Parallel
מנחות 62
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
How was it arranged? The sacrificial portions were put upon the palm of the hand and the breast and thigh above them; and whenever there were cakes [to be waved] the cakes were always on top, Where [is this seen]? — R. Papa said, At the consecration [of the priests]. Why is it so? Shall I say it is because it is written, The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving they shall put upon the fat of the fire-offering, to wave it for a wave-offering? But is it not also written, He shall bring the fat upon the breast? — Abaye answered, The latter refers to the manner in which the priest brings them from the slaughtering place and turns them over [into the hands of the priest that is about to wave them]. But is it not also written, And they put the fat upon the breasts? — This refers to the handing over of these to the priest that is about to burn them. These verses incidentally teach us that three priests are required [for this part of the service], as it is said, In the multitude of people is the king's glory. THE TWO LOAVES AND THE TWO LAMBS OF PENTECOST. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] And the priest shall wave then, upon [‘al] the bread of the firstfruits [for a wave-offering before the Lord upon [‘al] the two lambs]. I might think that he should put the lambs upon the bread, the text therefore states, Upon the two lambs. If [I had only the expression] ‘upon the two lambs’ [to go by], I might think that he should put the bread upon the lambs, the text therefore states, ‘upon the bread of the firstfruits’. Now the verse is equally balanced and I know not whether the bread shall be upon the lambs or the lambs upon the bread; since, however, we find that in all cases the bread is on top, then here, too, the bread shall be on top. (Where was it so? — R. Papa said, At the consecration [of the priests].) R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam says, The lambs shall be on top. And how can I explain, ‘Upon the two lambs’? to exclude the seven lambs. Hanina b. Hakinai says, He must put the two loaves between the thighs of the lambs and wave them; thus fulfilling both verses, the bread upon the lambs and the lambs upon the bread. Said Rabbi, Surely before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, how much less before the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He! Therefore, he should put one beside the other and wave them. But we have to conform with [the expression] ‘al! — R. Hisda said to R. Hamnuna (others say, R. Hamnuna said to R. Hisda), Rabbi follows his general view that ‘al means ‘near to’; as it was taught: It is written, And thou shalt put pure frankincense ‘ai each row. Rabbi says, ‘Al means near to’. You say that ‘al means ‘near to’; but perhaps it is not so but rather it signifies literally ‘upon’? Since it states, And thou shalt put a veil ‘al the ark, conclude that ‘al means ‘near to’. AND WAVES THEM FORWARD AND BACKWARD AND UPWARD AND DOWNWARD. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, FORWARD AND BACKWARD, that is to Him unto Whom the [four] directions belong; UPWARD AND DOWNWARD, that is to Him unto Whom heaven and earth belong. In the West it was taught as follows: R. Hama b. ‘Ukba said in the name of R. Jose b. R. Hanina, FORWARD AND BACKWARD, in order to keep off violent winds; UPWARD AND DOWNWARD, in order to keep off harmful dews. R. Jose son of R. Abin said, This proves that even the dispensable rites of a precept [when performed] ward off punishment, for the rite of waving is dispensable in the precept and yet it keeps off violent winds and harmful dews. Rabbah said, Likewise with the lulab. R. Aha b. Jacob used to swing it forward and backward, and hold it out and say, ‘An arrow in the eyes of Satan!’ But it is not proper to do so, for it is a challenge [to Satan] to contend with him. Our Rabbis taught: The peace-offerings of the community require waving [also] after they are slaughtered, and the waving must be of them as they are. So Rabbi. But the Sages say, Only of the breast and thigh. Wherein do they differ? — R. Hisda said to R. Hamnuna (others say, R. Hamnuna said to R. Hisda), They differ as to whether we say ‘Deduce from it and again from it’, or ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’. The Rabbis maintain the principle, ‘Deduce from it and again from it’. [‘Deduce from it’:] as the individual's peace-offering requires waving after it is slaughtered, so the peace-offerings of the community also require waving after they are slaughtered; and ‘again from it’: just as the waving there is of the breast and thigh, so here it is also of the breast and thigh. Rabbi, however, maintains the principle ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’. [‘Deduce from it’:] as the individual's peace-offering requires waving after it is slaughtered, so the peace-offerings of the community also require waving after they are slaughtered; and ‘establish it in its own place’: whereas there the waving is of the breast and thigh only, here it is of them as they are, that is, as they are when alive.
—
R. Papa said, All accept the principle ‘Deduce from it and again from it’, but this is Rabbi's reason, namely, it must be analogous with the rule there: and as in that case all that which is given as a gift to the priest [must be waved], so here also all that which is given as a gift to the priest [must be waved]. Rabina said, All accept the principle ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’, but this is the reason of the Rabbis: It is written, Their peace-offerings, which is an inclusive term. R. SIMEON SAYS, THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF OFFERING WHICH [BETWEEN THEM] REQUIRE THREE RITES; TWO [OF THE THREE RITES] APPLY TO EACH KIND OF OFFERING, BUT THE THREE ARE WITH NONE. AND THESE ARE THEY: THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER, THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRES THE LAYING ON OF HANDS FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL AND WAVING AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL. THE PEACE-OFFERING OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRES WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL AND ALSO AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER REQUIRES THE LAYING ON OF HANDS AND ALSO WAVING FOR THE LIVING ANIMAL, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAVING AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED. But [surely one could argue by the following] a fortiori argument that the peace-offering of the individual should require waving for the living animal: for if the peace-offering of the community, which does not require the laying on of hands for the living animal, requires waving for the living animal, how much more does the peace-offering of the individual, which requires the laying on of hands for the living animal, require waving for the living animal! — The Divine Law stated in connection with the peace-offering of the community the exclusive term ‘them’ in order to exclude the peace-offering of the individual. Again [one could argue by the following] a fortiori argument that the’ peace-offering of the community should require the laying on of hands: for if the peace-offering of the individual, which does not require waving for the living animal, requires the laying on of hands, how much more does the peace-offering of the community, which requires waving for the living animal, require the laying on of hands! — Said Rabina: There is a tradition that among the offerings of the community only two require the laying on of hands. And again [one could argue by the following] a fortiori argument that the guilt-offering of the leper should require waving after it is slaughtered: for if the peace-offering of the individual, which does not require waving for the living animal, requires waving after it is slaughtered, how much more should the guilt-offering of the leper, which requires waving for the living animal, require waving after it is slaughtered! — The Divine Law therefore stated the exclusive term ‘it’ in connection with the peace-offering of the individual in order to exclude the guilt-offering of the leper. Our Rabbis taught: If five persons brought one offering [jointly], one of them performs the rite of waving on behalf of them all. In the case of a woman, the priest waves [the offering] on her behalf. And so, too, if a person sent his offerings from across the seas, the priest waves them on his behalf.
—