כיצד עושה מניח אימורין על פיסת היד וחזה ושוק עליהן ובכל מקום שיש לחם הלחם מלמעלה The Gemara asks: How does one perform the ritual of waving? First he places the sacrificial portions on the palm of the hand, and puts the breast and the thigh on them. And in any place, i.e., with regard to any offering, where there are loaves brought with together with the animal, the loaves are placed on the top.
היכא אמר רב פפא במלואים The Gemara asks: Where is it stated that the loaves must be placed on the top? Rav Pappa says: This is stated explicitly with regard to the ram offered at the inauguration of the priests, as the verse states: “And he took the fat, and the tail, and all the fat that was upon the inward, and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right thigh. And out of the basket of matzot that was before the Lord he took one matza, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and placed them on the fat, and upon the right thigh. And he put it all upon the hands of Aaron, and upon the hands of his sons, and waved them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 8:25–27).
מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב (ויקרא י, טו) שוק התרומה וחזה התנופה על אשי החלבים יביאו להניף תנופה והכתיב (ויקרא ז, ל) את החלב על החזה יביאנו The Gemara inquires: What is the reason, i.e., from where is it learned, that the sacrificial portions should be placed on the bottom, and the breast and thigh on top of them? If we say it is because it is written: “The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving they shall bring upon the offerings of the fat made by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:15), which indicates that the breast and thigh are placed on top of the fats, that is insufficient: But isn’t it written elsewhere: “The fat upon the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30)? That verse leads to the opposite conclusion, as it indicates that the fats are to be placed on top of the breast.
אמר אביי ההוא דמייתי ליה כהן מבית המטבחיים ורמי ליה Abaye said: That second verse is not referring to the placement of the portions for waving. Rather, it describes their placement when the priest brings the parts of the offering from the slaughtering area in order to be waved. This priest carries the breast and thigh below the fats, and accordingly, when he overturns these parts onto the hand of the priest who will wave them, the fat will be under the breast and thigh.
והכתיב (ויקרא ט, כ) וישימו את החלבים על החזות ההוא דיהיב ליה לכהן אחרינא ואזיל ומקטר ליה The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And they put the fat upon the breasts” (Leviticus 9:20), which also indicates that the fat is to be on top of, not beneath, the breast and thigh? The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the stage when the priest who waved them gives them to another priest, who brings the sacrificial portions up to the altar. Once again the parts are turned over in this exchange, so that the sacrificial fats are on top of the breast. And this third priest then goes and burns the sacrificial portions on the altar.
והא קא משמע לן דבעינן שלשה כהנים משום דכתיב (משלי יד, כח) ברוב עם הדרת מלך: The Gemara adds: And this teaches us that we require three priests to perform this service: One to bring the parts from the slaughtering area, one to wave them, and a third to burn them upon the altar. The reason why all three acts cannot be performed by a single priest is because it is written: “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). If a larger number of priests are involved in the Temple service, this represents greater glory for God. Therefore, it is preferable for the service to be carried out by three priests rather than one.
ושתי הלחם ושני כבשי עצרת [וכו']: תנו רבנן (ויקרא כג, כ) והניף הכהן אותם על לחם הביכורים § The mishna teaches: And the two loaves and the accompanying peace offering of two lambs brought on Shavuot also require waving. With regard to this waving, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall wave them upon the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, upon the two lambs; they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20).
יכול יניח כבשים על גבי הלחם תלמוד לומר על שני כבשים אי על שני כבשים יכול לחם על גבי כבשים תלמוד לומר על לחם הביכורים One might have thought that the priest who performs the waving must place the lambs on top of the bread for the waving. Therefore, the verse states: “A wave offering before the Lord upon the two lambs,” which indicates that the two loaves must be on top of the lambs. If the verse had stated only: “Upon the two lambs,” one might have thought the priest must place the bread on top of the lambs. Therefore, the verse states: “Upon the bread of the first fruits,” which indicates that the loaves are to be placed under the lambs for waving.
נישתקל הכתוב ואיני יודע אם לחם על גבי כבשים ואם כבשים על גבי לחם מה מצינו בכל מקום לחם למעלה אף כאן לחם למעלה היכא אמר רב פפא במילואים Consequently, the verse is evenly balanced, as two contradictory conclusions can be derived from it, and I do not know whether the bread should be on top of the lambs, or whether the lambs should be on top of the bread. The baraita resolves the contradiction: Just as we find everywhere that waving is performed that the bread is placed above the other portions, so too, in the case of the two loaves and the two lambs, the bread is placed above the lambs. The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to ask: Where is it stated that the loaves must be placed on top? Rav Pappa says: This is stated explicitly with regard to the ram offered at the inauguration of the priests.
רבי יוסי בן המשולם אומר כבשים למעלה ומה אני מקיים על שני כבשים להוציא שבעה The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam disagrees with the previous ruling, and says: It is the lambs that are placed above, and the two loaves underneath them. And how do I realize the meaning of the phrase: “Upon the two lambs,” which seems to indicate that the two loaves are to be placed above the lambs and not under them? Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam explains: This verse teaches that the requirement to wave the lambs together with the loaves applies only to the two lambs sacrificed as communal peace offerings on Shavuot, to exclude the seven other lambs, brought as burnt offerings, which are not to be waved with the loaves.
חנינא בן חכינאי אומר מניח שתי הלחם בין ירכותיהן של כבשים ומניף ונמצא מקיים שני מקראות הללו לחם על גבי כבשים וכבשים על גבי הלחם אמר רבי לפני מלך בשר ודם אין עושין כן לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה עושין כן אלא מניח זה בצד זה ומניף Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai says there is a different answer: The priest places the two loaves between the thighs of the two lambs and waves them. And in this manner it is found that he realizes the meaning of both of these two verses, as the bread is on top of the lambs and the lambs are also on top of the bread. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in objection to this opinion: One would not do so, i.e., place bread that had been placed between the thighs of lambs, before a flesh and blood king; should one do so before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He? Rather, he places the two loaves and the two lambs alongside each other, and waves them together, and thereby fulfills the requirements of the verses in a respectful manner.
והא בעינן על א"ל רב חסדא לרב המנונא ואמרי לה רב המנונא לרב חסדא רבי לטעמיה דאמר על בסמוך The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But we require fulfillment of the term “upon [al]” in the verse, either by placing the bread upon the lambs or the lambs upon the bread. In response, Rav Ḥisda says to Rav Hamnuna, and some say that Rav Hamnuna says to Rav Ḥisda: With this opinion, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that the word al can mean next to.
דתניא (ויקרא כד, ז) ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה רבי אומר על בסמוך אתה אומר על בסמוך או אינו אלא על ממש כשהוא אומר (שמות מ, ג) וסכות על הארון את הפרוכת הוי אומר על בסמוך: This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the shewbread, the verse states: “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Al in this instance means: Next to. The baraita asks: Do you say that al means: Next to? Or perhaps it means only actually upon? The baraita explains: When it says: “And you shall put there the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall place a cover over [al] the Ark with the Curtain” (Exodus 40:3), the word al cannot mean upon, as the Curtain that separated the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies was hanging near the Ark, not placed on top of it. Therefore, you must say that al means next to.
מוליך ומביא מעלה ומוריד [וכו']: אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מוליך ומביא למי שהרוחות שלו מעלה ומוריד למי שהשמים והארץ שלו § The mishna teaches that the two loaves and the two lambs are waved in the following manner: The priest places his two hands below the lambs, extends them to each of the four directions and brings them back, then raises and lowers them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He extends the lambs and brings them back in order to dedicate them to He to Whom the four directions belong. He raises and lowers them in order to dedicate them to He to Whom the heavens and the earth belong.
במערבא מתנו הכי אמר רב חמא בר עוקבא אמר רבי יוסי בר רבי חנינא מוליך ומביא כדי לעצור רוחות רעות מעלה ומוריד כדי לעצור טללים רעים In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they taught the idea like this: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina says: He extends the lambs and brings them back in order to request a halt to harmful winds and storms that come from all directions. Similarly, he raises and lowers them in order to halt harmful dews and rains that come from above.
אמר רבי יוסי בר רב אבין זאת אומרת שירי מצוה מעכבים את הפורענות דהא תנופה שירי מצוה היא ועוצרת רוחות רעות וטללים רעים אמר רבה וכן לולב Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Avin says: That is to say, i.e., it can be derived from here, that a non-essential mitzva helps prevent calamity, as waving is a non-essential mitzva; even if one failed to wave the loaves he has fulfilled his obligation, and nevertheless waving halts harmful winds and dews. Rava says: And one should conduct himself similarly with a lulav on the festival of Sukkot, i.e., he should extend and bring back and raise and lower the lulav, for the same reasons.
רב אחא בר יעקב ממטי ליה ומייתי ליה ומחוי הכי ואמר גירא בעינא דשטנא ולאו מילתא היא משום דאתי לאתגרויי ביה The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would extend and bring back the lulav in this manner, and would say: I am hereby shooting an arrow in the eye of Satan, as despite Satan’s best efforts, the Jewish people continue to fulfill mitzvot joyously. The Gemara comments: It is not correct to say this, because this will induce Satan to come to incite the Jewish people to sin. Gloating about his victory over the evil inclination will lead Satan to redouble its efforts to corrupt them.
תנו רבנן זבחי שלמי צבור טעונין תנופה לאחר שחיטה ותנופתן כמות שהן דברי רבי חכמים אומרים בחזה ושוק § The Gemara continues to discuss halakhot concerning the waving of offerings: The Sages taught in a baraita: The communal peace offerings, which were brought on the festival of Shavuot and which must be waved while the animals are still alive, also require waving after their slaughter, and their waving after they are slaughtered is to be performed as they are, meaning that the whole animal must be waved, as was done when it was alive; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One does not wave the whole animal; rather, the waving is performed only with the breast and thigh.
במאי קא מיפלגי אמר ליה רב חסדא לרב המנונא ואמרי לה רב המנונא לרב חסדא בדון מינה ומינה בדון מינה ואוקי באתרה קא מיפלגי The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree? Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Hamnuna, and some say Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: They disagree with regard to a principle about the application of verbal analogies. One adopts the exegetical principle: Infer from it and derive the details from it, meaning that when one case is derived from another by means of a verbal analogy, all the details of the source case are applied to the second case. The other Sage accepts the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, meaning that one derives only the specific detail referred to by the verbal analogy, and all other aspects of the source case are not applied to the other case.
רבנן סברי דון מינה ומינה מה זבחי שלמי יחיד טעונין תנופה לאחר שחיטה אף זבחי שלמי צבור טעונין תנופה לאחר שחיטה ומינה מה התם בחזה ושוק אף הכא נמי בחזה ושוק The Gemara elaborates: The waving of communal peace offerings is derived from the waving of individual peace offerings through a verbal analogy. The Rabbis maintain: Infer from it and derive the details from it, leading to the conclusion: Just as individual peace offerings require waving after slaughter, so too, communal peace offerings require waving after slaughter. And derive the details from it: Just as there, in the case of individual peace offerings, the waving is performed with the breast and thigh alone, so too here, with regard to communal peace offerings as well, the waving is with the breast and thigh alone.
ורבי סבר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה מה זבחי שלמי יחיד טעונין תנופה לאחר שחיטה אף זבחי שלמי צבור טעונין תנופה לאחר שחיטה ואוקי באתרה התם הוא דחזה ושוק אבל הכא כמות שהן כמות שהן בחיים And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, meaning that the basic halakha of the verbal analogy is accepted: Just as individual peace offerings require waving after slaughter, so too, communal peace offerings require waving after slaughter. But interpret the halakha according to its own place: It is only there, in the case of individual peace offerings, that the waving is performed with the breast and thigh alone. But here, in the case of communal peace offerings, the waving is as they are, i.e., the animals are waved whole, as they were when they were alive.