Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 20, 2018 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 10

Today’s shiur will be posted later today.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื“ื”ื ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืคืกื•ืœ ืฆื™ื“ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ

After all, a verse already indicates that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe, as it is written: โ€œUpon the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:17). Since the Torah has already specified that the blood is placed upon the right thumb and big toe (Leviticus 14:14), it is clear that the oil is placed there as well. Similarly, why must the verse specify with regard to a poor leper that the oil is placed on the right thumb and big toe? Isnโ€™t already clear from the verse where the oil must be placed, as it states: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:28)? The Gemara responds: One specification, stated with regard to a wealthy leper, serves to permit the placement of the oil on the sides of the thumb and sides of the big toe in addition to the nail side of the thumb and big toe, and one, stated with regard to a poor leper, serves to disqualify the sides of sides, i.e., their undersides.

ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื•

The Gemara inquires with regard to the verse: โ€œUpon the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), stated with regard to the purification of a wealthy leper, and the verse: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:28), stated with regard to the purification of a poor leper. For what purpose do they come, i.e., why are both verses necessary?

ื”ื ื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื ืชืงื ื— ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara responds: These verses are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only: โ€œUpon the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ I would say: If the blood is still on the right thumb and big toe of the leper, yes, the priest places the oil upon the blood. But if it was wiped from there, he does not place the oil. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ indicating that the oil is placed upon the location of the blood, not necessarily upon the blood itself.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ื•ืงื ื ืชืงื ื— ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ื™ ื—ืฆื™ืฆื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ I would say: The oil is placed on his right thumb and big toe specifically when the blood was wiped from there. But if the blood is still there, I will say that the blood is an interposition between the oil and the thumb or toe. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the oil is placed โ€œupon the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ and the blood is not considered an interposition.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืื—ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ื•ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ื”ืืฉื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื‘ื“ื ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืจื’ืœื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื“ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืขื ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™

Rava said: Since it is written that the priest places the oil โ€œupon the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ and: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ and it is also written with regard to a wealthy leper (see Leviticus 14:14) and a poor one (see Leviticus 14:25) that the right hand and foot are required for the placement of the blood, as the verses state: โ€œUpon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot,โ€ and this is also written with regard to the oil of a wealthy leper (see Leviticus 14:17) and a poor one (see Leviticus 14:28), one can ask: Why do I need all of these verses?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื”

Rather, Rava said: The verses that specify that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe do not teach a halakha with regard to a leper, as it is clear that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe, as it states: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering.โ€ Rather, these verses are the source of verbal analogies for other halakhot. When the verse states with regard to a wealthy leper: โ€œOf his right handโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), this teaches a verbal analogy between the term โ€œhandโ€ written here and โ€œhandโ€ written with regard to the removal of a handful, as the verse states about the removal of a handful: โ€œAnd he filled his hand from itโ€ (Leviticus 9:17). The verbal analogy teaches that the removal of the handful must also be performed with the right hand.

ืจื’ืœ ืจื’ืœ ืœื—ืœื™ืฆื”

Similarly, when the verse states: โ€œOf his right footโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term โ€œfootโ€ written here and โ€œfootโ€ written with regard to the ritual through which the yavam, a man whose married brother died childless, frees his brotherโ€™s widow, the yevama, of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza], as the verse states with regard to แธฅalitza: โ€œAnd remove his shoe from upon his footโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:9). The verbal analogy teaches that the shoe is removed from his right foot.

ืื•ื–ืŸ ืื•ื–ืŸ ืœืจืฆื™ืขื”

Additionally, when the verse states: โ€œUpon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansedโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term โ€œearโ€ written here and โ€œearโ€ written with regard to the piercing of a Hebrew slaveโ€™s ear with an awl, as the verse states: โ€œAnd his master shall bore his ear through with an awlโ€ (Exodus 21:6). The verbal analogy teaches that the slaveโ€™s right ear is pierced.

ืฉืžืืœื™ืช (ื”ืขื ื™) ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืœื™ืคืกื•ืœ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืœื ืชืืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืœื ื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ืฉืžืืœ ื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ืฉืžืืœ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ื™ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: With regard to the additional mention of the left hand in the verse dealing with the poor leper, for what purpose does it come? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: It comes to disqualify the right hand of a priest for the purification of a leper. This teaches that you should not say: And if in a place where the left side is not included, as sacrificial rites in general are disqualified when performed with the left hand, the right hand is included, i.e., those rites must be performed with the right hand, then in a place where the left hand is included, in the case of a leper, isnโ€™t it logical that the right hand should also be included? Therefore, the verse repeats that the oil is poured into the priestโ€™s left hand, in order to disqualify the right hand.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืžืืœื™ืช ื•ื™ื“ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื“ืขื ื™ ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืœื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ืคืจืฉื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ืœื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ืืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชื—ื“ืฉ ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: And concerning the other verses that specify the left hand of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:26โ€“27) as well as the right hand and foot of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:25โ€“28), for what purpose do they come? The Gemara responds: These verses come for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Any passage that was stated in the Torah and was then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of a matter that was introduced for the first time in the repeated passage. That is, sometimes the Torah repeats an entire passage just to teach a single new detail. In this case, the verses that discuss the purification of a poor leper were repeated only for the sake of the differences in the offerings between a wealthy leper and a poor one. No additional halakha should be derived from them.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืืฆื‘ืข ื•ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืื™ื ื” ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ

ยง Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Any place in the Torah in which it is stated that an action is performed with a finger or by the priesthood, i.e., that one uses his finger to perform the action or that a priest performs it, this teaches that it is performed only with the right hand.

ืงื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ื•ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื“ื ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ื’ืžืจ ืžืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื”ืจื™ ืงืžื™ืฆื” ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื” ืืœื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืงืžืฅ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara comments: It might enter our mind to say that this means that we require both a finger and the priesthood to be stated together in the verse in order to mandate use of the right hand, e.g., as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his fingerโ€ (Leviticus 4:25). And the fact that this verse is referring to a finger from his right hand is derived from a leper, as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall dip his right fingerโ€ (Leviticus 14:16). This cannot be correct, as there is the verse that addresses the removal of a handful from a meal offering, in which only the priesthood is written, and yet we learned in a mishna (6a): If the priest removed the handful with his left hand the meal offering is unfit.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื• ืืฆื‘ืข ืื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื”

Therefore, Rava said: This statement means that if the verse mentions either a finger or the priesthood, only the right hand may be used.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ืื‘ืจื™ื ืœื›ื‘ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื—ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื• ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ืื‘ืจื™ื ืœื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืฉืœ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืจื” ืœื—ื•ืฅ

Abaye said to Rava: But this is contradicted by the verse discussing the conveyance of the limbs of the daily burnt offering to the ramp of the altar, as priesthood is written with regard to it, as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall sacrifice the whole and make it smoke upon the altarโ€ (Leviticus 1:13), and the Master said that this verse is referring to the conveyance of the limbs to the ramp. And yet we learned in a mishna (Tamid 31b): When the priest conveys the limbs to the ramp, the foot of the right side of the offering is carried in the left hand of the priest, and the place of its skin, i.e., the side of the limb covered in skin, is held facing outward. Clearly, use of the left hand does not disqualify the conveyance of the limbs.

ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื• ืืฆื‘ืข ืื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืขื›ื‘ ื›ืคืจื”

The Gemara responds: When we say that if the verse states either finger or priesthood then the left hand is disqualified, this is only with regard to a matter that precludes atonement, i.e., a rite whose performance is indispensable to the atonement, similar to the sprinkling of the oil on the leper (see Leviticus 14:16). The conveyance of the limbs, by contrast, is not indispensable to atonement.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืงื‘ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืขื›ื‘ ื›ืคืจื” ื”ื•ื ื•ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื” ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ื“ื ื–ื• ืงื‘ืœืช ื”ื“ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืงื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the collection of the blood in a service vessel, which is a matter indispensable to atonement, and about which priesthood is written? As it is written: โ€œAnd Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests, shall present the bloodโ€ (Leviticus 1:5), and this is referring to the collection of the blood. And yet we learned in a mishna (Zevaแธฅim 15b): If one collected the blood with his left hand, the blood is disqualified for offering, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit, despite the fact that priesthood is mentioned in the verse.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ืขื™

The Gemara responds: You are saying that there is a difficulty according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon requires that both matters appear in the verse, i.e., both finger and priesthood.

ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจื” ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื” ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ืื™ื ื” ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืืฆื‘ืข

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon really require both? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: In any place in the Torah in which the word hand is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever a verse mentions the word finger, it is referring only to a finger of the right hand? The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Shimon, if the verse mentions only the word finger, it does not require a mention of the priesthood as well for the limitation to apply. But if the verse mentions only the priesthood, it requires mention of the term finger for the limitation to apply.

ืืœื ื›ื”ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ื›ื”ื•ื ื•

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, if the mention of the priesthood alone does not suffice to disqualify the right hand, then why do I need the superfluous reference to a priest with regard to the collection of the blood? After all, the verse already states that the collection must be performed by the sons of Aaron. The Gemara responds: The additional mention of the priesthood indicates that a priest must perform the collection of the blood in his priestly state, i.e., while wearing the priestly vestments.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ื–ืจืง ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื–ืจืง ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the sprinkling of the blood, concerning which only the priesthood is written in the verse, and we learned: If one sprinkled the blood with his left hand it is disqualified; and Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with this ruling, indicating that Rabbi Shimon holds that a mention of the priesthood does not require a mention of the word finger? Abaye says: He disagrees with this ruling in a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: If one collected the blood with his left hand it is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. Additionally, if one sprinkled the blood with his left hand it is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื ืคืงื

The Gemara asks: But that which Rava says with regard to the superfluous terms in the passage discussing a leper: One derives a verbal analogy between the word โ€œhandโ€ written in that passage and the word โ€œhandโ€ written with regard to the removal of a handful from a meal offering, to indicate that the latter must also be performed with the right hand, why do I need this verbal analogy? One can derive that the handful must be removed with the right hand from the verseโ€™s mention of the priesthood, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the priest shall remove his handfulโ€ (Leviticus 5:12).

ื—ื“ ืœืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ

The Gemara responds: Both derivations are necessary, one for the removal of the handful from a meal offering, and one for the sanctification of the handful, i.e., placing it into a second service vessel. Both must be performed with the right hand.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืžื›ืฉืจ ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require sanctification of the handful, or according to the one who says that Rabbi Shimon also requires the sanctification of the handful but that he deems the sanctification fit when performed with the left hand (see 26a), why do I need the verbal analogy of Rava between โ€œhandโ€ and โ€œhandโ€?

ืื™ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื” ื’ื•ืคื” ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื™ื ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื›ืืฉื

If one suggests that it is necessary to indicate that the removal of the handful itself must be performed with the right hand, this cannot be, since this is derived from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya. As Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya, says: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon does not require that the handful be sanctified in a service vessel? As the verse states with regard to the meal offering: โ€œIt is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:10).

ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื›ืืฉื

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya, elaborates: The verse compares the meal offering to a sin offering and a guilt offering. Therefore, if the priest comes to perform the burning of the handful with his hand, he performs it with his right hand, like in the case of a sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled with the hand. And if he comes to perform it with a vessel, i.e., if he first sanctifies the handful in a service vessel, then he may perform it with his left hand, like in the case of a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel. Since the removal of the handful is performed with the hand, the verse indicates that it must be performed with the right hand, and the verbal analogy is unnecessary.

ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœืงื•ืžืฅ ื“ืžื ื—ืช ื—ื•ื˜ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืžื”ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ืฅ ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืชืชื›ืฉืจ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara responds: The verbal analogy is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, to teach that it must be removed with the right hand. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says that this offering does not require oil and frankincense so that a sinnerโ€™s offering will not be of superior quality, perhaps when the priest removed the handful with his left hand, which is a manner of inferior quality, it should be fit as well. The verbal analogy therefore teaches us that the handful must always be removed with the right hand, even in the case of the meal offering of a sinner.

ืงืžืฅ ื•ืขืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืฆืจื•ืจ ืื• ื’ืจื’ืจ ืžืœื—

ยง The mishna teaches: If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone or a grain of salt emerged in his hand,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 10

ื“ื”ื ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ื—ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืคืกื•ืœ ืฆื™ื“ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ

After all, a verse already indicates that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe, as it is written: โ€œUpon the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:17). Since the Torah has already specified that the blood is placed upon the right thumb and big toe (Leviticus 14:14), it is clear that the oil is placed there as well. Similarly, why must the verse specify with regard to a poor leper that the oil is placed on the right thumb and big toe? Isnโ€™t already clear from the verse where the oil must be placed, as it states: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:28)? The Gemara responds: One specification, stated with regard to a wealthy leper, serves to permit the placement of the oil on the sides of the thumb and sides of the big toe in addition to the nail side of the thumb and big toe, and one, stated with regard to a poor leper, serves to disqualify the sides of sides, i.e., their undersides.

ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื•

The Gemara inquires with regard to the verse: โ€œUpon the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), stated with regard to the purification of a wealthy leper, and the verse: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 14:28), stated with regard to the purification of a poor leper. For what purpose do they come, i.e., why are both verses necessary?

ื”ื ื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื ืชืงื ื— ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara responds: These verses are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only: โ€œUpon the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ I would say: If the blood is still on the right thumb and big toe of the leper, yes, the priest places the oil upon the blood. But if it was wiped from there, he does not place the oil. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ indicating that the oil is placed upon the location of the blood, not necessarily upon the blood itself.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื“ื•ืงื ื ืชืงื ื— ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ื™ ื—ืฆื™ืฆื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ I would say: The oil is placed on his right thumb and big toe specifically when the blood was wiped from there. But if the blood is still there, I will say that the blood is an interposition between the oil and the thumb or toe. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the oil is placed โ€œupon the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ and the blood is not considered an interposition.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืื—ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื“ื ื”ืืฉื ื•ืขืœ ืžืงื•ื ื”ืืฉื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื‘ื“ื ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืจื’ืœื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื“ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืขืฉื™ืจ ื•ืขื ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™

Rava said: Since it is written that the priest places the oil โ€œupon the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ and: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,โ€ and it is also written with regard to a wealthy leper (see Leviticus 14:14) and a poor one (see Leviticus 14:25) that the right hand and foot are required for the placement of the blood, as the verses state: โ€œUpon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot,โ€ and this is also written with regard to the oil of a wealthy leper (see Leviticus 14:17) and a poor one (see Leviticus 14:28), one can ask: Why do I need all of these verses?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื”

Rather, Rava said: The verses that specify that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe do not teach a halakha with regard to a leper, as it is clear that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe, as it states: โ€œUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering.โ€ Rather, these verses are the source of verbal analogies for other halakhot. When the verse states with regard to a wealthy leper: โ€œOf his right handโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), this teaches a verbal analogy between the term โ€œhandโ€ written here and โ€œhandโ€ written with regard to the removal of a handful, as the verse states about the removal of a handful: โ€œAnd he filled his hand from itโ€ (Leviticus 9:17). The verbal analogy teaches that the removal of the handful must also be performed with the right hand.

ืจื’ืœ ืจื’ืœ ืœื—ืœื™ืฆื”

Similarly, when the verse states: โ€œOf his right footโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term โ€œfootโ€ written here and โ€œfootโ€ written with regard to the ritual through which the yavam, a man whose married brother died childless, frees his brotherโ€™s widow, the yevama, of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza], as the verse states with regard to แธฅalitza: โ€œAnd remove his shoe from upon his footโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:9). The verbal analogy teaches that the shoe is removed from his right foot.

ืื•ื–ืŸ ืื•ื–ืŸ ืœืจืฆื™ืขื”

Additionally, when the verse states: โ€œUpon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansedโ€ (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term โ€œearโ€ written here and โ€œearโ€ written with regard to the piercing of a Hebrew slaveโ€™s ear with an awl, as the verse states: โ€œAnd his master shall bore his ear through with an awlโ€ (Exodus 21:6). The verbal analogy teaches that the slaveโ€™s right ear is pierced.

ืฉืžืืœื™ืช (ื”ืขื ื™) ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืœื™ืคืกื•ืœ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืœื ืชืืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืœื ื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ืฉืžืืœ ื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ืฉืžืืœ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืชืจื‘ืชื” ื™ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: With regard to the additional mention of the left hand in the verse dealing with the poor leper, for what purpose does it come? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: It comes to disqualify the right hand of a priest for the purification of a leper. This teaches that you should not say: And if in a place where the left side is not included, as sacrificial rites in general are disqualified when performed with the left hand, the right hand is included, i.e., those rites must be performed with the right hand, then in a place where the left hand is included, in the case of a leper, isnโ€™t it logical that the right hand should also be included? Therefore, the verse repeats that the oil is poured into the priestโ€™s left hand, in order to disqualify the right hand.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืฉืžืืœื™ืช ื•ื™ื“ ื•ืจื’ืœ ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื“ืขื ื™ ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ืœื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ืคืจืฉื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ืœื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ืืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืชื—ื“ืฉ ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: And concerning the other verses that specify the left hand of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:26โ€“27) as well as the right hand and foot of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:25โ€“28), for what purpose do they come? The Gemara responds: These verses come for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Any passage that was stated in the Torah and was then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of a matter that was introduced for the first time in the repeated passage. That is, sometimes the Torah repeats an entire passage just to teach a single new detail. In this case, the verses that discuss the purification of a poor leper were repeated only for the sake of the differences in the offerings between a wealthy leper and a poor one. No additional halakha should be derived from them.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืืฆื‘ืข ื•ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืื™ื ื” ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ

ยง Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Any place in the Torah in which it is stated that an action is performed with a finger or by the priesthood, i.e., that one uses his finger to perform the action or that a priest performs it, this teaches that it is performed only with the right hand.

ืงื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชื™ืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ื•ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื“ื ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื•ื’ืžืจ ืžืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ืืฆื‘ืขื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ื”ืจื™ ืงืžื™ืฆื” ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื” ืืœื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ืงืžืฅ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara comments: It might enter our mind to say that this means that we require both a finger and the priesthood to be stated together in the verse in order to mandate use of the right hand, e.g., as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his fingerโ€ (Leviticus 4:25). And the fact that this verse is referring to a finger from his right hand is derived from a leper, as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall dip his right fingerโ€ (Leviticus 14:16). This cannot be correct, as there is the verse that addresses the removal of a handful from a meal offering, in which only the priesthood is written, and yet we learned in a mishna (6a): If the priest removed the handful with his left hand the meal offering is unfit.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื• ืืฆื‘ืข ืื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื”

Therefore, Rava said: This statement means that if the verse mentions either a finger or the priesthood, only the right hand may be used.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ืื‘ืจื™ื ืœื›ื‘ืฉ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื—ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื• ื”ื•ืœื›ืช ืื‘ืจื™ื ืœื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืฉืœ ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืขื•ืจื” ืœื—ื•ืฅ

Abaye said to Rava: But this is contradicted by the verse discussing the conveyance of the limbs of the daily burnt offering to the ramp of the altar, as priesthood is written with regard to it, as it is written: โ€œAnd the priest shall sacrifice the whole and make it smoke upon the altarโ€ (Leviticus 1:13), and the Master said that this verse is referring to the conveyance of the limbs to the ramp. And yet we learned in a mishna (Tamid 31b): When the priest conveys the limbs to the ramp, the foot of the right side of the offering is carried in the left hand of the priest, and the place of its skin, i.e., the side of the limb covered in skin, is held facing outward. Clearly, use of the left hand does not disqualify the conveyance of the limbs.

ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื• ืืฆื‘ืข ืื• ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืขื›ื‘ ื›ืคืจื”

The Gemara responds: When we say that if the verse states either finger or priesthood then the left hand is disqualified, this is only with regard to a matter that precludes atonement, i.e., a rite whose performance is indispensable to the atonement, similar to the sprinkling of the oil on the leper (see Leviticus 14:16). The conveyance of the limbs, by contrast, is not indispensable to atonement.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืงื‘ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืขื›ื‘ ื›ืคืจื” ื”ื•ื ื•ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื” ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ื“ื ื–ื• ืงื‘ืœืช ื”ื“ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืงื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the collection of the blood in a service vessel, which is a matter indispensable to atonement, and about which priesthood is written? As it is written: โ€œAnd Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests, shall present the bloodโ€ (Leviticus 1:5), and this is referring to the collection of the blood. And yet we learned in a mishna (Zevaแธฅim 15b): If one collected the blood with his left hand, the blood is disqualified for offering, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit, despite the fact that priesthood is mentioned in the verse.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ืขื™

The Gemara responds: You are saying that there is a difficulty according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon requires that both matters appear in the verse, i.e., both finger and priesthood.

ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจื” ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื” ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ืื™ื ื” ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืืฆื‘ืข

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon really require both? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: In any place in the Torah in which the word hand is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever a verse mentions the word finger, it is referring only to a finger of the right hand? The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Shimon, if the verse mentions only the word finger, it does not require a mention of the priesthood as well for the limitation to apply. But if the verse mentions only the priesthood, it requires mention of the term finger for the limitation to apply.

ืืœื ื›ื”ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ื›ื”ื•ื ื•

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, if the mention of the priesthood alone does not suffice to disqualify the right hand, then why do I need the superfluous reference to a priest with regard to the collection of the blood? After all, the verse already states that the collection must be performed by the sons of Aaron. The Gemara responds: The additional mention of the priesthood indicates that a priest must perform the collection of the blood in his priestly state, i.e., while wearing the priestly vestments.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืืœื ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ืชื ืŸ ื–ืจืง ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืงื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ื–ืจืง ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืคืกื•ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the sprinkling of the blood, concerning which only the priesthood is written in the verse, and we learned: If one sprinkled the blood with his left hand it is disqualified; and Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with this ruling, indicating that Rabbi Shimon holds that a mention of the priesthood does not require a mention of the word finger? Abaye says: He disagrees with this ruling in a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: If one collected the blood with his left hand it is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. Additionally, if one sprinkled the blood with his left hand it is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.

ื•ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื ืคืงื

The Gemara asks: But that which Rava says with regard to the superfluous terms in the passage discussing a leper: One derives a verbal analogy between the word โ€œhandโ€ written in that passage and the word โ€œhandโ€ written with regard to the removal of a handful from a meal offering, to indicate that the latter must also be performed with the right hand, why do I need this verbal analogy? One can derive that the handful must be removed with the right hand from the verseโ€™s mention of the priesthood, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the priest shall remove his handfulโ€ (Leviticus 5:12).

ื—ื“ ืœืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ

The Gemara responds: Both derivations are necessary, one for the removal of the handful from a meal offering, and one for the sanctification of the handful, i.e., placing it into a second service vessel. Both must be performed with the right hand.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืžื›ืฉืจ ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require sanctification of the handful, or according to the one who says that Rabbi Shimon also requires the sanctification of the handful but that he deems the sanctification fit when performed with the left hand (see 26a), why do I need the verbal analogy of Rava between โ€œhandโ€ and โ€œhandโ€?

ืื™ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื” ื’ื•ืคื” ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื™ื ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื›ืืฉื

If one suggests that it is necessary to indicate that the removal of the handful itself must be performed with the right hand, this cannot be, since this is derived from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya. As Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya, says: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon does not require that the handful be sanctified in a service vessel? As the verse states with regard to the meal offering: โ€œIt is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:10).

ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื›ืืฉื

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya, elaborates: The verse compares the meal offering to a sin offering and a guilt offering. Therefore, if the priest comes to perform the burning of the handful with his hand, he performs it with his right hand, like in the case of a sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled with the hand. And if he comes to perform it with a vessel, i.e., if he first sanctifies the handful in a service vessel, then he may perform it with his left hand, like in the case of a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel. Since the removal of the handful is performed with the hand, the verse indicates that it must be performed with the right hand, and the verbal analogy is unnecessary.

ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœืงื•ืžืฅ ื“ืžื ื—ืช ื—ื•ื˜ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืžื”ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ ืงืžื™ืฅ ืœื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืชืชื›ืฉืจ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara responds: The verbal analogy is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, to teach that it must be removed with the right hand. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says that this offering does not require oil and frankincense so that a sinnerโ€™s offering will not be of superior quality, perhaps when the priest removed the handful with his left hand, which is a manner of inferior quality, it should be fit as well. The verbal analogy therefore teaches us that the handful must always be removed with the right hand, even in the case of the meal offering of a sinner.

ืงืžืฅ ื•ืขืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืฆืจื•ืจ ืื• ื’ืจื’ืจ ืžืœื—

ยง The mishna teaches: If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone or a grain of salt emerged in his hand,

Scroll To Top