Menachot 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

How does he perform

the waving?

He places

the

parts placed upon the altar on the palm of his hand, while the breast and thigh

are

placed upon them.

And wherever there is

also

bread—

the bread

is placed

above.

And we raised a question about this:

Where

do we find that the bread must be above?

Rav Pappa said:

We find this

in the inauguration offerings,

where the bread was placed above; from here we learn that wherever there is bread, such as in the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite’s ram, the bread must be placed above.

We further explain:

What is the reason

that we say that the breast and thigh are placed upon the parts placed upon the altar—in other words, from where do we derive this law?

Perhaps it is because it is written: “The thigh of the teruma-offering and the breast of the waving-offering—

upon the fires of the fats they shall bring, to wave as a waving-offering before the Lord”; but is it not written

on the other hand,

“The fat

upon the breast shall he bring it”,

which proves that the fat, one of the parts placed upon the altar, is what is placed above the breast?!

Abaye said: That

verse, “the fat upon the breast,” speaks of the fats and the parts placed upon the altar

that the koen brings from the slaughterhouse;

he first places the fat upon the breast,

and he overturns it,

turning it over afterward toward the hand of the person performing the waving. The result is that the fat that had initially been in the koen’s hands is now below, while the breast that had previously been below is now above, over the fats.

And we challenge this:

But it is also written

“also,”

“And they placed the fats upon the breasts”?!

And we answer:

That

verse speaks

of giving it to another koen:

the koen performing the waving gives the fat and the breast to the koen who burns them, and the latter then overturns the fat and the breast. Thus, in the hands of the koen who burns them, the parts placed upon the altar and the fat are above the breast,

and he proceeds to burn it!

And this teaches us

from these three verses

that three kohanim are required!

One who brings the offering from the slaughterhouse, one who performs the waving, and one who offers it; one koen may not perform all these tasks,

because it is written: “In the multitude of the people is the king’s glory,”

and only when three kohanim are involved can the fats and breasts be passed from one person’s hands to another’s and thereby be overturned in the manner stated in the verses.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the two loaves and the two lambs of Atzeret

and so on.

The Sages taught: “And the koen shall wave them,

the two lambs of Atzeret,

over the bread of the first fruits.” One might have thought that he should place the lambs on top of the bread

and wave them in that manner.

The verse therefore states: “Over the two lambs,”

which indicates that it is the bread that is placed above the lambs.

One might have thought

that the

bread should be on top of the lambs—

the verse therefore states: “Over the bread of the first fruits,”

which indicates that the lambs are above the bread.

The verse has become balanced,

that is, the two opposing derivations from this verse have become equally plausible,

and I do not know

the conclusion,

whether the bread is on top of

the lambs

or whether the lambs are on top of the bread?!

What do we find everywhere

at the time of waving?

The bread is above; so here too,

with the lambs of Atzeret,

the bread is above

them.

And we explain:

Where

do we find everywhere that the bread is above?

Rav Pappa said: In the inauguration offerings,

as we said above.

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: The lambs

of Atzeret are placed

above

the bread.

And how do I understand “over the two lambs”?

To exclude

the

seven

lambs [which are burnt-offerings], which also come with the bread, but are not waved together with it; only the two lambs of Atzeret, which are communal peace-offerings, are waved with it.

Hanina ben Hakhinai says: He places the two loaves

between the thighs of the lambs and waves them,

when the living lambs are lying on their sides, on their haunches.

Thus he fulfills both of these verses:

since the bread is above the lower thigh of the lamb, there is

bread on top of the lambs, and

since the upper thigh of the lamb is above the bread, there are

lambs on top of the bread!

Rabbi said: Before a flesh-and-blood king one would not do this,

placing bread between the thighs,

yet before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, one would do this?!

Rather, he places

the bread and the lambs

side by side and waves them.

And we challenge this:

But we require the word “over”

[over the bread or over the two lambs]?!

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said to Rav Hamnuna—and some say

Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Hisda: Rabbi follows his own reasoning, for he said that “over”

means adjacent

and not above.

That is, when the verse says “over the bread” and “over the two lambs,” it means that he places them adjacent to one another and waves them.

As it is taught in a beraita: “And you shall place upon the arrangement

of the showbread

pure frankincense.”

Rabbi says:

One does not place the bowls containing the frankincense together with the frankincense upon the showbread itself; rather, one places them

over

the table,

adjacent

to the bread.

You say that “over”

means

adjacent, or does it mean “over” literally,

so that the frankincense must be placed upon the bread itself?

When it says

concerning the curtain,

“And you shall screen the ark with the curtain,” it follows

that

“over”

means

adjacent,

for the curtain was not upon the ark; rather, it hung as a partition adjacent to it.

Here too, with regard to the lambs and the bread, “over” means adjacent.

We learned in the Mishna: “How did he wave?”—

He moved it back and forth, up and down

and so on.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: He moved it back and forth

to the north and south, east and west,

for the One to whom the directions belong,

and likewise he

moved it up and down

upward and downward,

for the One to whom the heavens and earth belong.

In the West

[in Eretz Yisrael]

they taught it as follows: Rav Hama bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: He moved it back and forth

in all four directions

in order to restrain evil winds

that come from the four directions.

He moved it up and down in order to restrain harmful dews

that descend from above.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Avin said: This indicates—

that the remnants of a mitzva

[such as the mitzva of waving, which is not an essential component of the mitzva and does not invalidate the offering’s atonement if omitted, and is therefore called “the remnants of a mitzva”]

ward off calamity. For waving is merely the remnant of a mitzva, yet it restrains evil winds and harmful dews.

Rabba said: The same applies to the lulav,

which must be shaken by moving it back and forth.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov brought it

the lulav

and brought it back

[he moved the lulav back and forth],

and he displayed it in this manner,

he would show it

and say: “An arrow in the eye of the Satan.”

He would display the lulav and say as though he were driving an arrow into the Satan’s eye.

And we conclude:

That is not proper,

and one should not do so,

because

the Satan

will provoke him.

The Sages taught: Communal peace-offerings require waving

again after slaughter, since they had already been waved while alive.

And they are waved as they are,

that is, in their entirety—

the statement of Rabbi. And the Sages say:

They are not waved whole; rather, the waving is performed

with their breast and thigh

alone.

And we ask about this:

With regard to what do

Rabbi and the Sages disagree?

Rav Hisda said to Rav Hamnuna—and some say

Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Hisda: They disagree concerning whether one derives from the source and also applies all its details,

or

whether one derives from the source but leaves the matter according to its own context.

That is, when a law is learned from another through a gzera shava, must all the details be learned from the source, as though the subject being derived had been written in the place of the source [this is “derive from the source and also apply all its details,” meaning that the derived matter becomes entirely like the source], or may one learn only a particular detail from the source? In that case, one says, “derive from the source” through the gzera shava and learn only that specific detail; once that detail has been learned, one “leaves the derived matter in its context,” so that with regard to all other details it remains subject to the laws of its own context.

The Sages maintain: Derive from the source and also apply all its details: Just as the peace-offerings of an individual

require waving, so too communal peace-offerings require waving.

And also apply its details—

just as there,

with regard to an individual’s peace-offerings, they require waving

with the breast and thigh, so too here,

with regard to communal peace-offerings, they require waving only

with the breast and thigh.

And Rabbi maintains: Derive from the source but leave the matter according to its own context: Just as the peace-offerings of an individual require waving, so too communal peace-offerings require waving.

But leave the matter according to its own context—

there, it is the breast and thigh

alone that require waving,

but here,

with regard to communal peace-offerings,

as they are,

they are waved,

as they are while alive,

in their entirety.