מנחות 94 — parallel

94:1

FOR LIVING ANIMALS AND FOR SLAUGHTERED ANIMALS, AND FOR THINGS THAT HAVE LIFE AND FOR THINGS THAT HAVE NOT LIFE; BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written.] ‘His offering’, this includes every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands. For [without this exposition] I should have argued as follows: if the rite of waving which has been extended to apply to slaughtered animals is restricted in the case of fellow-owners, the rite of the laying on of hands which has not been extended to apply to slaughtered animals is surely restricted in the case of fellow-owners! The text therefore stated, ‘His offering’, to include every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands. But should not the rite of waving be extended even in the case of fellow-owners [by the following] a fortiori [argument]: if the rite of the laying on of hands which has not been extended to apply to slaughtered animals is extended in the case of fellow-owners, is it then not logical that the rite of waving which has been extended to apply to slaughtered animals should be extended also in the case of fellow-owners? — [No,] because it is not possible to do so; for how should it be done? If you say. Let all wave it together. there would then be an interposition. And if you say, Let one first wave it and then the other, but the Divine Law speaks of one waving and not of many wavings. But is the rite of the laying on of hands never applied to a slaughtered animal? Behold we have learnt: Whenever the High Priest wished to burn the offering. he used to go up the ascent, having the deputy [High Priest] at his right hand. When he had reached half way up the ascent, the deputy took him by the right hand and led him up. The first priest handed to him the head and the hind-leg, and he laid his hands on them and threw them [upon the altar fire]. The second priest handed to the first priest the two fore-legs, and he gave them to the High Priest who laid his hands on them and threw them. The second priest then slipped away and departed. In this way they used to hand to him the rest of the limbs of the offering, and he laid his hands on them and threw them. If he so desired he would only lay his hands on them while others threw them! — Abaye said, That was done there only out of respect for the High Priest's dignity. CHAPTER XI MISHNAH. THE TWO LOAVES [OF PENTECOST] WERE KNEADED SEPARATELY AND BAKED SEPARATELY. THE [CAKES OF THE] SHEWBREAD WERE KNEADED SEPARATELY AND BAKED IN PAIRS. THEY WERE PREPARED IN A MOULD; AND WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN OUT FROM THE OVEN THEY WERE AGAIN PUT IN A MOULD LEST THEY BECOME DAMAGED. GEMARA. Whence do we derive it? — Our Rabbis taught: Two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake, this teaches that they were kneaded separately. And whence do we know that the Two Loaves were also [kneaded] in like manner? Because Scripture says. Shall be. And whence do we know that [the cakes of the Shewbread] were baked in pairs? Because the text states, And thou shalt set them. Perhaps then the Two Loaves were also [baked] in like manner! Scripture therefore says. Them. ‘But have you not already drawn a deduction from the word ‘them’? — If for that purpose alone Scripture would have used the expression ‘and thou-shalt-set-them’; why ‘and-thou-shalt-set them’? Two deductions may therefore be made. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And thou shalt set them’, that is, in a mould. There were three moulds: [the Shewbread] was first put into a mould while still dough; in the oven there was also a kind of mould; and when it was taken out from the oven it was put into a [third] mould lest it become damaged. But why was it not put back again in the first mould? — Because after the baking it would have swollen. It was stated: How did they fashion the Shewbread?

—

94:2

R. Hanina said, Like a broken box. R. Johanan said, Like a ship's keel. According to him who says ‘like a broken box’, we clearly understand where the dishes [of frankincense] were placed, but according to him who says ‘like a ship's keel’, where were the dishes placed? — A special place was made for them. Again according to him who says ‘like a broken box’, we clearly understand how the rods lay [on the sides of the cakes], but according to him who says ‘like a ship's keel’, how could the rods lie [on the side of the cakes]? — Projections were attached to them [on top]. Again according to him who says ‘like a broken box’, we clearly understand how the props supported the cakes, but according to him who says ‘like a ship's keel’, how could the props support the cakes? — They were made obliquely. Now according to him who says ‘like a ship's keel’, we clearly understand the need for props, but according to him who says ‘like a broken box’, what need was there for props? — [For otherwise] they might break by reason of the pressure of the [upper] cakes. Again according to him who says ‘like a ship's keel’, it is clear that the props rested on the table, but according to him who says ‘like a broken box’, where were the props placed? Were they perhaps placed on the ground? — Yes. for R. Abba b. Memel said, According to him who says ‘like a ship's keel’, the props stood on the table, and according to him who says ‘like a broken box’, they stood on the ground. With which view agrees the statement of R. Judah that the cakes held up the props and the props held up the cakes? With the view [that the cakes were] like a ship's keel. 17

—