QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the verses that teach the requirement of Tenufah, and it concludes that three Kohanim are needed for the three separate tasks of bringing the meat and fat from where the animal was slaughtered, doing Tenufah, and offering it on the Mizbe'ach. Even though one Kohen could do all three acts, three Kohanim are needed because of the verse, "b'Rov Am Hadras Melech" -- "In the multitude of people is the glory of the king" (Mishlei 14:28).
The Gemara here makes no mention of any other opinion in the matter. However, the Gemara in Yoma (26a) seems to express an opinion that does not require three Kohanim to perform these three tasks. The Mishnah there states that the fourth Payis (lottery) on Yom Kippur determined which Kohanim performed the task of bringing up the limbs of the Korbanos from the ramp of the Mizbe'ach onto the Mizbe'ach itself. The Gemara asserts that the Mishnah does not follow the view of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who maintains that the Kohen who places the limbs on the ramp is also the one who brings them from the ramp to the Mizbe'ach.
The Gemara explains the basis of the dispute between the Chachamim and Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov. The Chachamim maintain that there is a Mitzvah of "b'Rov Am Hadras Melech." Therefore, they maintain that the different tasks of the Yom Kippur service in the Beis ha'Mikdash should be done by different Kohanim. Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov argues that, on the contrary, in the place where the Shechinah dwells it is not fitting to have many Kohanim perform the Avodah. RASHI (DH Lav) explains that if many Kohanim would perform the different parts of the service, it would give the impression that each Kohen views the Avodah as a burden and thus he hands it over to his colleagues.
Why does the Gemara here not mention the dissenting opinion that maintains that only one Kohen performs all three tasks?
ANSWER: The MISHMAR HA'LEVI (Zevachim #37, DH Amnam) suggests that Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov distinguishes between one act and multiple acts, and he maintains that it is inappropriate for different Kohanim to perform a single act. He agrees that when many Kohanim perform different tasks, they do not give the appearance that the service is a burden.
Consequently, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov says only that one Kohen should bring the limbs to the ramp and then bring them up from the ramp to the Mizbe'ach. These two parts of the service are performed on the same object (the same limbs of the animal), and they constitute a single act -- namely, bringing up the limbs onto the Mizbe'ach after Shechitah. If several Kohanim would perform the different parts of this single act, it would appear that they consider it a burden and that they are dividing the work among them.
In contrast, the Gemara here refers to multiple acts (i.e. bringing the limbs, waving the limbs, and burning the limbs on the Mizbe'ach). Although these acts are performed on one object, they are separate, unrelated acts. In this case, Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov agrees that it is preferable to perform these acts with more Kohanim because of "b'Rov Am Hadras Melech." (D. BLOOM)
QUESTION: The Beraisa discusses the verse that describes how Tenufah (waving) is done with the Shtei ha'Lechem and the Kivsei Atzeres. The verse says, "And the Kohen shall wave them on the bread (Al Lechem) of the first fruits for a wave offering before Hash-m on the two lambs (Al Shnei Kevasim)" (Vayikra 23:20). Are the lambs placed on top of the bread, as implied by the first part of the verse, or is the bread placed on top of the lambs, as implied by the second part of the verse?
The Tana Kama understands that just as the bread was on the top at the time of the Milu'im (the inaugural Korbanos of the Mishkan), the bread is on top when the Shtei ha'Lechem and Kivsei Atzeres are waved. He does not explain what the first part of the verse means when it says "Al Lechem" -- "on the bread."
Rebbi Yosi ben ha'Meshulam says that the lambs are placed on top of the bread. The words, "on the lambs," teach that the Tenufah is done with the two lambs mentioned with the Shtei ha'Lechem, and not with the seven lambs offered as Olos for the Musaf offering.
Chanina ben Chachina'i says that the wording of the verse implies that the bread should be placed between the thighs of the two lambs, and then the Tenufah should be performed. Rebbi discounts this opinion on the basis that such a thing is not done even before a mortal king, and all the more so before Hash-m. Rather, the bread and the lambs are placed next to each other and waved. The Gemara points out that since Rebbi understands the word "Al" to mean "next to," both implications of the verse are true.
How does the Tana Kama understand the words, "on the bread"?
ANSWER: The BRISKER RAV answers that the verse teaches that the Tenufah of the breads is connected to the Tenufah of the lambs, and they are part of the same Mitzvah. In contrast, the Tenufah of a Korban Todah and its breads, for example, are considered two separate Mitzvos.
The Brisker Rav adds that this law results in a practical difference between this Tenufah and other Tenufos.
The Gemara earlier (46a) mentions a possibility that "Tenufah Osah Zikah"; after the breads and sheep have been waved together, they are deemed associated with each other to the point that if one of them is lost or destroyed, both must be replaced. This cannot refer to the Korban Todah and its breads, because there is no connection between the Tenufah of the animal and the breads in the case of a Todah. Rather, this applies only to the Shtei ha'Lechem of Shavuos because of the verse, "Al Lechem." This verse teaches that there is such a strong connection between the sheep and bread such that it is possible that "Tenufah Osah Zikah."
A similar opinion is expressed by Rebbi Yirmiyah (46b). Although he does not say that "Tenufah Osah Zikah," he understands that if the Tenufah was done only with the lambs, it is not necessary to wave the breads. This ruling must refer solely to the Shtei ha'Lechem and Kivsei Atzeres, due to the intrinsic connection between the lambs and the bread implied by the verse "Al Lechem...." This explains the Tana Kama's understanding of the verse. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
QUESTION: The Mishnah (61a) discusses the waving of the Shtei ha'Lechem and teaches that one waves it back and forth, and up and down. The Gemara (62a) quotes Rebbi Chiya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Yochanan who says that the waving back and forth is done in the name of the One who controls the winds. The waving up and down is done in the name of the One who controls the heaven and earth. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says that he would wave it back and forth in order to stop bad winds. He would wave it up and down in order to stop bad dew.
TOSFOS (DH Kedei) writes that perhaps this was done only for the waving of the Shtei ha'Lechem of Shavuos, when the fruit of the world is judged, and for the waving of the Lulav on Sukos, when the world is judged for water, but this was not done for the other Tenufos.
The KAPOS TEMARIM in Sukah (37b, where Tosfos makes a similar comment) asks a basic question on Tosfos. Exactly what part of the waving was not done for other Korbanos? What does Tosfos mean when he says that something different was done for the Tenufah of the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lulav?
(a) The KAPOS TEMARIM answers based on his explanation of the argument between Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and Rebbi Yosi. He understands that according to Rebbi Chiya, who says that the Tenufah is done for the One who controls the winds, one must merely move the Korban to the east and then to the west to show that Hash-m controls the winds. One does not need to wave the Korban to the north and the south, since it is obvious that if Hash-m controls the eastern and western winds, He also controls the northern and southern winds. However, according to Rebbi Yosi, the waving is done in order to stop bad winds, and thus the waving must be done to all four directions.
Accordingly, Tosfos means that according to Rebbi Yosi, only the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lulav are waved in all four directions. Other Korbanos are waved in one direction, which is enough to show that Hash-m controls the winds.
(b) Alternatively, the Kapos Temarim answers that it is possible that the other Korbanos are waved only from side to side, and not up and down. Only the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lulav are waved up and down as well, in order to prevent bad dew.
(c) In his third answer, the Kapos Temarim suggest that Tosfos may mean that nothing different is done in practice with the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lulav. Rather, Tosfos means that only the Shtei ha'Lechem and Lulav are waved with the intention to stop bad winds and bad dew. The waving of other Korbanos is not done with this intention.
(The KEREN ORAH here notes that the Toras Kohanim says that these movements apply to all Tenufos. The ARUCH LA'NER in Sukah (37b) similarly notes that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 9:7) writes that these actions are done for all Korbanos that require Tenufah. The third answer of the Kapos Temarim seems to provide a way to reconcile Tosfos with these opinions.) (Y. MONTROSE)


QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the laws of Tenufah of a Shalmei Yachid and a Shalmei Tzibur. There are various opinions about what laws are derived from one to the other.
Rav Papa says that just as the Tenufah of the Shalmei Yachid is done only with parts of the animal that were given as a gift to the Kohen, the Tenufah of the Shalmei Tzibur is done only with those parts of the animal. This apparently refers to the Chazeh and Shok (chests and right hind leg) of the animal.
RAV YECHIEL MICHEL FEINSTEIN in SHI'UREI RABEINU YECHIEL MICHEL asks an obvious question on the Gemara. The limbs of a Shalmei Yachid also require Tenufah (see RAMBAM, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 9:6), even though they are not given as a gift to the Kohen. Why, then, does the Gemara say that the only part of the Shalmei Yachid that requires Tenufah is that which is given to the Kohen?
ANSWER: RAV YECHIEL MICHEL FEINSTEIN answers this question based on the words of the BRISKER RAV. The Brisker Rav explains that the Mitzvah of Tenufah of the Shalmei Yachid is to wave the Chazeh and Shok. In contrast, the Mitzvah of Tenufah of the Shalmei Tzibur is to wave the lambs.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 8:1) implies that the Tenufah of the Shalmei Yachid is done only with the Chazeh and Shok. The verse says about the Shalmei Yachid, "The fats should be brought with the Chazeh" (Vayikra 7:30). The limbs and fats are a secondary addition to the primary requirement of waving the Chazeh and Shok of a Shalmei Yachid. However, when the Gemara derives the Tenufah of a Shalmei Tzibur from the Tenufah of a Shalmei Yachid, and we know that the requirement of a Shalmei Tzibur is merely that the lambs should be waved, there is no reason to add the secondary limbs and fat. Accordingly, Rav Papa states that when deriving the laws of Tenufah from Shalmei Yachid to Shalmei Tzibur, the only requirement of waving for a Shalmei Yachid is the Chazeh and Shok. (Y. MONTROSE)
QUESTION: The Beraisa states when one who is overseas sends a Korban that requires Tenufah, the Kohen does Tenufah for him.
TOSFOS (DH v'Chen) notes that the Gemara here does not ask a question that the Gemara in Gitin (28a) asks on a similar statement made by the Mishnah there. The Mishnah states that when one who is overseas sends his Chatas to be slaughtered, the Kohen slaughters it with the understanding that the sender presumably is still alive. The Gemara asks that the Korban requires Semichah of the owner, who is not present. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is referring to a woman's Korban (which does not require Semichah). Why does the Gemara here not ask that the Korban should not be brought since it requires Semichah of the owner, who is overseas? (The answer of the Gemara there does not apply here, because the Beraisa already mentioned the law of the Korban of a woman, for whom the Kohen does Tenufah. When the Beraisa discusses a Korban sent from overseas, it clearly is not repeating the law of the Korban of a woman.)
(a) TOSFOS quotes RABEINU SHIMON who explains that the question in Gitin is appropriate only in the case of one who sends a Chatas or Asham from overseas. In such a case, there is the additional concern that the owner has died in the meantime, and thus the Korban is a Chatas whose owner has died, in which case the animal is put to death. In other words, the question is not really from the absence of Semichah. Rather, the question is that unless the owner is present, there is a concern that the animal is supposed to die outside the Beis ha'Mikdash, and it is not fit to be slaughtered as a Korban in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
It is evident from his answer that Rabeinu Shimon maintains that the absence of Semichah is not a real concern. Tosfos asks many questions on this assumption. One of them is based on the principle, "Kol she'Eino Ra'uy l'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo" (see 18b). This means that although a certain detail is not required to be done for a Mitzvah to be valid, if that detail cannot be done, the Mitzvah is not valid. According to this principle, how can one who is impure (such as a Metzora whose state of impurity is indefinite) or one who has no Bris Milah (such as a man whose brothers died as a result of Milah) send his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered without Semichah? Although there is a valid reason for why the owner cannot do Semichah, and although the lack of Semichah normally does not invalidate a Korban, since the owner cannot be present and cannot do Semichah, the absence of Semichah should render the Korban invalid!
Tosfos answers that this exception to the rule is derived through a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv in Moed Katan (16b). The verse states, "And on the day that he comes... he should bring his Chatas" (Yechezkel 44:27). This verse refers to a Kohen who comes to offer his inaugural Minchah (when he begins to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash). The Gemara derives from this verse that only when the Kohen is Tahor and fit to enter the Beis ha'Mikdash may he offer his Minchah. He may not send someone else to offer the Minchah for him. Tosfos suggests that this implies that other people may send their Korbanos when they are not present.
Tosfos notes, however, that this answer is not conclusive. It is possible that the Gemara there implies only that other people may send Korbanos which do not need Semichah, just as the inaugural Minchah of a Kohen does not need Semichah.
Tosfos therefore suggests that there are other sources, such as the verse that teaches that a Tamei person may not bring an Olas Re'iyah, which imply that a Tamei person may send other Korbanos.
The SEFAS EMES answers Tosfos' question by saying that the Semichah of a Chatas is a more crucial part of the Avodah than the Semichah of other Korbanos. Since one says Viduy during the Semichah of a Chatas in order to atone for his sin, the Semichah is considered a critical component of a Chatas. The Semichah of other Korbanos is not so significant. This is why the Gemara here does not ask about Semichah.
(b) TOSFOS in Gitin (28b, DH v'Ha) answers that the Beraisa here may be referring to an heir who sends his father's Korban from overseas. The Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (93a) who maintains that an heir does not perform Semichah when he offers the Korban he inherited from his father.
Accordingly, the Gemara could not have asked that the Korban sent from overseas is missing Semichah, because according to Rebbi Yehudah the Korban indeed does not need Semichah.
The Gemara in Gitin could not have answered that the Mishnah there follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah and refers to an heir, because the Mishnah there explicitly refers to a Chatas. An heir may not sacrifice a Chatas left by his father, since such a Chatas must be left to die. (See also the MAHARAM SHIF to Gitin 28b.) (D. BLOOM, Y. MONTROSE)