Menachot 187

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

FOR LIVING ANIMALS AND FOR SLAUGHTERED ANIMALS, AND FOR THINGS THAT HAVE LIFE AND FOR THINGS THAT HAVE NOT LIFE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the waving of the cakes of the thank-offering.');">¹</span> BUT IT IS NOT SO WITH THE RITE OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן (ויקרא א, ג) קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי קרבן לסמיכה

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: [It is written.] 'His offering', this includes every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 568.');">²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only one performs the waving on behalf of the others.');">³</span>

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

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that one only should lay on the hands on behalf of the others.');">⁴</span> The text therefore stated, 'His offering', to includ every owner of the offering for the rite of the laying on of hands.

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

But should not the rite of waving be extended even in the case of fellow-owners<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that every fellow-owner should wave the offering.');">⁵</span> [by the following] a fortiori [argument]: if the rite of the layi 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?

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

If you say. Let all wave it together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one fellow-owner placing his hands under the offering, another placing his under the hands of the first, a third placing his under the hands of the second and so on, thus all would wave the offering together.');">⁶</span>

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

there would then be an interposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since none but the hands of the first actually touch the offering.');">⁷</span> 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.

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

But is the rite of the laying on of hands never applied to a slaughtered animal? Behold we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tam. VII, 3 (33b) .');">⁸</span>

ובזמן שהוא רוצה הוא סומך ואחרים זורקין

Whenever the High Priest wished to burn the offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yoma 14a.');">⁹</span> he used to go up the ascent, having the deputy [High Priest] at his right hand.

אמר אביי התם משום כבודו דכהן גדול:

When he had reached half way up the ascent, the deputy took him by the right hand and led him up. The first priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the nine priests to whose lot fell the service of the daily offering; v. Tam. III, 1 (30a) and IV, 3 (31b) .');">¹⁰</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך פרק שתי מידות</strong></big><br><br>

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.

מתני׳ <big><strong>שתי</strong></big> 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:

The second priest then slipped away and departed. In this way<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., each priest in turn handing the parts of the offering to the first priest who gave them to the High Priest.');">¹¹</span>

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laying on of the hands by the High Priest was introduced in order to distinguish his act of service from the 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.');">¹²</span>

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

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE TWO LOAVES [OF PENTECOST] WERE KNEADED SEPARATELY AND BAKED SEPARATELY. THE [CAKES OF THE] SHEWBREAD WERE KNEADED SEPARATELY AND BAKED IN PAIRS.

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

THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cakes of the Shewbread.');">¹³</span> 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.

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:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we derive it? - Our Rabbis taught: Two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 5. o,ut ,nau');">¹⁴</span> this teaches that they were kneaded separately.

איתמר לחם הפנים כיצד עושין אותו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 6. Heb. The word 'them' stated in connection with the setting of the cakes, i.e., the placing of the cakes in the oven for baking, signifies that the cakes were baked in pairs and not singly.');">¹⁵</span> Perhaps then the Two Loaves were also [baked] in like manner! Scripture therefore says. Them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thereby excluding the Two Loaves.');">¹⁶</span> 'But have you not already drawn a deduction from the word 'them'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the baking of the Shewbread shall be in pairs. o,nau');">¹⁷</span> - If for that purpose alone Scripture would have used the expression 'and thou-shalt-set-them';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. : the pronoun 'them' might have been added as a suffix to the verb.');">¹⁸</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to obtain the required shape for the cakes, v. infra.');">¹⁹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would not fit in the first mould.');">²⁰</span> It was stated: How did they fashion the Shewbread?