(Mishnah): [The Kohen] takes her Minchah from the basket, and puts it in a Kli Shares. He puts the Kli in her hands; the Kohen places his hands under her hands, and waves.

He waves, brings it close to the Mizbe'ach, takes a Kometz, burns the Kometz on the Mizbe'ach, and the rest is eaten by Kohanim.

(Gemara): It says "v'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Yad ha'Ishah Es Minchas ha'Kena'os" - does he wave it by himself?! Does he not wave it with her? (If so, why does he take it from her?)

Answer: Rather, this teaches that he takes it from a Chulin Kli, and puts it in a Kli Shares.

(Mishnah): The Kohen places his hands under her hands, and waves.

Question: Is this not repulsive?!

Answer #1: He brings a cloth [and it separates between their hands].

Objection: Is this not a Chatzitzah [between his hands and the Minchah]?!

Answer #2: We bring an old Kohen [who will not be aroused. This is not so repulsive.]

Answer #3: You can even say that [we bring] a young Kohen. The Yetzer ha'Ra is not common in a short time.

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): A Sotah without hands, two Kohanim wave for her (one is in place of her).

(R. Yosi): Everywhere, Rabanan ask this - Hagashah (bringing a Minchah close to the Mizbe'ach) - does he bring the Minchah itself close (touch it to the Mizbe'ach), or he brings the Kli [close]?

Question: What is the source that Tenufah precedes Hagashah?

Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Pedas): [Chachamim] learned from Sotah.

Objection (R. Yosi): Sotah is a Chidush (the Minchah is of barley). We do not learn from a Chidush.

Answer #2 (R. Bun bar Chiyah): "Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakrev" (Hakrev is Hagashah). Where is Tenufah? [It is not mentioned in the Parshah! We must say that Tenufah] already preceded [Hagashah].

Objection (R. Yosi): We can say that it discusses Menachos that do not require Tenufah. We do not learn anything from this.

Reiteration of Question: From where do we learn this?

Answer #3: "V'Haveisa" includes Minchas ha'Omer for Hagashah. "V'Hikrivah" includes Minchas Sotah for Hagashah, and it says afterwards "v'Herim" (the Kometz is taken right after this). Where is Tenufah? [We must say that] it already preceded [Hagashah].

(Mishnah): The following Menachos, Kemitzah is taken and the Shirayim are to Kohanim.

Question: R. Ba bar Mamal and R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak were sitting. R. Ba bar Mamal asked R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, what is the source that Shirayim of Minchas ha'Omer are eaten?

Answer #1 (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Didn't R. Yochanan say in the name of R. Yishmael, [there is a Gezeirah Shavah] "Minchas-Minchas" - just like Minchas said there (Sotah) is of barley, also here (ha'Omer) is of barley. Just like Minchas Sotah, the Shirayim are eaten, also Minchas ha'Omer, the Shirayim are eaten.

Objection #1: After they stood, R. Ba bar Mamal stood with R. Yirmeyah. [R. Yirmeyah] told him, see how he dispelled you [with an inadequate answer]! Minchas Sotah itself, what is the source that its Shirayim are eaten?!

Answer #2: R. Ze'ira brought R. Yitzchak Atushiya, and taught him "v'Chol Minchah Belulah va'Shemen [va'Charevah l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh]" - what does this discuss? If it is Balul of wheat (mixed with oil), this was already taught! Rather, if it is not needed for Balul of wheat, use it to teach about Balul of barley (Minchas ha'Omer, and it says that the Shirayim are to Kohanim);

"Va'Charevah [l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh]" - what does this discuss? If it is a dry [Minchah] of wheat (Minchas Chotei), this was already taught! Rather, if it is not needed for dry wheat, use it to teach about a dry [Minchah] of barley (Minchas Sotah, that the Shirayim are to Kohanim).

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): [The verse teaches about] a Balul [Minchah] of wheat, and a dry [Minchah] of wheat, and it is needed;

Suggestion: Perhaps [Kohanim] can trade Menachos for other Menachos, since their [primary Avodah, i.e. Kemitzah] is done by hand]!

Rejection: "V'Chol Minchah Velulah va'Shemen... l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh".

Suggestion: Perhaps they may not trade [Menachos cooked in a allow pan, i.e.] Machavas for [those made in a deep pot, i.e.] Marcheshes, but they may trade Machavas for Machavas...!

Rejection: "...Va'Charevah l'Chol Bnei Aharon Tihyeh." (The verse is not needed for the simple meaning, so it is expounded to teach about trading similar Menachos.)

" Ish k'Achiv" - a man receives a share, even if he is a Ba'al Mum. A minor does not receive, even if he is Tam.

Objection #2 (to R. Shmuel's answer - R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Because the Torah included [Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Sotah] for one matter (Hagashah), do you include them for all matters (that the Shirayim are to Kohanim)?!

Answer #3: Rather, we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Azkarah-Azkarah." Just like Azkarah there (Minchos Nedavah), the Shirayim are eaten, also Azkarah here (Minchas ha'Omer and Minchas Sotah), the Shirayim are eaten.

Answer #4 (Vaida): "V'Haveisa" includes Minchas ha'Omer for Hagashah. "V'Hikrivah" includes Minchas Sotah for Hagashah, and it says afterwards "veha'Noseres Min ha'Minchah l'Aharon ul'Vanav Kodesh Kodoshim." (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

(Mishnah): He gives her to drink, then offers her Minchah;

R. Shimon says, he offers the Minchah, then gives her to drink, like it says "v'Achar Yashke Es ha'Ishah Es ha'Mayim."

If he gave her to drink and afterwards offered the Minchah, it is valid.

(Gemara): What is the reason of Rabanan? It says "[v'Hishkah...] u'Va'u Vah" (and afterwards, "v'Lakach... Es Minchas..." This is extra, to teach that the water is already in her.)

What is the reason of R. Shimon? It says "v'Achar Yashke Es ha'Ishah Es ha'Mayim."

Question: How does R. Shimon expound the reason (verse) of Rabanan?

Answer: "U'Va'u Vah" - all the water (must enter her), and not just part.

Question: How do Rabanan expound the reason of R. Shimon?

Answer: "V'Achar Yashke Es ha'Ishah Es ha'Mayim" - Bal Korchah, not for her benefit.

R. Shimon agrees to Chachamim that if he gave her to drink and afterwards offered the Minchah, it is valid. And Chachamim agree to R. Shimon that if he offered the Minchah, and afterwards gave her to drink, it is valid;

What do they argue about? The Mitzvah (l'Chatchilah). Rabanan say that the Minchah tests her (immediately after it is offered). R. Shimon says that the water tests her.

What is the reason of Rabanan (to say that the Minchah tests her)? It says "Minchas Zikaron Mazkeres Avon."

What is the reason of R. Shimon (to say that the water tests her)? It says "u'Va'u Vah."

Question: How do Rabanan expound the reason of R. Shimon?

Answer: "U'Va'u Vah" teaches that [the water] penetrates into all her limbs.

Question: How does R. Shimon expound the reason of Rabanan?

Answer: "Minchas Zikaron Mazkeres Avon" teaches that all Aveiros that she has are recalled at that time (to prevent her merits from protecting her).

Rabanan say, he writes, erases, is Mashkeh and offers. R. Shimon says, he writes, offers, erases, and is Mashkeh.

All agree that erasing is right before drinking, just Rabanan say that he writes, erases, is Mashkeh and offers, and R. Shimon says, he writes, offers, erases, and is Mashkeh.

(Beraisa): She can always retract [and not drink] until her Minchah is offered. After her Minchah is offered, if she said 'I will not drink', we contest her and force her to drink Bal Korchah.

This is like R. Shimon. However, according to Rabanan, she already drank [before her Minchah was offered].

Our text of the Mishnah (Mishnah 4 below) is 'she does not finish drinking [before her face turns yellow...]' Some teach 'she does not budge from there.'

The one who says 'she does not finish drinking' is R. Shimon (her Minchah was already offered, and the water begins to kills her immediately). The one who says 'she does not budge from there' is Rabanan (she is not punished until after her Minchah is offered; she stands still until then).