Menachot Daf 61 (מנחות דף ס״א)
Daf: 61 | Amudim: 61a – 61b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (61a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Continuation of baraita: which meal offerings require hagasha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues to refine the criteria for which meal offerings require hagasha (bringing near to the altar). The initial criterion — that the offering must “come due to itself” — successfully excludes the meal offering of libations (minchat nesakhim) which accompanies an animal sacrifice. However, this criterion alone is too broad, as it would also include the priestly meal offering and the meal offering of the anointed High Priest, which the Gemara knows do not require hagasha.
Key Terms:
- הַגָּשָׁה (Hagasha) = Bringing near — the ritual of bringing the meal offering to the southwest corner of the altar
- מִנְחַת נְסָכִים (Minchat Nesakhim) = Meal offering of libations, brought together with animal sacrifices
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Deriving exclusion from the extra letter heh in “vehigishaha”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״. הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפָהּ, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מִן ״וְהִגִּישׁ״ ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ״.
English Translation:
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.”
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a classic example of Talmudic textual analysis. The extra letter heh (ה) in the word “vehigishaha” (וְהִגִּישָׁהּ) rather than the simpler “vehigish” (וְהִגִּישׁ) creates a surplus in the verse. The basic halakha of hagasha could have been taught with the shorter form; the longer form provides an additional derivation — that certain offerings, specifically priestly ones, are excluded from this requirement. This technique of deriving halakhot from seemingly superfluous letters or words is fundamental to Talmudic hermeneutics.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (Talmud Lomar) = Therefore the verse states — a formulaic phrase introducing a textual derivation
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Criteria for which offerings require hagasha and which are excluded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita establishes a three-pronged test for which meal offerings require hagasha: (1) part must be burned on the altar (“la’ishim”), (2) the offering must come independently, and (3) part must go to the priests. Standard voluntary meal offerings meet all three criteria. The two loaves and shewbread fail criterion 1 (nothing burned on the altar); the libation meal offering fails criterion 2 (accompanies an animal sacrifice); and the priestly meal offerings fail criterion 3 (entirely burned, with no portion for priests). This systematic categorization is characteristic of Talmudic legal classification.
Key Terms:
- אִישִּׁים (Ishim) = The fire of the altar — referring to portions burned on the altar
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (Shtei HaLechem) = The two loaves brought on Shavuot
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (Lechem HaPanim) = The shewbread displayed in the Sanctuary
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Removing the kometz must be done by hand, not with a vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְהֵרִים״ – יָכוֹל בִּכְלִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ״, מָה הֲרָמָה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן בְּקוּמְצוֹ, אַף הֲרָמָה הָאָמוּר כָּאן בְּקוּמְצוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This passage addresses the practical mechanics of kemitza (scooping the handful). The baraita derives through a gezera shava (verbal analogy) that the removal of the kometz must be done with the priest’s bare hand, not with a vessel. The word “veheirim” (and he shall take off) appears in two different contexts — Leviticus 2:9 and Leviticus 6:7-8 — and the explicit mention of “his handful” in the latter passage clarifies the method required in the former. This ensures the physical, personal nature of this priestly service.
Key Terms:
- קֹמֶץ / קְמִיצָה (Kometz / Kemitza) = The handful scooped from the meal offering to be burned on the altar
- הֲרָמָה (Harama) = Taking off / removing — the act of separating the kometz from the meal offering
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Items requiring waving but not hagasha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ טְעוּנוֹת תְּנוּפָה וְאֵין טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וַאֲשָׁמוֹ, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְאֵימוּרֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁלָּהֶן.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna begins a comprehensive classification of the Temple service rituals of tenufa (waving) and hagasha (bringing near). The mishna lists items that require waving but not bringing near: the leper’s log of oil and guilt offering, first fruits (per R’ Eliezer ben Ya’akov), and the sacrificial portions plus breast and thigh of individual peace offerings. This categorical approach — systematically listing which offerings require which rituals — is typical of the Mishnah’s organizational method in Kodashim.
Key Terms:
- תְּנוּפָה (Tenufa) = Waving — the ritual of moving an offering in the four horizontal directions and up and down
- לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע (Log Shemen shel Metzora) = The log of oil accompanying the leper’s guilt offering
- אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע (Asham Metzora) = The guilt offering brought by a recovered leper
- חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק (Chazeh VaShok) = Breast and thigh — portions of the peace offering given to the priests
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Waving applies to men’s and women’s offerings; two loaves of Shavuot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים. שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna makes a seemingly paradoxical statement: offerings of both men and women require waving, yet the waving is performed “by Israel and not by others.” This apparent contradiction will be resolved on 61b by Rav Yehuda, who explains that the offering itself requires waving regardless of gender, but the actual physical act of waving is performed only by male Jewish owners (alongside the priest). The mishna also adds the two loaves and two lambs of Shavuot to the list of items requiring waving but not hagasha.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (Shtei HaLechem) = The two loaves brought on Shavuot
- כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת (Kivsei Atzeret) = The two lambs accompanying the Shavuot loaves
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
How waving is performed — four directions plus up and down
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna provides a vivid description of the waving ceremony: the priest holds the offerings and moves them horizontally in the four directions (molikhand mevi — extending and bringing back) and vertically (maaleh u’morid — raising and lowering). This dual motion is derived from the verse describing the inauguration offerings which uses both “waved” (hunaf) and “heaved up” (huram). The mishna also establishes the spatial distinction: waving was performed to the east of the altar, while hagasha was done at the southwest corner. Additionally, waving always precedes hagasha when both are required.
Key Terms:
- מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא (Molikhand Mevi) = Extending and bringing back — the horizontal motion of waving
- מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד (Maaleh U’Morid) = Raising and lowering — the vertical motion of waving
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
Omer and sota offerings require both; shewbread and libation offering require neither
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת טְעוּנוֹת הַגָּשָׁה וּתְנוּפָה. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֹא הַגָּשָׁה וְלֹא תְּנוּפָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna completes its four-category classification of offerings with respect to tenufa and hagasha: (1) tenufa only (listed in segment 5), (2) both tenufa and hagasha — the omer and the sota offering, (3) neither — the shewbread and libation meal offering, and (4) hagasha only (the standard meal offerings discussed earlier). The omer and sota offerings are unique in requiring both rituals, each derived from explicit verses. This comprehensive categorization gives a complete picture of the Temple ritual landscape for meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר (Minchat HaOmer) = The omer meal offering brought on the second day of Pesach
- מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת (Minchat Kena’ot) = The meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota (suspected adulteress)
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon’s three-way classification of semikha, tenufa alive, and tenufa slaughtered
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon offers an elegant combinatorial observation: three types of offerings share a pool of three mitzvot (semikha/placing hands, waving while alive, waving after slaughter), but each offering type requires only two of the three. This creates a perfect “round-robin” where every possible pairing of two out of three mitzvot is represented exactly once. Rabbi Shimon’s formulation highlights the systematic nature of sacrificial law — each offering has its unique combination of ritual requirements, and no two categories are identical.
Key Terms:
- סְמִיכָה (Semikha) = Placing hands — leaning on the animal’s head before slaughter
- זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר (Zivchei Shalmei Tzibbur) = Communal peace offerings — the two lambs of Shavuot
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
Details of Rabbi Shimon’s classification for each offering type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon spells out the specific combinations: Individual shelamim get semikha (alive) + tenufa (slaughtered), but no tenufa alive. Communal shelamim get tenufa alive + tenufa slaughtered, but no semikha (communal offerings are not subject to individual hand-placing). The leper’s guilt offering gets semikha + tenufa alive, but no tenufa after slaughter. The pattern is mathematically complete — each of the three possible pairings from the set {semikha, tenufa alive, tenufa slaughtered} is assigned to exactly one offering type.
Key Terms:
- חַיִּים (Chayyim) = While alive — referring to rituals performed before slaughter
- שְׁחוּטִין (Shchutin) = After slaughter — referring to rituals performed after the animal is slaughtered
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Baraita: the leper’s guilt offering and log of oil are waved together
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְאֶת לֹג הַשָּׁמֶן וְהֵנִיף אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה כְּאֶחָד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins analyzing the mishna’s first item — the waving of the leper’s offerings. The baraita focuses on the plural “otam” (them) in the verse from Leviticus 14:12, which teaches that ideally both the guilt offering (a live lamb) and the log of oil should be waved simultaneously as a single unit. This is a remarkable ritual image — a priest waving a live lamb and a vessel of oil together before God as part of the leper’s purification ceremony.
Key Terms:
- כְּאֶחָד (Ke’echad) = Together — both items waved simultaneously
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
If waved separately the obligation is fulfilled; only one waving required
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁאִם הֵנִיף זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְהֵנִיף״. יָכוֹל יָנִיף וְיַחְזִיר וְיָנִיף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תְּנוּפָה״, וְלֹא תְּנוּפוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the tension between the verse’s plural (“them”) and singular (“it”) forms. The plural indicates the ideal — waving together. The singular indicates that waving separately is also valid post facto. But lest one think both methods are required (together then separately), the verse says “tenufa” (singular) — one waving, not multiple wavings. This layered textual analysis demonstrates how the Talmud extracts three distinct halakhot from shifts between singular and plural within a single verse.
Key Terms:
- תְּנוּפָה וְלֹא תְּנוּפוֹת (Tenufa velo Tenufot) = One waving, not multiple wavings — a singular act suffices
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: “Before the Lord” — does it mean east or west?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – בַּמִּזְרָח. וְהָא אָמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies an apparent contradiction in how the phrase “lifnei Hashem” (before the Lord) is interpreted. In the context of waving, it is understood as referring to the east side of the altar. But in an earlier baraita (19b) regarding hagasha, the same phrase was understood as referring to the west — the side facing the Sanctuary where the Divine Presence rests. This challenge forces the Gemara to distinguish between these two ritual contexts.
Key Terms:
- לִפְנֵי ה׳ (Lifnei Hashem) = Before the Lord — a directional phrase with different interpretations depending on context
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: the meal offering’s special status as “sin offering” restricts its location
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִנְחָה, דְּאִיקְּרִי ״חַטָּאת״, וְחַטָּאת טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד, וְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית לֹא הָיָה לוֹ יְסוֹד, אֲבָל הָכָא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
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.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution hinges on a crucial architectural detail of the Temple: the southeast corner of the altar had no foundation (yesod). Since the meal offering is compared to a sin offering (chatat), and the sin offering’s blood must be poured on the base, the meal offering must be brought to a corner that has a base — hence the southwest corner. This structural constraint forced “lifnei Hashem” to mean west for the meal offering. But for waving (which has no connection to the altar’s base), “lifnei Hashem” can mean any direction, including east.
Key Terms:
- יְסוֹד (Yesod) = The base/foundation of the altar — not all corners had one
- קֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית (Keren Dromit Mizrachit) = The southeast corner of the altar — which lacked a foundation
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Source for waving first fruits — Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. מַאי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן״, לִימֵּד עַל הַבִּכּוּרִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies the mishna’s reference to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. His derivation that first fruits require waving comes from Deuteronomy 26:4 — “And the priest shall take the basket from your hand.” The word “take” (velakach) implies an active ritual act, which Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov interprets as waving. This is not explicit in the verse, so the next segment will explain the hermeneutical mechanism — a gezera shava (verbal analogy) using the word “hand.”
Key Terms:
- בִּכּוּרִים (Bikkurim) = First fruits — brought to the Temple as an expression of gratitude
- רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב (Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov) = A Tanna whose rulings are considered especially authoritative
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
The gezera shava of “hand” — linking first fruits to peace offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? גָּמַר יָד יָד מִשְּׁלָמִים, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶנָּה״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s reasoning operates through a gezera shava — a verbal analogy linking two passages that share a key word. The word “yad” (hand) appears both in the first fruits passage (“from your hand”) and in the peace offering passage (“his hands shall bring it…as a waving”). Since the peace offering passage explicitly mentions waving, the requirement is transferred to first fruits through this textual linkage. The next segment on 61b will show that this gezera shava also works in the reverse direction, teaching that both the priest and the owner participate in waving.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (Gezera Shava) = Verbal analogy — a hermeneutical method linking passages that share a common word
- יָד (Yad) = Hand — the shared word linking first fruits and peace offerings
Amud Bet (61b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Both priest and owner wave together — derived from the gezera shava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה כָּאן כֹּהֵן – אַף לְהַלָּן כֹּהֵן, וּמָה לְהַלָּן בְּעָלִים אַף כָּאן בְּעָלִים. הָא כֵּיצַד? כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַּחַת יְדֵי בְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The gezera shava works bidirectionally: from first fruits we learn that the priest participates in waving peace offerings (since the verse explicitly involves the priest), and from peace offerings we learn that the owner participates in waving first fruits (since the verse mentions “his hands shall bring it”). The practical resolution is striking — the priest places his hands beneath the owner’s hands, and they wave together. This cooperative act symbolizes the partnership between the Kohen and the Israelite in Temple worship.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדוֹ תַּחַת יְדֵי בְּעָלִים (Kohen Maniach Yado Tachat Yedei Be’alim) = The priest places his hands beneath the owner’s hands — the method of joint waving
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Why didn’t the mishna attribute this to Rabbi Yehuda as well?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא נָמֵי כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּנוּפָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הַנָּחָה?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the mishna’s attribution: Rabbi Yehuda also holds that first fruits require waving, deriving this from a different verse — “vehinachto” (and you shall place it) in Deuteronomy 26:10. Rabbi Yehuda argues that since placement is already taught elsewhere in the passage, “vehinachto” must refer to waving rather than literal placement. Why then does the mishna cite only Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov?
Key Terms:
- וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ (Vehinachto) = “And you shall place it” — Rabbi Yehuda interprets this as waving, not placement
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehuda’s proof: “placement” is already stated, so “vehinachto” means waving
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִנִּיחוֹ״, הֲרֵי הַנָּחָה אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ״ – זוֹ תְּנוּפָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is elegant: the bikkurim passage contains two “placement” verbs — “vehinnicho” in verse 4 (performed by the priest) and “vehinachto” in verse 10 (performed by the owner). Since literal placement is already covered by the first verb, the second must mean something different — waving. This technique of identifying “superfluous” words to derive additional halakhot is a cornerstone of Talmudic interpretation.
Key Terms:
- הַנָּחָה (Hanacha) = Placement — the literal placing of first fruits next to the altar
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Two explanations for why the mishna prefers Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְרַב גֻּבְרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two Amoraim offer different explanations for the mishna’s editorial choice. Rava suggests a textual reason: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s source verse (26:4) comes earlier in the bikkurim passage than Rabbi Yehuda’s (26:10), so the mishna followed the biblical order. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a jurisprudential reason: there is a well-known principle that “mishnat Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov kav venaki” — his teachings are few but always represent the accepted halakha. Thus the mishna cites him as the more authoritative source.
Key Terms:
- רַב גֻּבְרֵיהּ (Rav Guvreh) = His strength is great — referring to the principle that R’ Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s rulings are always followed
- קַב וְנָקִי (Kav VeNaki) = “Small measure but clean” — R’ Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s teachings are few but authoritative
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara questions the mishna’s seemingly contradictory statement about men and women
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימוּרֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁלָּהֶן – אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל לֹא בַּאֲחֵרִים. מַאי קָאָמַר?
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara focuses on the apparent contradiction in the mishna’s language. “Both men and women” suggests women’s offerings require waving, but “by Israel and not by others” could be read as excluding women. This sets up the key distinction that Rav Yehuda will articulate: the offering requires waving, but the act of waving by the owner is restricted to Jewish males.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרִין (Eimurin) = Sacrificial portions — the fats and organs burned on the altar
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yehuda’s resolution: the offering requires waving, but only males wave
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר – אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, קׇרְבָּנָן טָעוּן תְּנוּפָה, וּתְנוּפָה עַצְמָהּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל לֹא בִּידֵי נָשִׁים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda’s interpretation elegantly resolves the contradiction. The mishna operates on two levels: (1) the obligation of the offering — all peace offerings, whether brought by men or women, require the ritual of waving; (2) the participation of the owner — only male Jewish owners physically participate in the waving alongside the priest. For women’s offerings, the priest performs the waving alone. This distinction between the obligation attached to the offering and the personal participation of the owner is a sophisticated legal concept.
Key Terms:
- תְּנוּפָה עַצְמָהּ (Tenufa Atzma) = The waving itself — the physical act, as distinct from the requirement
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: “children of Israel” excludes gentiles and women from waving
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְנִיפִין. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין, וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים מְנִיפוֹת.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita provides the scriptural basis for the exclusions from waving. The phrase “benei Yisrael” is read on two levels: “benei” as “children of” (excluding non-Jews) and “benei” as “sons of” (excluding women). This double derivation from a single phrase is a common Talmudic technique, extracting multiple halakhot from a word that carries multiple possible meanings. The practical impact is significant: gentile offerings brought in the Temple do not receive waving at all, and women’s offerings are waved only by the priest.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (Benei Yisrael) = Children/Sons of Israel — interpreted both as “the Jewish people” and “male Jews”
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei’s challenge: can we compare waving to semikha?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מָצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין קׇרְבַּן יִשְׂרָאֵל לְקׇרְבַּן גּוֹיִם לְקׇרְבַּן נָשִׁים בִּסְמִיכָה, יָכוֹל נַחְלוֹק בִּתְנוּפָה?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei raises a logical question: since we already know that semikha (placing hands) differentiates between Jewish men, gentiles, and women, perhaps the same distinctions apply to waving without needing a specific verse. This would make the verse “benei Yisrael” unnecessary for the purpose of excluding gentiles and women from waving. Rabbi Yosei proceeds to explain why this comparison is flawed.
Key Terms:
- סְמִיכָה (Semikha) = Placing hands on the offering’s head before slaughter — performed only by male Jewish owners
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Semikha is different because it can only be performed by the owner
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, מָה לִי חִלֵּק בִּסְמִיכָה, שֶׁהַסְּמִיכָה בִּבְעָלִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei draws a critical legal distinction. Semikha is inherently a personal act — only the owner can perform it, and agency (shelichut) does not apply. Therefore, if the owner is someone who cannot perform semikha (a gentile or woman), the obligation simply cannot be fulfilled and falls away. Waving, however, is different — as the next segment will explain — because the priest can perform it. This means we cannot simply analogize from semikha to waving.
Key Terms:
- בְּעָלִים (Be’alim) = The owners — semikha requires the personal involvement of the owner
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion: “benei Yisrael” is needed specifically because waving can be done by priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נַחְלוֹק בִּתְנוּפָה, שֶׁהַתְּנוּפָה בְּכֹהֲנִים, אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״? בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְנִיפִין, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנִיפִין וְאֵין הַנָּשִׁים מְנִיפוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The argument reaches its conclusion. Since waving can be performed by a priest (unlike semikha which requires the owner personally), one might expect that waving would apply universally — the priest could wave any offering regardless of who brought it. Therefore, the verse’s exclusion through “benei Yisrael” is necessary: it teaches that even though the priest could theoretically wave, the owner’s participation is restricted to male Jews. For women’s and gentiles’ offerings, only the priest waves. This demonstrates why the verse is not superfluous — without it, we would have no basis for excluding women and gentiles from participating.
Key Terms:
- תְּנוּפָה בְּכֹהֲנִים (Tenufa beKohanim) = Waving can be done by priests — unlike semikha which requires the owner
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Converts and emancipated slaves are included in the obligation to wave
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַמַּקְרִיב״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita addresses a natural follow-up: if “benei Yisrael” limits waving to born Jews, what about converts and freed slaves who have full Jewish status? The answer comes from the word “hammakriv” (he who offers) in the same verse, which expands the obligation to include anyone who brings an offering — regardless of their origin. This inclusionary reading ensures that converts and emancipated slaves, who are full members of the Jewish community, are not inadvertently excluded by the narrow reading of “benei Yisrael.”
Key Terms:
- גֵּרִים (Gerim) = Converts to Judaism
- עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִין (Avadim Meshuchrarim) = Emancipated Canaanite slaves — who attain full Jewish status upon freedom
- הַמַּקְרִיב (HaMakriv) = “He who offers” — an inclusive term embracing all who bring offerings
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Clarifying that “hammakriv” refers to the owner, not just the priest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זֶה כֹּהֵן הַמַּקְרִיב? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה״, הֲרֵי בְּעָלִים אָמוּר. הָא כֵּיצַד? כֹּהֵן מַנִּיחַ יָדָיו תַּחַת יְדֵי הַבְּעָלִים וּמֵנִיף.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita considers and rejects an alternative reading of “hammakriv” — perhaps it refers to the priest who sacrifices the offering on the altar, not to the owner. This is dismissed because “yadav tevi’ena” (his hands shall bring) clearly refers to the owner’s active participation. The passage concludes by reiterating the joint waving procedure: priest’s hands beneath the owner’s hands. This bookends the discussion that began on 61a about the leper’s offering by establishing the general principle of cooperative waving for all peace offerings, bringing together the themes of the entire daf.
Key Terms:
- יָדָיו תְּבִיאֶינָה (Yadav Tevi’ena) = “His hands shall bring” — proving the owner must personally participate in waving