Menachot Daf 62 (מנחות דף ס״ב)
Daf: 62 | Amudim: 62a – 62b | Date: 11 Adar 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (62a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Procedure for placing offerings during waving
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה? מַנִּיחַ אֵימוּרִין עַל פִּיסַּת הַיָּד, וְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק עֲלֵיהֶן, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לֶחֶם – הַלֶּחֶם מִלְּמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How does one perform the ritual of waving? First he places the sacrificial portions on the palm of the hand, and puts the breast and the thigh on them. And in any place, i.e., with regard to any offering, where there are loaves brought with together with the animal, the loaves are placed on the top.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara establishes the physical arrangement of the offering parts during the waving ritual (tenufah). The order is precise: sacrificial fats (eimurin) on the bottom, breast and thigh in the middle, and bread on top. This layering reflects a hierarchy — the fats destined for the altar form the base, the priestly portions sit above them, and the bread crowns the arrangement.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרִין (Eimurin) = The sacrificial portions (fats, kidneys, liver lobe) burned on the altar
- חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק (Ḥazeh va-Shok) = The breast and thigh given to the priest
- תְּנוּפָה (Tenufah) = The waving ritual performed with certain offerings
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Source for bread placement — the inauguration offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכָא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּמִלּוּאִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Where is it stated that the loaves must be placed on the top? Rav Pappa says: This is stated explicitly with regard to the ram offered at the inauguration of the priests, as the verse states: “And he took the fat, and the tail, and all the fat that was upon the inward, and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right thigh. And out of the basket of matzot that was before the Lord he took one matza, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and placed them on the fat, and upon the right thigh. And he put it all upon the hands of Aaron, and upon the hands of his sons, and waved them for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 8:25–27).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa provides the scriptural source for the bread-on-top arrangement. The inauguration ceremony (miluim) described in Leviticus 8 explicitly describes placing the matzot on top of the fats and the thigh. Since this is the only case where the Torah specifies the order, it serves as the model for all waving rituals involving bread.
Key Terms:
- מִלּוּאִים (Miluim) = The inauguration ceremony for the priests, lasting seven days
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Contradictory verses about placement of fats and breast
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וַחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה עַל אִשֵּׁי הַחֲלָבִים יָבִיאוּ לְהָנִיף תְּנוּפָה״, וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֶת הַחֵלֶב עַל הֶחָזֶה יְבִיאֶנּוּ״!
English Translation:
The Gemara inquires: What is the reason, i.e., from where is it learned, that the sacrificial portions should be placed on the bottom, and the breast and thigh on top of them? If we say it is because it is written: “The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving they shall bring upon the offerings of the fat made by fire, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:15), which indicates that the breast and thigh are placed on top of the fats, that is insufficient: But isn’t it written elsewhere: “The fat upon the breast he shall bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30)? That verse leads to the opposite conclusion, as it indicates that the fats are to be placed on top of the breast.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses the layering of fats versus breast and thigh. One verse (Leviticus 10:15) places the breast and thigh on top of the fats, while another (Leviticus 7:30) places the fats on top of the breast. This apparent contradiction needs resolution, as the physical arrangement during the waving ritual must be definitive.
Key Terms:
- אִשֵּׁי הַחֲלָבִים (Ishei HaḤelavim) = Fire-offerings of the fats — the portions burned on the altar
- שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה (Shok HaTerumah) = The thigh of heaving, given to the priest
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye resolves: the verse describes transporting from the slaughtering area
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ כֹּהֵן מִבֵּית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִים, וְרָמֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Abaye said: That second verse is not referring to the placement of the portions for waving. Rather, it describes their placement when the priest brings the parts of the offering from the slaughtering area in order to be waved. This priest carries the breast and thigh below the fats, and accordingly, when he overturns these parts onto the hand of the priest who will wave them, the fat will be under the breast and thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye provides an elegant resolution by distinguishing between different stages of the process. When the priest carries the parts from the slaughtering area, the fats are on top (as described in Leviticus 7:30). But when he overturns them onto the hands of the waving priest, the arrangement naturally flips — the fats end up on the bottom, and the breast and thigh on top. Each verse describes a different moment in the procedure.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִים (Beit HaMitbeḥayim) = The slaughtering area in the Temple courtyard
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Another verse resolved — the handoff to the priest who burns the fats
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיָּשִׂימוּ אֶת הַחֲלָבִים עַל הֶחָזוֹת״? הָהוּא דְּיָהֵיב לֵיהּ לְכֹהֵן אַחֲרִינָא, וְאָזֵיל וּמַקְטַר לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And they put the fat upon the breasts” (Leviticus 9:20), which also indicates that the fat is to be on top of, not beneath, the breast and thigh? The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the stage when the priest who waved them gives them to another priest, who brings the sacrificial portions up to the altar. Once again the parts are turned over in this exchange, so that the sacrificial fats are on top of the breast. And this third priest then goes and burns the sacrificial portions on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third verse presents the fats on top of the breast, seemingly contradicting the waving arrangement. The Gemara explains this refers to yet another stage — after the waving, when the parts are handed to a third priest. Each handoff between priests causes the arrangement to flip again, so the fats end up on top as they are carried to the altar for burning. This reveals a three-stage process with three different priests.
Key Terms:
- מַקְטַר (Maktar) = To burn sacrificial portions on the altar
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Deriving the requirement for three priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּבָעֵינַן שְׁלֹשָׁה כֹּהֲנִים, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּרׇב עָם הַדְרַת מֶלֶךְ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And this teaches us that we require three priests to perform this service: One to bring the parts from the slaughtering area, one to wave them, and a third to burn them upon the altar. The reason why all three acts cannot be performed by a single priest is because it is written: “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). If a larger number of priests are involved in the Temple service, this represents greater glory for God. Therefore, it is preferable for the service to be carried out by three priests rather than one.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara derives a practical halakhic principle from the verse reconciliation: the service should involve three separate priests. This is not just a matter of efficiency but is grounded in the verse “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory” — involving more people in divine service increases God’s honor. This principle of b’rov am hadrat melekh applies broadly in Temple service and beyond.
Key Terms:
- בְּרׇב עָם הַדְרַת מֶלֶךְ (B’rov Am Hadrat Melekh) = “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory” — a principle favoring communal participation in mitzvot
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita on waving the two loaves and lambs of Shavuot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן אֹתָם עַל לֶחֶם הַבִּיכּוּרִים״,
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: And the two loaves and the accompanying peace offering of two lambs brought on Shavuot also require waving. With regard to this waving, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall wave them upon the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, upon the two lambs; they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions from discussing waving in general to the specific case of the Shavuot offering — two loaves of bread waved together with two lambs. The verse in Leviticus 23:20 is the source, but its language is ambiguous about whether the bread goes on top of the lambs or vice versa, setting up the discussion that follows.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (Shtei HaLeḥem) = The two loaves of bread brought on Shavuot from the new wheat
- כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת (Kivsei Atzeret) = The two lambs brought as communal peace offerings on Shavuot
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Contradictory phrases in the verse about bread and lambs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל יַנִּיחַ כְּבָשִׂים עַל גַּבֵּי הַלֶּחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים״. אִי ״עַל שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים״ יָכוֹל לֶחֶם עַל גַּבֵּי כְּבָשִׂים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל לֶחֶם הַבִּיכּוּרִים״.
English Translation:
One might have thought that the priest who performs the waving must place the lambs on top of the bread for the waving. Therefore, the verse states: “A wave offering before the Lord upon the two lambs,” which indicates that the two loaves must be on top of the lambs. If the verse had stated only: “Upon the two lambs,” one might have thought the priest must place the bread on top of the lambs. Therefore, the verse states: “Upon the bread of the first fruits,” which indicates that the loaves are to be placed under the lambs for waving.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita demonstrates how the single verse contains two contradictory implications. “Upon the bread” suggests the lambs are on top of the bread; “upon the two lambs” suggests the bread is on top of the lambs. The verse effectively cancels itself out, creating the need for an external resolution.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם הַבִּיכּוּרִים (Leḥem HaBikkurim) = The bread of first fruits — another name for the two loaves of Shavuot
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution from the inauguration precedent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִישְׁתַּקֵּל הַכָּתוּב, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לֶחֶם עַל גַּבֵּי כְּבָשִׂים, וְאִם כְּבָשִׂים עַל גַּבֵּי לֶחֶם. מָה מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – לֶחֶם לְמַעְלָה, אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם לְמַעְלָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּמִילּוּאִים.
English Translation:
Consequently, the verse is evenly balanced, as two contradictory conclusions can be derived from it, and I do not know whether the bread should be on top of the lambs, or whether the lambs should be on top of the bread. The baraita resolves the contradiction: Just as we find everywhere that waving is performed that the bread is placed above the other portions, so too, in the case of the two loaves and the two lambs, the bread is placed above the lambs. The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to ask: Where is it stated that the loaves must be placed on top? Rav Pappa says: This is stated explicitly with regard to the ram offered at the inauguration of the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita declares the verse “evenly balanced” (nishtakel) — neither reading is stronger than the other. The resolution comes from comparing to the inauguration offerings (miluim), where the bread was explicitly placed on top. This establishes a universal pattern: wherever bread accompanies an offering that is waved, the bread goes on top. Rav Pappa identifies the source as the miluim passage.
Key Terms:
- נִישְׁתַּקֵּל הַכָּתוּב (Nishtakel HaKatuv) = The verse is evenly balanced — neither interpretation is more compelling
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam: lambs on top
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: כְּבָשִׂים לְמַעְלָה, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״עַל שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים״ – לְהוֹצִיא שִׁבְעָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam disagrees with the previous ruling, and says: It is the lambs that are placed above, and the two loaves underneath them. And how do I realize the meaning of the phrase: “Upon the two lambs,” which seems to indicate that the two loaves are to be placed above the lambs and not under them? Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam explains: This verse teaches that the requirement to wave the lambs together with the loaves applies only to the two lambs sacrificed as communal peace offerings on Shavuot, to exclude the seven other lambs, brought as burnt offerings, which are not to be waved with the loaves.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam offers a dissenting view: the lambs go on top, not the bread. He reinterprets “upon the two lambs” as a limiting phrase — the waving applies only to the two peace-offering lambs and not to the seven additional lambs brought as burnt offerings on Shavuot. This creative reading avoids the placement contradiction entirely by assigning the phrase a different function.
Key Terms:
- לְהוֹצִיא שִׁבְעָה (L’hotzi Shiv’ah) = To exclude the seven — referring to the seven burnt-offering lambs of Shavuot (Numbers 28:27)
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on the arrangement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲנִינָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר: מַנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בֵּין יַרְכוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים וּמֵנִיף, וְנִמְצָא מְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵי מִקְרָאוֹת הַלָּלוּ: לֶחֶם עַל גַּבֵּי כְּבָשִׂים, וּכְבָשִׂים עַל גַּבֵּי הַלֶּחֶם. אָמַר רַבִּי: לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וְדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין כֵּן, לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשִׂין כֵּן?! אֶלָּא מַנִּיחַ זֶה בְּצַד זֶה וּמֵנִיף.
English Translation:
Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai says there is a different answer: The priest places the two loaves between the thighs of the two lambs and waves them. And in this manner it is found that he realizes the meaning of both of these two verses, as the bread is on top of the lambs and the lambs are also on top of the bread. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in objection to this opinion: One would not do so, i.e., place bread that had been placed between the thighs of lambs, before a flesh and blood king; should one do so before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He? Rather, he places the two loaves and the two lambs alongside each other, and waves them together, and thereby fulfills the requirements of the verses in a respectful manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment presents two additional opinions. Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai proposes a creative solution: placing the bread between the lambs’ thighs satisfies both verses simultaneously. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rejects this on grounds of dignity — one would not present food squeezed between an animal’s legs to a human king, let alone to God. His alternative is placing them side by side. This reveals an important principle: the honor due to God shapes the practical details of Temple service.
Key Terms:
- מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים (Melekh Malkhei HaMelakhim) = King of kings of kings — a title for God emphasizing supreme sovereignty
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Objection to Rabbi’s view: the word “upon” requires vertical placement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא בָּעֵינַן ״עַל״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But we require fulfillment of the term “upon [al]” in the verse, either by placing the bread upon the lambs or the lambs upon the bread. In response, Rav Ḥisda says to Rav Hamnuna, and some say that Rav Hamnuna says to Rav Ḥisda: With this opinion, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that the word al can mean next to.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s side-by-side approach: the verse says “upon” (al), which implies vertical placement. The response is that Rabbi follows his own established principle that the word “al” in the Torah can mean “next to” rather than strictly “on top of.” This is a significant hermeneutical principle with implications beyond this specific case.
Key Terms:
- עַל בְּסָמוּךְ (Al B’Samukh) = “Upon” meaning “next to” — Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s interpretation of the word “al” in certain contexts
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Proof that “al” can mean “next to” — from the shewbread and the Curtain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, ״וְנָתַתָּ עַל הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת לְבֹנָה זַכָּה״, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא ״עַל״ מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְסַכֹּתָ עַל הָאָרֹן אֶת הַפָּרֹכֶת״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ.
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the shewbread, the verse states: “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Al in this instance means: Next to. The baraita asks: Do you say that al means: Next to? Or perhaps it means only actually upon? The baraita explains: When it says: “And you shall put there the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall place a cover over [al] the Ark with the Curtain” (Exodus 40:3), the word al cannot mean upon, as the Curtain that separated the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies was hanging near the Ark, not placed on top of it. Therefore, you must say that al means next to.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita provides the proof text for Rabbi’s interpretation. The frankincense was placed “al” the shewbread rows — but if “al” always meant “on top of,” the frankincense would contaminate the bread. More decisively, Exodus 40:3 says to place the Curtain “al” the Ark, yet the Curtain hung near the Ark, not on it. This proves conclusively that “al” can mean “adjacent to” or “near,” supporting Rabbi’s position that the loaves and lambs can be placed side by side.
Key Terms:
- לְבֹנָה זַכָּה (Levonah Zakkah) = Pure frankincense, placed alongside the shewbread rows
- פָּרֹכֶת (Parokhet) = The Curtain separating the Holy from the Holy of Holies
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Purpose of waving — dedicating to God who rules all directions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא, מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא – לְמִי שֶׁהָרוּחוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ, מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד – לְמִי שֶׁהַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ שֶׁלּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the two loaves and the two lambs are waved in the following manner: The priest places his two hands below the lambs, extends them to each of the four directions and brings them back, then raises and lowers them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He extends the lambs and brings them back in order to dedicate them to He to Whom the four directions belong. He raises and lowers them in order to dedicate them to He to Whom the heavens and the earth belong.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses the meaning behind the waving motions. Rabbi Yoḥanan provides a theological explanation: the horizontal movement (extending and returning) acknowledges God’s sovereignty over all four directions, while the vertical movement (raising and lowering) acknowledges His dominion over heaven and earth. The waving ritual is thus a physical expression of recognizing God’s total sovereignty over all of creation.
Key Terms:
- מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא (Molikh U’Meivi) = Extends and returns — the horizontal waving motion
- מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד (Ma’aleh U’Morid) = Raises and lowers — the vertical waving motion
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Eretz Yisrael tradition: waving halts harmful winds and dews
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַעְרְבָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי: אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא – כְּדֵי לַעֲצוֹר רוּחוֹת רָעוֹת, מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד – כְּדֵי לַעֲצוֹר טְלָלִים רָעִים.
English Translation:
In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they taught the idea like this: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina says: He extends the lambs and brings them back in order to request a halt to harmful winds and storms that come from all directions. Similarly, he raises and lowers them in order to halt harmful dews and rains that come from above.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Eretz Yisrael tradition offers a complementary explanation to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s. Rather than focusing on dedication and acknowledgment, this view emphasizes petition — the waving serves as a prayer to halt destructive natural forces. The horizontal motion wards off harmful winds from all directions, while the vertical motion protects against harmful dews and rains. Both explanations share the recognition that waving connects to God’s control over nature.
Key Terms:
- רוּחוֹת רָעוֹת (Ruḥot Ra’ot) = Harmful winds or storms
- טְלָלִים רָעִים (Telalim Ra’im) = Harmful dews — destructive moisture from above
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא
Non-essential mitzvot prevent calamity; application to lulav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַב אָבִין: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה מְעַכְּבִים אֶת הַפּוּרְעָנוּת, דְּהָא תְּנוּפָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הִיא, וְעוֹצֶרֶת רוּחוֹת רָעוֹת וּטְלָלִים רָעִים. אָמַר רַבָּה: וְכֵן לוּלָב.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Avin says: That is to say, i.e., it can be derived from here, that a non-essential mitzva helps prevent calamity, as waving is a non-essential mitzva; even if one failed to wave the loaves he has fulfilled his obligation, and nevertheless waving halts harmful winds and dews. Rava says: And one should conduct himself similarly with a lulav on the festival of Sukkot, i.e., he should extend and bring back and raise and lower the lulav, for the same reasons.
קלאוד על הדף:
An important general principle emerges: even non-essential components of a mitzva (shiyarei mitzva) have spiritual power to prevent calamity. Waving is not indispensable — failing to wave does not invalidate the offering — yet it still protects against harmful forces. Rava extends this to the lulav: the waving of the lulav on Sukkot follows the same pattern and purpose, connecting the Temple service to an ongoing practice observed to this day.
Key Terms:
- שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה (Shiyarei Mitzva) = Non-essential parts of a mitzva — components that are not strictly required for fulfillment
- לוּלָב (Lulav) = The palm branch waved on Sukkot, together with myrtle, willow, and etrog
Segment 17
TYPE: אגדתא
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s boast and the Gemara’s cautionary note
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ וּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ, וּמַחְוֵי הָכִי, וְאָמַר: ״גִּירָא בְּעֵינָא דְשִׂטְנָא״. וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְאִתְגָּרוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would extend and bring back the lulav in this manner, and would say: I am hereby shooting an arrow in the eye of Satan, as despite Satan’s best efforts, the Jewish people continue to fulfill mitzvot joyously. The Gemara comments: It is not correct to say this, because this will induce Satan to come to incite the Jewish people to sin. Gloating about his victory over the evil inclination will lead Satan to redouble its efforts to corrupt them.
קלאוד על הדף:
This aggadic passage provides a practical lesson in spiritual humility. While Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s enthusiasm for the mitzva was admirable, the Gemara cautions against provoking the evil inclination by boasting about one’s piety. The message is that mitzvot should be performed with joy and sincerity, but not with arrogance that invites a spiritual backlash. Humility in worship is preferable to triumphalism.
Key Terms:
- גִּירָא בְּעֵינָא דְשִׂטְנָא (Gira B’Eina D’Sitna) = “An arrow in the eye of Satan” — a declaration of spiritual defiance
- לְאִתְגָּרוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ (L’Itgaroyei Beih) = To provoke him — inciting the evil inclination
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
Dispute: waving communal peace offerings after slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, וּתְנוּפָתָן כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues to discuss halakhot concerning the waving of offerings: The Sages taught in a baraita: The communal peace offerings, which were brought on the festival of Shavuot and which must be waved while the animals are still alive, also require waving after their slaughter, and their waving after they are slaughtered is to be performed as they are, meaning that the whole animal must be waved, as was done when it was alive; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: One does not wave the whole animal; rather, the waving is performed only with the breast and thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new dispute arises about the post-slaughter waving of the communal Shavuot peace offerings. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the entire animal is waved after slaughter, just as it was waved whole while alive. The Rabbis disagree, maintaining that after slaughter only the breast and thigh — the priestly portions — are waved. This dispute hinges on how analogies from individual peace offerings apply to communal ones.
Key Terms:
- זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר (Zivḥei Shalmei Tzibbur) = Communal peace offerings — specifically the two lambs of Shavuot
- כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן (K’mot She-Hen) = As they are — meaning the whole animal
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The underlying dispute: two principles of deriving law through verbal analogy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: בְּדוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, בְּדוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ – קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree? Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Hamnuna, and some say Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: They disagree with regard to a principle about the application of verbal analogies. One adopts the exegetical principle: Infer from it and derive the details from it, meaning that when one case is derived from another by means of a verbal analogy, all the details of the source case are applied to the second case. The other Sage accepts the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, meaning that one derives only the specific detail referred to by the verbal analogy, and all other aspects of the source case are not applied to the other case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the fundamental methodological dispute behind the practical disagreement. When we derive a halakha through a gezera shava (verbal analogy), how far do the details of the source case extend to the derived case? “Infer from it and derive the details from it” (don minah u-minah) applies all details from the source. “Infer from it but interpret according to its own place” (don minah v’oki b’atrah) imports only the specific derived halakha, leaving other details to follow the derived case’s own rules.
Key Terms:
- דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ (Don Minah U-Minah) = Infer from it and derive the details from it — all aspects of the source case are transferred
- דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ (Don Minah V’Oki B’Atrah) = Infer from it but interpret according to its own place — only the specific derived law is transferred
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
The Rabbis’ position elaborated: apply all details from individual peace offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ – מָה זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, אַף זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, וּמִינַּהּ – מָה הָתָם בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: The waving of communal peace offerings is derived from the waving of individual peace offerings through a verbal analogy. The Rabbis maintain: Infer from it and derive the details from it, leading to the conclusion: Just as individual peace offerings require waving after slaughter, so too, communal peace offerings require waving after slaughter. And derive the details from it: Just as there, in the case of individual peace offerings, the waving is performed with the breast and thigh alone, so too here, with regard to communal peace offerings as well, the waving is with the breast and thigh alone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis apply the “don minah u-minah” principle consistently. They learn from individual peace offerings both that communal peace offerings require post-slaughter waving AND the details of how that waving is performed — namely, with the breast and thigh only. Since all details transfer from the source case, the manner of waving (breast and thigh) transfers along with the basic requirement.
Key Terms:
- זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד (Zivḥei Shalmei Yaḥid) = Individual peace offerings — brought voluntarily by private individuals
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi’s position elaborated: derive the law but keep local details
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי סָבַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ – מָה זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, אַף זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ – הָתָם הוּא דְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אֲבָל הָכָא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן, כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן בַּחַיִּים.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, meaning that the basic halakha of the verbal analogy is accepted: Just as individual peace offerings require waving after slaughter, so too, communal peace offerings require waving after slaughter. But interpret the halakha according to its own place: It is only there, in the case of individual peace offerings, that the waving is performed with the breast and thigh alone. But here, in the case of communal peace offerings, the waving is as they are, i.e., the animals are waved whole, as they were when they were alive.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi applies the “don minah v’oki b’atrah” principle. He accepts the derived law — communal peace offerings require post-slaughter waving — but rejects importing the details. Since the communal offerings are waved whole while alive, the post-slaughter waving should also be performed with the whole animal. The manner of waving stays “in its own place” rather than following the individual peace offering model.
Key Terms:
- בַּחַיִּים (BaḤayyim) = While alive — referring to the waving performed before slaughter
Amud Bet (62b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa’s alternative explanation: everyone agrees on “don minah u-minah”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ הוּא, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי – כִּי הָתָם, מָה הָתָם דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לְכֹהֵן, אַף הָכָא דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said there is a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis: Everyone, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, agrees that with regard to a verbal analogy, the guiding principle is: Infer from it and derive the details from it. And this is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that after the slaughter of the communal peace offering one waves the entire body offering, not just the breast and thigh: It is done here like it is done there, in the case of individual peace offerings: Just as there, one waves the item that is a gift to the priest, as the breast and thigh are given to the priests to eat, so too here, with regard to the communal peace offerings, one waves the item that is a gift to the priest. Since the communal peace offerings are given to the priests in their entirety, they are also waved in their entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa reframes the dispute entirely. He argues both Rabbi and the Rabbis actually agree on the “don minah u-minah” principle. The difference is in what detail they derive: the rule is “wave whatever is given to the priest.” For individual offerings, that means the breast and thigh. For communal Shavuot offerings, which are given to the priests in their entirety, this means the whole animal. Both sides apply the same principle; they just disagree on what the relevant detail is.
Key Terms:
- מַתָּנָה לְכֹהֵן (Matanah LaKohen) = A gift to the priest — the portions of the offering that priests receive
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravina’s alternative: everyone agrees on “don minah v’oki b’atrah”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן: ״שַׁלְמֵיהֶם״ רִיבּוּיָא הוּא.
English Translation:
Ravina said an explanation which is the opposite of Rav Pappa’s: Everyone, even the Rabbis, agrees that the guiding principle is: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place. And this is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis that one waves only the breast and thigh of communal peace offerings: The verse states with regard to individual peace offerings: “For the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving I have taken from the children of Israel out of their sacrifices of peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as an eternal portion from among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 7:34). The term: “Their sacrifices of peace offerings,” is in the plural, despite the fact that the verse is referring to individual peace offerings. This is an amplification, which teaches that the same halakha applies to communal peace offerings, i.e., that only the breast and the thigh are to be waved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina offers the opposite reframing: both sides accept “don minah v’oki b’atrah.” The Rabbis derive their ruling not from the verbal analogy but from an amplification (ribbui) in the verse itself — the plural “their peace offerings” extends the breast-and-thigh rule to communal offerings directly. Rabbi, lacking this amplification, follows the standard “oki b’atrah” approach where the communal offering retains its own manner (whole animal). This elegant analysis shows how the same practical dispute can arise from entirely different methodological foundations.
Key Terms:
- רִיבּוּיָא (Ribbui’a) = An amplification — a textual expansion that broadens the scope of a halakha
- שַׁלְמֵיהֶם (Shalmehem) = “Their peace offerings” — the plural form that serves as the amplification
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon’s teaching: three offerings require three mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין טְעוּנִין שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם בְּכׇל אֶחָד וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֵין בָּהֶן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: 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 the festival of Shavuot, and the guilt offering of a leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon presents an elegant categorical framework. Three offerings share a pool of three mitzvot — placing hands (semikha), waving while alive, and waving after slaughter — but each offering requires exactly two out of three, with each missing a different one. This creates a symmetrical pattern where no single offering has all three requirements, and no two offerings have the identical pair.
Key Terms:
- אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע (Asham Metzora) = The guilt offering of a leper, brought as part of the purification process
- סְמִיכָה (Semikha) = Placing hands on the head of an offering before slaughter
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
The specific distribution of mitzvot among the three offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה חַיִּים, וּתְנוּפָה שְׁחוּטִין, וְאֵין בָּהֶן תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים. זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים וּשְׁחוּטִין, וְאֵין בָּהֶן סְמִיכָה. אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע טָעוּן סְמִיכָה וּתְנוּפָה חַי, וְאֵין בּוֹ תְּנוּפָה שָׁחוּט.
English Translation:
The mishna continues: Peace offerings brought by individuals require placing hands on the head of the animals while the animals are still alive, and waving after they are slaughtered, but there is no obligation of waving them while they are alive. Communal peace offerings require waving both while they 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 it while it is still alive, but there is no obligation of waving it after it is slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna lays out the matrix precisely. Individual peace offerings: semikha + post-slaughter waving (no pre-slaughter waving). Communal peace offerings: pre-slaughter waving + post-slaughter waving (no semikha). Guilt offering of a leper: semikha + pre-slaughter waving (no post-slaughter waving). The symmetry is striking — each offering is missing exactly one of the three mitzvot, and each missing mitzva is different.
Key Terms:
- תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים (Tenufah Ḥayyim) = Waving while the animal is alive
- תְּנוּפָה שְׁחוּטִין (Tenufah Sheḥutin) = Waving after the animal is slaughtered
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
A fortiori challenge: shouldn’t individual peace offerings require waving while alive?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיִהְיוּ זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה חַיִּים, טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים – זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, שֶׁטְּעוּנִין סְמִיכָה חַיִּים, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And let peace offerings brought by an individual require waving while still alive, as this can be derived via an a fortiori inference: And if communal peace offerings, whose halakha is more lenient than that of individual peace offerings in that they do not require placing hands on the head of offerings while they are alive, nevertheless require waving when alive, then with regard to peace offerings brought by an individual, which do require placing hands while alive, is it not logical to conclude that they require waving when alive?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the symmetry of Rabbi Shimon’s framework. If communal offerings — which don’t even require semikha — still need waving while alive, shouldn’t individual offerings — which have the additional stringency of semikha — certainly require waving while alive too? This kal va-ḥomer (a fortiori) argument threatens to collapse the neat three-by-three structure by adding a third mitzva to individual peace offerings.
Key Terms:
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (Kal Va-Ḥomer) = A fortiori argument — if a lenient case has a stringency, the stricter case certainly should
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Scriptural exclusion: “them” excludes individual peace offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, ״אַתֶּם״, ״אוֹתָם״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: This a fortiori inference is not accepted, because the Merciful One excluded peace offerings brought by an individual, as the verse states with regard to communal peace offerings: “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). The word “them” serves to exclude peace offerings brought by an individual from the requirement of waving while the animal is alive.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflects the kal va-ḥomer by pointing to a specific biblical exclusion. The limiting word “them” (otam) in the verse about communal offerings restricts the pre-slaughter waving to only those offerings — explicitly excluding individual peace offerings. A kal va-ḥomer can always be overridden by a direct scriptural exclusion (mi’ut), demonstrating the hierarchy of hermeneutical principles.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט (Mi’ut) = A scriptural exclusion — a limiting word that restricts the scope of a law
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why don’t communal offerings require semikha? A tradition from Sinai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיִהְיוּ זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים – טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה, זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר שֶׁטְּעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנִין סְמִיכָה? אָמַר רָבִינָא: גְּמִירִי שְׁתֵּי סְמִיכוֹת בְּצִבּוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And let communal peace offerings require placing hands, as this can be derived via an a fortiori inference: And if peace offerings brought by an individual, whose halakha is more lenient than that of communal peace offerings in that they do not require waving while alive, nevertheless require placing hands, then with regard to communal peace offerings, which do require waving when alive, is it not logical to conclude that they require placing hands? Ravina said: This a fortiori inference is not accepted, as it is learned as a tradition from Sinai that there are only two cases of placing hands in communal offerings: The scapegoat on Yom Kippur and the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the symmetry from the other direction: shouldn’t communal offerings require semikha via kal va-ḥomer? Ravina’s answer invokes a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai (oral tradition from Sinai): there are exactly two cases of communal semikha — the Yom Kippur scapegoat and the communal sin offering bull. No additional cases can be derived through logic, as this is a fixed tradition. This demonstrates how oral traditions can limit the application of logical derivations.
Key Terms:
- גְּמִירִי (Gemiri) = It is learned as a tradition — referring to a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai
- שְׁתֵּי סְמִיכוֹת בְּצִבּוּר (Shtei Semikhot B’Tzibbur) = Two cases of semikha in communal offerings — the scapegoat and the communal sin bull
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Why doesn’t the leper’s guilt offering require post-slaughter waving?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וִיהֵא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע טָעוּן תְּנוּפָה שָׁחוּט, מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: מָה זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד שֶׁאֵין טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה חַיִּים, טְעוּנִין תְּנוּפָה שְׁחוּטִין – אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁטָּעוּן תְּנוּפָה חַי, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן תְּנוּפָה שָׁחוּט!
English Translation:
The Gemara further asks: And let the guilt offering of a leper require waving after the animal has been slaughtered, as this can be derived via an a fortiori inference: And if peace offerings brought by an individual, whose halakha is more lenient than that of the guilt offering of a leper in that they do not require waving when alive, nevertheless require waving after they are slaughtered, then with regard to the guilt offering of a leper, which requires waving while alive, is it not logical to conclude that it also requires waving after it is slaughtered?
קלאוד על הדף:
The third kal va-ḥomer tests the final corner of the matrix: shouldn’t the leper’s guilt offering require post-slaughter waving? The logic is compelling: if individual peace offerings, which don’t even need pre-slaughter waving, still require post-slaughter waving, then the leper’s guilt offering, which has the additional stringency of pre-slaughter waving, should certainly also require post-slaughter waving.
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Scriptural exclusion: “it” excludes the leper’s guilt offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי זִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי יָחִיד, ״אֹתוֹ״, ״אוֹתוֹ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excluded the guilt offering of a leper, as the verse states with regard to peace offerings brought by an individual: “His own hands shall bring the offerings of the Lord made by fire; the fat with the breast shall he bring; the breast, to wave it before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30). The word “it” serves to exclude the guilt offering of a leper from the requirement of waving after the animal has been slaughtered.
קלאוד על הדף:
Once again, a scriptural exclusion overrides the kal va-ḥomer. The word “it” (oto) in the verse about individual peace offering waving limits post-slaughter waving to that specific offering, excluding the leper’s guilt offering. This completes the defense of Rabbi Shimon’s three-by-three matrix: each missing mitzva is accounted for by either a scriptural exclusion (mi’ut) or an oral tradition, preventing logical derivations from collapsing the structure.
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
Rules of proxy waving: five co-owners, women, and those overseas
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד – אֶחָד מֵנִיף עַל יְדֵי כּוּלָּם, וְהָאִשָּׁה – כֹּהֵן מֵנִיף עַל יָדָהּ, וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם – כֹּהֵן מֵנִיף עַל יָדוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught: With regard to five people who brought one offering together, one of them waves the offering on behalf of all of them. And in the case of a woman who brings an offering, the priest waves the offering on her behalf. And similarly, with regard to one who sends his offerings from overseas, the priest waves them on his behalf.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf concludes with practical rules about who can wave and when proxies are allowed. When multiple people share an offering, one waves for all. When the owner cannot wave personally — either because she is a woman (who does not perform waving herself) or because the owner is overseas — the priest waves on their behalf. This demonstrates the flexibility built into the waving system to accommodate diverse circumstances while maintaining the requirement.
Key Terms:
- מְדִינַת הַיָּם (Medinat HaYam) = Overseas — literally “the land of the sea,” referring to places outside Eretz Yisrael