subject to a positive mitzva to arise and bring them, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to a Paschal offering, which is subject to a positive mitzva to arise and bring it, is it not logical that it requires placing hands? To counter this inference, the verse states: “His offering,” teaching that a peace offering requires placing hands, but the Paschal offering does not.

The Gemara rejects the inferences of the baraita: Each of these a fortiori inferences can be refuted. What is notable about peace offerings? They are notable in that they require libations and the waving of the breast and thigh. Therefore, a halakha that applies to peace offerings cannot necessarily be applied to the firstborn offering, animal tithe offering, or Paschal offering, which do not share those requirements. Accordingly, the verses that the baraita cites must be understood as a mere support, but are not actually necessary to counter the a fortiori inferences.

The Gemara asks: But