Menachot — Daf 94a

בחיים ובשחוטין ובדבר שיש בו רוח חיים ובדבר שאין בו רוח חיים מה שאין כן בסמיכה:

גמ׳ תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ג) קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה תנופה שנתרבתה בשחוטין נתמעטה בחוברין סמיכה שלא נתרבתה בשחוטין אינו דין שתתמעט בחוברין תלמוד לאמר קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

ותתרבה תנופה בחוברין מקל וחומר ומה סמיכה שלא נתרבתה בשחוטין נתרבתה בחוברין תנופה שנתרבתה בשחוטין אינו דין שנתרבתה בחוברין

משום דלא אפשר היכי ליעביד לינפו כולהו בהדי הדדי קא הויא חציצה ליניף וליהדר וליניף תנופה אמר רחמנא ולא תנופות

וסמיכה בשחוטין ליתא והתנן בזמן שכהן גדול רוצה להקטיר היה עולה בכבש והסגן בימינו הגיע למחצית הכבש אחז סגן בימינו והעלהו והושיט לו הראשון הראש והרגל סומך עליהם וזורקן

הושיט השני לראשון שתי ידים נותנו לכהן גדול סומך עליהם וזורקן נשמט השני והלך לו וכך היו מושיטין לו שאר כל האברים סומך עליהם וזורקן

ובזמן שהוא רוצה הוא סומך ואחרים זורקין

אמר אביי התם משום כבודו דכהן גדול:

הדרן עלך פרק שתי מידות

מתני׳ שתי הלחם נילושות אחת אחת ונאפות אחת אחת לחם הפנים נילושות אחת אחת ונאפות שתים שתים ובדפוס היה עושה אותן כשהוא רודן נותנן לדפוס כדי שלא יתקלקלו:

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא כד, ה) שני עשרונים יהיה החלה האחת מלמד שנילושות אחת אחת

מנין שאף שתי הלחם כך תלמוד לומר יהיה ומנין שאפייתן שתים שתים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כד, ו) ושמת אותם יכול אף שתי הלחם כן תלמוד לומר אותם

האי אותם הא אפיקתיה אם כן לימא קרא ושמתם מאי ושמת אותם שמעת מיניה תרתי:

תנו רבנן ושמת אותם בדפוס שלשה דפוסין הם נותנה לדפוס ועדיין היא בצק וכמין דפוס היה לה בתנור וכשהוא רודה נותנה בדפוס כדי שלא תתקלקל ולהדרה לדפוס קמא כיון דאפי לה נפחה:

איתמר לחם הפנים כיצד עושין אותו

FOR LIVING ANIMALS AND FOR SLAUGHTERED ANIMALS, AND FOR THINGS THAT HAVE LIFE AND FOR THINGS THAT HAVE NOT LIFE;1 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.2 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,3 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!4 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-owners5 [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.6 there would then be an interposition.7 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:8 Whenever the High Priest wished to burn the offering.9 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 priest10 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 way11 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.12 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. THEY13 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,14 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.15 Perhaps then the Two Loaves were also [baked] in like manner! Scripture therefore says. Them.16 ‘But have you not already drawn a deduction from the word ‘them’?17 — If for that purpose alone Scripture would have used the expression ‘and thou-shalt-set-them’;18 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 mould19 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.20 It was stated: How did they fashion the Shewbread? placing his under the hands of the second and so on, thus all would wave the offering together. usual service of the ordinary priest. The rite of the laying on of hands as ordained in the Torah, however, applied only to the living offerings. of the cakes in the oven for baking, signifies that the cakes were baked in pairs and not singly.