Which sacrifices need to be waved and don’t need to be brought to the altar? How were the wavings performed? Are women obligated in waving?
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the refuah shleima of our dear friend and co-learner, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשא רחל. “Phyllis, you continue to inspire and uplift us with your messages throughout this time. Your emunah is the embodiment of ה’ רועי לא אחסר. May הקב”ה grant you strength, healing and stamina each and every day.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in loving memory of Major Yaniv Kula and Staff-Sgt. Itay Yavetz, both from Modi’in, who were killed in Gaza. “Yaniv brought light, wisdom, and values wherever he went. Throughout his life, he acted to make the country better—and out of a deep sense of mission, he said: ‘Now it is my turn.’ Itay, charismatic and full of strength, left behind words of depth and significance, writing that the world is full of infinite meaning. May their memory be a blessing.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the refuah shleima of our dear friend and co-learner, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשא רחל. “Phyllis, you continue to inspire and uplift us with your messages throughout this time. Your emunah is the embodiment of ה’ רועי לא אחסר. May הקב”ה grant you strength, healing and stamina each and every day.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in loving memory of Major Yaniv Kula and Staff-Sgt. Itay Yavetz, both from Modi’in, who were killed in Gaza. “Yaniv brought light, wisdom, and values wherever he went. Throughout his life, he acted to make the country better—and out of a deep sense of mission, he said: ‘Now it is my turn.’ Itay, charismatic and full of strength, left behind words of depth and significance, writing that the world is full of infinite meaning. May their memory be a blessing.”
Menachot 61
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת שֶׁבָּאוֹת בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ. וַהֲלֹא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ בָּאוֹת בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, יָכוֹל יְהוּ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה?
The baraita answers: I include from this verse the other meal offerings, as they come due to themselves, i.e., they do not accompany other offerings, and I exclude the meal offering brought with libations, as it does not come due to itself but rather together with an animal offering. The baraita challenges: But the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest also come due to themselves, and according to this logic one might have thought that they too would require bringing near.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״. הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפָהּ, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מִן ״וְהִגִּישׁ״ ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״.
Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), to exclude the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest from the requirement of bringing near. The baraita raises a difficulty: But that verse is required for its own sake, i.e., to teach the basic halakha that a meal offering requires bringing near to the altar. The baraita answers: This halakha is derived from the fact that the verse could have stated just: “And he shall bring,” and instead it states: “And he shall bring it.”
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, וּלְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים, וּבָאוֹת בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים. וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים. וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ. וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near and to exclude the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest? The baraita answers: I include the other meal offerings, as there is a part of them burned in the fire of the altar, and they come due to themselves, and there is a part of them given to the priests to eat. And I exclude the two loaves and the shewbread, as there is no part of them burned in the fire. And I exclude the meal offering brought with libations, as it does not come due to itself, and I also exclude the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest, as there is no part of them given to the priests.
״וְהֵרִים״ – יָכוֹל בִּכְלִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ״, מָה הֲרָמָה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן בְּקוּמְצוֹ, אַף הֲרָמָה הָאָמוּר כָּאן בְּקוּמְצוֹ.
The baraita continues: The verse states: “And the priest shall take off from the meal offering its memorial-part, and shall make it smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:9). With regard to the phrase: “And the priest shall take off,” one might have thought the priest may perform this action even with a vessel. Therefore, the verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar. And he shall take off from it his handful” (Leviticus 6:7–8). Just as the taking off that is stated below is performed specifically with the priest’s handful and not with a vessel, so too, the taking off that is stated here must be performed with the priest’s handful, not with a vessel.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲשָׁמוֹ, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְאֵימוּרֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁלָּהֶן.
MISHNA: These are the items that require waving and do not require bringing near to the altar: The log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper and his guilt offering itself, as it is written: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs and sacrifice it for a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12); and the first fruits, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov; and the sacrificial portions of the peace offerings of an individual and their breast and thigh, as it is written: “The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they bring with the offerings of the portions consumed by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:15).
אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים. שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת.
This requirement applies to peace offerings belonging both to men and to women, by male Jews and not by others. The Gemara will explain this seemingly contradictory statement on 61b. In addition, the two loaves and the accompanying peace offering of two lambs brought on Shavuot also do not require bringing near but do require waving, as it is written: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs” (Leviticus 23:20).
כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים, וּמַנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו לְמַטָּה, מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא, מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הוּנַף וַאֲשֶׁר הוּרָם״. תְּנוּפָה הָיְתָה בַּמִּזְרָח, וְהַגָּשָׁה בַּמַּעֲרָב. תְּנוּפוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַהַגָּשׁוֹת.
How does one perform this waving? He places the two loaves on top of the two lambs and places his two hands below the loaves and the lambs, extends the offerings to each of the four directions and brings them back, then raises and lowers them, as it is stated with regard to the waving of the ram of the inauguration of the priests: “Which is waved, and which is heaved up” (Exodus 29:27); i.e., waved back and forth, and heaved up and down. Waving was able to be performed to the east of the altar, but the bringing near of meal offerings had to be done to the west, i.e., the southwest corner of the altar. Also, with regard to all meal offerings, the wavings precede the actions of bringing near.
מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה וּתְנוּפָה. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֹא הַגָּשָׁה וְלֹא תְּנוּפָה.
The omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota require both bringing near and waving. The meal offering of the omer requires waving, as it is written: “And he shall wave the omer before the Lord” (Leviticus 23:11), and likewise with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota it is written: “And the priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the meal offering before the Lord” (Numbers 5:25). The requirement of bringing near is derived as explained earlier. The shewbread and the meal offering brought with libations require neither bringing near nor waving.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין טְעוּנִין שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם בְּכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֵין בָּהֶן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר, וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
Rabbi Shimon says: There are three types of offerings that require performance of three mitzvot. Two mitzvot are performed on each and every one of them, but the third mitzva is not performed in their sacrifice, meaning that each of these offerings requires two out of the same three mitzvot, but not necessarily the same two as the others. And these are the three offerings: Peace offerings brought as gift offerings by an individual, communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs brought with the two loaves on Shavuot, and the guilt offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:12–14).
זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד – טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה חַיִּים, וּתְנוּפָה שְׁחוּטִין, וְאֵין בָּהֶן תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים. זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – טְעוּנִים תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים וּשְׁחוּטִין, [וְאֵין בָּהֶם סְמִיכָה]. וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – טָעוּן סְמִיכָה וּתְנוּפָה חַי, וְאֵין בּוֹ תְּנוּפָה שָׁחוּט.
Peace offerings brought by individuals require placing hands on the head of the animals while the animals are still alive, and waving when they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation of waving them while they are alive. Communal peace offerings require waving both while the animals are still alive and after they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation of placing hands on them. And the guilt offering of a leper requires placing hands and waving while the animal is still alive, but there is no obligation of waving it after it is slaughtered.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְאֶת לֹג הַשָּׁמֶן וְהֵנִיף אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה כְּאֶחָד.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that both the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper and the guilt offering itself require waving. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs and sacrifice it for a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12). The plural form “them” teaches that the log of oil and the offering require waving, and that this should be performed with both of them together.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הֵנִיף זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְהֵנִיף״. יָכוֹל יָנִיף וְיַחְזִיר וְיָנִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תְּנוּפָה״, וְלֹא תְּנוּפוֹת.
And from where is it derived that if the priest waved this one by itself and that one by itself that he has fulfilled his obligation? The same verse states, in the singular form: “And sacrifice it for a guilt offering…and wave.” The Gemara inquires: Since parts of this verse are in the singular and parts are in the plural, one might have thought that he should wave both together, and then wave each one separately. Therefore, the verse states: “A wave offering,” which indicates that he should perform one waving, but not multiple wavings.
״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – בַּמִּזְרָח. וְהָא אָמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב!
With regard to the phrase: “A wave offering before the Lord,” the baraita states that this teaches that waving can be performed to the east of the altar, as taught in the mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the tanna of a baraita cited earlier in the tractate (19b) say, concerning a verse discussing the bringing near of a meal offering, which states: “Before the Lord” (Leviticus 6:7), that one might have thought one brings it to the west of the altar, as this is the side facing the Sanctuary? That tanna proceeds to explain that the phrase: “In front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7), is a reference to the south, where one ascends the altar, and therefore the meal offering must be brought to the southwest corner. This indicates, though, that the expression “before the Lord” is a reference to the west.
אָמְרִי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִנְחָה, דְּאִיקְּרִי ״חַטָּאת״, וְחַטָּאת טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד, וְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית לֹא הָיָה לוֹ יְסוֹד, אֲבָל הָכָא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The Sages say in response: This statement, that the expression “before the Lord” is a reference to the west and not to the east, applies only with regard to the meal offering, which is called “a sin offering,” as the verse states: “It is most sacred, like the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:10), and the sin offering requires its remaining blood to be poured out on the base of the altar. Therefore, the meal offering must also be brought to a part of the altar where there is a base, and as the southeast corner of the altar did not have a base, the meal offering must be brought to the southwest corner. In this manner one fulfills both the requirement of “in front of the altar,” i.e., to the south, and the requirement of “before the Lord.” But here, with regard to the log of oil and guilt offering of a leper, we call any side of the altar “before the Lord.”
וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. מַאי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן״, לִימֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
§ The mishna teaches: The first fruits also require waving, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: What is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, alluded to here? The Gemara answers that it is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the first fruits: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and place it before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4). This taught a halakha concerning the first fruits, that they require waving; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? גָּמַר יָד יָד מִשְּׁלָמִים, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶנָּה״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as the verse is not explicitly referring to waving? The Gemara explains: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy from “hand,” written with regard to first fruits, and from “hand,” written with regard to a peace offering. It is written here, with regard to first fruits: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand” (Deuteronomy 26:4), and it is written there: offering “He who offers his peace offering to God…his hands shall bring it, the fire of God…to raise it as a waving before God” (Leviticus 7:29–30).
מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן – אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, וּמָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַּחַת יְדֵי בְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
Just as here, in the case of first fruits, it is the priest who takes the basket in his hand and waves it, so too there, in the case of the peace offering, a priest performs the waving. Just as there, with regard to a peace offering, it is the owner who performs the waving, as it is written: “He who offers…his hands shall bring it,” so too here, the owner waves the first fruits. How so; how can the waving be performed by both the priest and the owner? The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves the first fruits together with the owner.
וְלֵימָא נָמֵי כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַנָּחָה?
The Gemara asks: And let the mishna also say that the halakha that first fruits require waving is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: “And you shall place it before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:10), the reference is not to the placement of the fruits alongside the altar. Rather, this is a reference to waving the first fruits. Do you say that this is a reference to waving, or perhaps it is a reference only to actual placement of the first fruits?
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִנִּיחוֹ״, הֲרֵי הַנָּחָה אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה.
He explains: When it states earlier: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and place it before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4), placement alongside the altar is already stated; how do I realize the meaning of: “And you shall place it”? This is a reference to waving. It is therefore clear that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is not the only tanna who holds that there is a requirement of waving the first fruits, as indicated by the mishna; Rabbi Yehuda also maintains this opinion.
אָמַר רָבָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרַב גֻּבְרֵיהּ.
Rava says: The tanna of the mishna could have said that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. He preferred to ascribe this opinion to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, since the verse opened first with the phrase cited by Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov as the source for the requirement of waving the first fruits, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov derives this halakha from the verse: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand” (Deuteronomy 26:4); whereas Rabbi Yehuda derives it from the later verse: “And you shall place it before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The tanna preferred to cite this halakha in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov since his strength in Torah is great, as the halakha is invariably in accordance with his opinion.
וְאֵימוּרֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁלָּהֶן – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל לֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים. מַאי קָאָמַר?
§ The mishna teaches: And the sacrificial portions of the peace offerings of an individual, which are consumed on the altar, and their breast and thigh, which are eaten by the priests, require waving. This requirement applies to peace offerings belonging both to men and to women, by male Jews and not by others. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? This statement is apparently self-contradictory, as the mishna first states that offerings brought by women require waving, and then it indicates that the offerings of others, including women, do not require waving.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר – אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, קׇרְבָּנָן טָעוּן תְּנוּפָה, וּתְנוּפָה עַצְמָהּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל לֹא בִּידֵי נָשִׁים.
Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: Both with regard to men and with regard to women, their offerings require waving, but the waving itself is performed only by male Jews, i.e., if the owner is a male he waves the offering together with a priest. But in the case of offerings brought by women, the female owner does not participate in the waving, as the priest alone performs the mitzva.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְנִיפִין. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין, וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים מְנִיפוֹת.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to peace offerings, the verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He who offers his sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord shall bring his offering out of his sacrifice of peace offerings. His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire. The fat with the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:29–30). From the phrase: “The children of [benei] Israel,” it may be derived that the Jewish people wave their offerings, but gentiles who bring their offerings do not wave them. Furthermore, as the term “benei” can also mean: Sons of, it may be derived that only sons of Israel, i.e., males, wave their offerings, but that women do not wave their offerings.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מָצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין קׇרְבַּן יִשְׂרָאֵל לְקׇרְבַּן גּוֹיִם לְקׇרְבַּן נָשִׁים בִּסְמִיכָה, יָכוֹל נַחְלוֹק בִּתְנוּפָה?
Rabbi Yosei says: We have found that the Torah differentiates between the offering of a Jew and the offering of gentiles and also between the offering of men and the offering of women, with regard to the obligation of placing hands. Placing hands is performed only on offerings of male Jews, not on those brought by gentiles and women. Therefore, one might have thought that a similar distinction should apply to the halakha of waving. Can we therefore differentiate between these different offerings also with regard to waving, and conclude that this requirement also applies only to offerings of male Jews, not those brought by gentiles or women?
לָא, מָה לִי חִלֵּק בִּסְמִיכָה, שֶׁהַסְּמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים.
Rabbi Yosei explains: No; this conclusion is incorrect, since what is the reason that the Torah differentiates between males Jews on the one hand and gentiles and women on the other hand, with regard to placing hands? The reason is that the case of placing hands is unique, as it is performed only by the owner of the offerings; he cannot appoint an agent to perform this ceremony on his behalf. Therefore, since gentiles and women may not perform this ceremony themselves, it is logical that their offerings are excluded from this requirement.
נַחְלוֹק בִּתְנוּפָה, שֶׁהַתְּנוּפָה בְּכֹהֲנִים, אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״? בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְנִיפִין, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים מְנִיפוֹת.
By contrast, can we differentiate between males Jews on the one hand and gentiles and women on the other hand, with regard to waving as well? Since waving is also performed by priests, there is no reason to distinguish between offerings of male Jews and offerings brought by others, as the priests can wave those on behalf of their owners. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “The children of [benei] Israel”? It means that only the Jewish people wave their offerings, but gentiles who bring their offerings do not wave them. Only sons of [benei] Israel, i.e., males, wave their offerings, but women do not wave their offerings.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַמַּקְרִיב״.
It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the phrase: “The children of Israel,” I have derived only that the requirement of waving applies to the children of Israel, i.e., those who were born Jewish. From where is it derived that the same applies to converts and to emancipated Canaanite slaves? The verse states, immediately after that phrase: “He who offers [hammakriv] his sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:29), which indicates that the halakha of waving applies to anyone who brings his offering to the Temple, including converts and emancipated slaves.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה כֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה״, הֲרֵי בְּעָלִים אָמוּר. הָא כֵּיצַד? כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדָיו תַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
The baraita challenges: Or perhaps this term does not serve to include converts and emancipated Canaanite slaves, but rather this is referring to the priest who sacrifices [hammakriv] the sacrificial portions on the altar? The baraita answers: This term cannot be referring to the priest, as when it states: “His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire. The fat with the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30), the requirement of waving by the owner is stated. Since the obligation of the owner to wave is stated in this verse, and the obligation of the priest is derived from the verbal analogy from the term “hand” written with regard to a peace offering, evidently both the owner and the priest must wave the offering. The Gemara asks: How so? The Gemara answers: The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves the offering together with the owner.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menahot 4: Grain-Offerings That Pave the Way for Other Things
01.15.2026 | כ״ו בטבת תשפ״ו
Menahot 3: Torat Ha-Minhah, the Law of the Grain-Offering
01.14.2026 | כ״ה בטבת תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
Menachot 61
מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת שֶׁבָּאוֹת בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ. וַהֲלֹא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ בָּאוֹת בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, יָכוֹל יְהוּ טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה?
The baraita answers: I include from this verse the other meal offerings, as they come due to themselves, i.e., they do not accompany other offerings, and I exclude the meal offering brought with libations, as it does not come due to itself but rather together with an animal offering. The baraita challenges: But the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest also come due to themselves, and according to this logic one might have thought that they too would require bringing near.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״. הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפָהּ, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מִן ״וְהִגִּישׁ״ ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״.
Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), to exclude the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest from the requirement of bringing near. The baraita raises a difficulty: But that verse is required for its own sake, i.e., to teach the basic halakha that a meal offering requires bringing near to the altar. The baraita answers: This halakha is derived from the fact that the verse could have stated just: “And he shall bring,” and instead it states: “And he shall bring it.”
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, וּלְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים, וּבָאוֹת בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים. וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים. וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ. וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The baraita asks: And what did you see that led you to include the other meal offerings in the requirement of bringing near and to exclude the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest? The baraita answers: I include the other meal offerings, as there is a part of them burned in the fire of the altar, and they come due to themselves, and there is a part of them given to the priests to eat. And I exclude the two loaves and the shewbread, as there is no part of them burned in the fire. And I exclude the meal offering brought with libations, as it does not come due to itself, and I also exclude the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest, as there is no part of them given to the priests.
״וְהֵרִים״ – יָכוֹל בִּכְלִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ״, מָה הֲרָמָה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן בְּקוּמְצוֹ, אַף הֲרָמָה הָאָמוּר כָּאן בְּקוּמְצוֹ.
The baraita continues: The verse states: “And the priest shall take off from the meal offering its memorial-part, and shall make it smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:9). With regard to the phrase: “And the priest shall take off,” one might have thought the priest may perform this action even with a vessel. Therefore, the verse states: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar. And he shall take off from it his handful” (Leviticus 6:7–8). Just as the taking off that is stated below is performed specifically with the priest’s handful and not with a vessel, so too, the taking off that is stated here must be performed with the priest’s handful, not with a vessel.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲשָׁמוֹ, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְאֵימוּרֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁלָּהֶן.
MISHNA: These are the items that require waving and do not require bringing near to the altar: The log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper and his guilt offering itself, as it is written: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs and sacrifice it for a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12); and the first fruits, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov; and the sacrificial portions of the peace offerings of an individual and their breast and thigh, as it is written: “The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they bring with the offerings of the portions consumed by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:15).
אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים. שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת.
This requirement applies to peace offerings belonging both to men and to women, by male Jews and not by others. The Gemara will explain this seemingly contradictory statement on 61b. In addition, the two loaves and the accompanying peace offering of two lambs brought on Shavuot also do not require bringing near but do require waving, as it is written: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs” (Leviticus 23:20).
כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים, וּמַנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו לְמַטָּה, מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא, מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הוּנַף וַאֲשֶׁר הוּרָם״. תְּנוּפָה הָיְתָה בַּמִּזְרָח, וְהַגָּשָׁה בַּמַּעֲרָב. תְּנוּפוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַהַגָּשׁוֹת.
How does one perform this waving? He places the two loaves on top of the two lambs and places his two hands below the loaves and the lambs, extends the offerings to each of the four directions and brings them back, then raises and lowers them, as it is stated with regard to the waving of the ram of the inauguration of the priests: “Which is waved, and which is heaved up” (Exodus 29:27); i.e., waved back and forth, and heaved up and down. Waving was able to be performed to the east of the altar, but the bringing near of meal offerings had to be done to the west, i.e., the southwest corner of the altar. Also, with regard to all meal offerings, the wavings precede the actions of bringing near.
מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה וּתְנוּפָה. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֹא הַגָּשָׁה וְלֹא תְּנוּפָה.
The omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota require both bringing near and waving. The meal offering of the omer requires waving, as it is written: “And he shall wave the omer before the Lord” (Leviticus 23:11), and likewise with regard to the meal offering brought by a sota it is written: “And the priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the meal offering before the Lord” (Numbers 5:25). The requirement of bringing near is derived as explained earlier. The shewbread and the meal offering brought with libations require neither bringing near nor waving.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין טְעוּנִין שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם בְּכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֵין בָּהֶן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר, וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
Rabbi Shimon says: There are three types of offerings that require performance of three mitzvot. Two mitzvot are performed on each and every one of them, but the third mitzva is not performed in their sacrifice, meaning that each of these offerings requires two out of the same three mitzvot, but not necessarily the same two as the others. And these are the three offerings: Peace offerings brought as gift offerings by an individual, communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs brought with the two loaves on Shavuot, and the guilt offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:12–14).
זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד – טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה חַיִּים, וּתְנוּפָה שְׁחוּטִין, וְאֵין בָּהֶן תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים. זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – טְעוּנִים תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים וּשְׁחוּטִין, [וְאֵין בָּהֶם סְמִיכָה]. וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – טָעוּן סְמִיכָה וּתְנוּפָה חַי, וְאֵין בּוֹ תְּנוּפָה שָׁחוּט.
Peace offerings brought by individuals require placing hands on the head of the animals while the animals are still alive, and waving when they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation of waving them while they are alive. Communal peace offerings require waving both while the animals are still alive and after they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation of placing hands on them. And the guilt offering of a leper requires placing hands and waving while the animal is still alive, but there is no obligation of waving it after it is slaughtered.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְאֶת לֹג הַשָּׁמֶן וְהֵנִיף אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה כְּאֶחָד.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that both the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper and the guilt offering itself require waving. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall take one of the lambs and sacrifice it for a guilt offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:12). The plural form “them” teaches that the log of oil and the offering require waving, and that this should be performed with both of them together.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הֵנִיף זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְהֵנִיף״. יָכוֹל יָנִיף וְיַחְזִיר וְיָנִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תְּנוּפָה״, וְלֹא תְּנוּפוֹת.
And from where is it derived that if the priest waved this one by itself and that one by itself that he has fulfilled his obligation? The same verse states, in the singular form: “And sacrifice it for a guilt offering…and wave.” The Gemara inquires: Since parts of this verse are in the singular and parts are in the plural, one might have thought that he should wave both together, and then wave each one separately. Therefore, the verse states: “A wave offering,” which indicates that he should perform one waving, but not multiple wavings.
״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – בַּמִּזְרָח. וְהָא אָמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב!
With regard to the phrase: “A wave offering before the Lord,” the baraita states that this teaches that waving can be performed to the east of the altar, as taught in the mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the tanna of a baraita cited earlier in the tractate (19b) say, concerning a verse discussing the bringing near of a meal offering, which states: “Before the Lord” (Leviticus 6:7), that one might have thought one brings it to the west of the altar, as this is the side facing the Sanctuary? That tanna proceeds to explain that the phrase: “In front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7), is a reference to the south, where one ascends the altar, and therefore the meal offering must be brought to the southwest corner. This indicates, though, that the expression “before the Lord” is a reference to the west.
אָמְרִי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִנְחָה, דְּאִיקְּרִי ״חַטָּאת״, וְחַטָּאת טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד, וְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית לֹא הָיָה לוֹ יְסוֹד, אֲבָל הָכָא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The Sages say in response: This statement, that the expression “before the Lord” is a reference to the west and not to the east, applies only with regard to the meal offering, which is called “a sin offering,” as the verse states: “It is most sacred, like the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:10), and the sin offering requires its remaining blood to be poured out on the base of the altar. Therefore, the meal offering must also be brought to a part of the altar where there is a base, and as the southeast corner of the altar did not have a base, the meal offering must be brought to the southwest corner. In this manner one fulfills both the requirement of “in front of the altar,” i.e., to the south, and the requirement of “before the Lord.” But here, with regard to the log of oil and guilt offering of a leper, we call any side of the altar “before the Lord.”
וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. מַאי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן״, לִימֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
§ The mishna teaches: The first fruits also require waving, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: What is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, alluded to here? The Gemara answers that it is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the first fruits: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and place it before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4). This taught a halakha concerning the first fruits, that they require waving; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? גָּמַר יָד יָד מִשְּׁלָמִים, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶנָּה״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as the verse is not explicitly referring to waving? The Gemara explains: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy from “hand,” written with regard to first fruits, and from “hand,” written with regard to a peace offering. It is written here, with regard to first fruits: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand” (Deuteronomy 26:4), and it is written there: offering “He who offers his peace offering to God…his hands shall bring it, the fire of God…to raise it as a waving before God” (Leviticus 7:29–30).
מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן – אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, וּמָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַּחַת יְדֵי בְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
Just as here, in the case of first fruits, it is the priest who takes the basket in his hand and waves it, so too there, in the case of the peace offering, a priest performs the waving. Just as there, with regard to a peace offering, it is the owner who performs the waving, as it is written: “He who offers…his hands shall bring it,” so too here, the owner waves the first fruits. How so; how can the waving be performed by both the priest and the owner? The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves the first fruits together with the owner.
וְלֵימָא נָמֵי כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַנָּחָה?
The Gemara asks: And let the mishna also say that the halakha that first fruits require waving is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to the verse written in the portion of first fruits: “And you shall place it before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:10), the reference is not to the placement of the fruits alongside the altar. Rather, this is a reference to waving the first fruits. Do you say that this is a reference to waving, or perhaps it is a reference only to actual placement of the first fruits?
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִנִּיחוֹ״, הֲרֵי הַנָּחָה אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה.
He explains: When it states earlier: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and place it before the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:4), placement alongside the altar is already stated; how do I realize the meaning of: “And you shall place it”? This is a reference to waving. It is therefore clear that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is not the only tanna who holds that there is a requirement of waving the first fruits, as indicated by the mishna; Rabbi Yehuda also maintains this opinion.
אָמַר רָבָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרַב גֻּבְרֵיהּ.
Rava says: The tanna of the mishna could have said that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. He preferred to ascribe this opinion to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, since the verse opened first with the phrase cited by Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov as the source for the requirement of waving the first fruits, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov derives this halakha from the verse: “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand” (Deuteronomy 26:4); whereas Rabbi Yehuda derives it from the later verse: “And you shall place it before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The tanna preferred to cite this halakha in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov since his strength in Torah is great, as the halakha is invariably in accordance with his opinion.
וְאֵימוּרֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁלָּהֶן – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל לֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים. מַאי קָאָמַר?
§ The mishna teaches: And the sacrificial portions of the peace offerings of an individual, which are consumed on the altar, and their breast and thigh, which are eaten by the priests, require waving. This requirement applies to peace offerings belonging both to men and to women, by male Jews and not by others. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? This statement is apparently self-contradictory, as the mishna first states that offerings brought by women require waving, and then it indicates that the offerings of others, including women, do not require waving.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר – אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, קׇרְבָּנָן טָעוּן תְּנוּפָה, וּתְנוּפָה עַצְמָהּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל לֹא בִּידֵי נָשִׁים.
Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: Both with regard to men and with regard to women, their offerings require waving, but the waving itself is performed only by male Jews, i.e., if the owner is a male he waves the offering together with a priest. But in the case of offerings brought by women, the female owner does not participate in the waving, as the priest alone performs the mitzva.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְנִיפִין. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין, וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים מְנִיפוֹת.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to peace offerings, the verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He who offers his sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord shall bring his offering out of his sacrifice of peace offerings. His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire. The fat with the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:29–30). From the phrase: “The children of [benei] Israel,” it may be derived that the Jewish people wave their offerings, but gentiles who bring their offerings do not wave them. Furthermore, as the term “benei” can also mean: Sons of, it may be derived that only sons of Israel, i.e., males, wave their offerings, but that women do not wave their offerings.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מָצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין קׇרְבַּן יִשְׂרָאֵל לְקׇרְבַּן גּוֹיִם לְקׇרְבַּן נָשִׁים בִּסְמִיכָה, יָכוֹל נַחְלוֹק בִּתְנוּפָה?
Rabbi Yosei says: We have found that the Torah differentiates between the offering of a Jew and the offering of gentiles and also between the offering of men and the offering of women, with regard to the obligation of placing hands. Placing hands is performed only on offerings of male Jews, not on those brought by gentiles and women. Therefore, one might have thought that a similar distinction should apply to the halakha of waving. Can we therefore differentiate between these different offerings also with regard to waving, and conclude that this requirement also applies only to offerings of male Jews, not those brought by gentiles or women?
לָא, מָה לִי חִלֵּק בִּסְמִיכָה, שֶׁהַסְּמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים.
Rabbi Yosei explains: No; this conclusion is incorrect, since what is the reason that the Torah differentiates between males Jews on the one hand and gentiles and women on the other hand, with regard to placing hands? The reason is that the case of placing hands is unique, as it is performed only by the owner of the offerings; he cannot appoint an agent to perform this ceremony on his behalf. Therefore, since gentiles and women may not perform this ceremony themselves, it is logical that their offerings are excluded from this requirement.
נַחְלוֹק בִּתְנוּפָה, שֶׁהַתְּנוּפָה בְּכֹהֲנִים, אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״? בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְנִיפִין, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים מְנִיפוֹת.
By contrast, can we differentiate between males Jews on the one hand and gentiles and women on the other hand, with regard to waving as well? Since waving is also performed by priests, there is no reason to distinguish between offerings of male Jews and offerings brought by others, as the priests can wave those on behalf of their owners. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “The children of [benei] Israel”? It means that only the Jewish people wave their offerings, but gentiles who bring their offerings do not wave them. Only sons of [benei] Israel, i.e., males, wave their offerings, but women do not wave their offerings.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַמַּקְרִיב״.
It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the phrase: “The children of Israel,” I have derived only that the requirement of waving applies to the children of Israel, i.e., those who were born Jewish. From where is it derived that the same applies to converts and to emancipated Canaanite slaves? The verse states, immediately after that phrase: “He who offers [hammakriv] his sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:29), which indicates that the halakha of waving applies to anyone who brings his offering to the Temple, including converts and emancipated slaves.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה כֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה״, הֲרֵי בְּעָלִים אָמוּר. הָא כֵּיצַד? כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדָיו תַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
The baraita challenges: Or perhaps this term does not serve to include converts and emancipated Canaanite slaves, but rather this is referring to the priest who sacrifices [hammakriv] the sacrificial portions on the altar? The baraita answers: This term cannot be referring to the priest, as when it states: “His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire. The fat with the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30), the requirement of waving by the owner is stated. Since the obligation of the owner to wave is stated in this verse, and the obligation of the priest is derived from the verbal analogy from the term “hand” written with regard to a peace offering, evidently both the owner and the priest must wave the offering. The Gemara asks: How so? The Gemara answers: The priest places his hands beneath the hands of the owner and waves the offering together with the owner.
Follow
