Menachot 92

Sugya Map: The Mechanics of Semicha (Placing Hands)

• Issue: Who qualifies as a Ba’al (owner) for the purpose of Semicha on communal offerings? Specifically, does the High Priest’s involvement in the Se'ir Hamishtaleach (scapegoat) constitute ownership?
• Nafka Mina: If the High Priest is an "owner," he performs Semicha; if he is merely an officiant, he does not.
• Primary Sources: Menachot 92a; Leviticus 4:13–21, 16:21; Shekalim 14b (Mishna).

Text Snapshot

• Menachot 92a: "Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: How can you include the scapegoat... Isn’t it the halakha that placing hands can be performed only by the offering’s owner?"
• Nuance: The Gemara pivots on the definition of kapparah (atonement). If the scapegoat atones for the Priests, they are be’alim; if they are excluded from this specific atonement, they lack the status of owners.

Readings

• Rashi (92a s.v. Hoshvu Kulan): Argues that because Priests, Israelites, and Levites are all atoned for by the scapegoat, the Priests satisfy the be’alim requirement.
• Tosafot (92a s.v. Hoshvu): Challenges this, noting that according to Shevuot 13b, the scapegoat's internal blood service excludes the Priests. They argue the Priests' atonement is distinct, thus questioning their status as be’alim on the scapegoat.

Friction: The Semicha Paradox

Kushya: If Semicha requires a Ba’al, and the scapegoat is a communal offering, how can any individual (like the High Priest) perform it? Terutz: The Gemara posits a tradition (halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai or d'rasha) that the High Priest acts as the representative agent for the community. The debate between R’ Yehuda and R’ Shimon isn't about whether Semicha happens, but who holds the status of "owner" to effectuate it.

Intertext

• Shevuot 2b: The seminal parallel regarding the scope of the scapegoat’s atonement.
• SA, Hilchot Yom Kippur: Codifies the High Priest’s role, reflecting the tension between his personal service and his communal role.

Psak/Practice

The Sifrei (Naso) and Rambam (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:6) maintain that communal offerings generally do not require Semicha, barring the explicit exceptions derived here. The meta-halachic takeaway: Semicha is the physical tethering of the owner to the sacrifice; where the "owner" is an abstract collective, the ritual must be strictly circumscribed to prevent the mitzvah from losing its specific, personal character.

Takeaway

Semicha is not merely a technical prerequisite; it is a legal declaration of agency. If you cannot claim personal atonement through the beast, your hands upon its head are empty.