Menachot 10
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The section of the Torah concerning the metzora (leper) details two distinct tracks for sacrifices: one for the wealthy, who bring three animal offerings, and a modified track for the poor. The purification process involves pouring oil into the kohen’s left hand, followed by sprinkling it toward the parochet and placing it on the leper’s right ear, thumb, and toe. Notably, the text contains several seemingly superfluous phrases in the wealthy leper’s section, as well as extensive repetitions in the poor leper’s section that could have been simplified with a cross-reference like “as mentioned above.”
Rabbi Zeira and Rava offer different explanations for these repetitions. Both scholars derive that the kemitza of the mincha (meal offering) must be performed with the right hand, but they reach this conclusion via different paths. Rabbi Zeira learns it from the fourfold mention of the word “left” in the leper section. In contrast, Rava utilizes a gezeira shava based on the word “right” used in the context of placing oil on the leper’s ear, thumb, and toe, applying that requirement to the kemitza.
Reish Lakish teaches a broader principle: whenever the Torah uses the words “finger” (etzba) or “kohen” the service must be performed with the right hand. While the Gemara initially assumes both words must appear together to trigger this requirement, Rava clarifies that either word alone is sufficient. However, following a challenge from Abaye, Rava distinguishes between two scenarios: in cases where the action is essential for atonement, either word indicates the right hand; in cases where the action is not essential for atonement, both words must be present to mandate the right hand.
A difficulty is raised against Rava’s explanation based on the position of Rabbi Shimon. To resolve this, the Gemara suggests that Rabbi Shimon requires both words in all instances. Two subsequent challenges to this theory and one is resolved by further refining Rabbi Shimon’s position: the appearance of the word “finger” alone necessitates the right hand, but the word “kohen” does not, unless it appears in conjunction with “finger.”
If Rava holds that “finger” or “kohen” already serves as an indicator for using the right hand, why did he originally use a gezeira shava to learn this regarding kemitza? The Gemara explains that he requires two separate derivations – one for the act of kemitza itself and another for placing the kometz into a sanctified vessel. This theory is again questioned in light of Rabbi Shimon’s view that the kometz does not require a vessel at all. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes the gezeira shava (for Rabbi Shimon) is necessary for the sinner’s meal offering; otherwise, one might have thought it could be performed with the left hand, as, according to Rabbi Shimon himself, this specific offering is not intended to be mehudar (ornate or distinguished).
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Menachot 10
(דְּהָא כְּתִב ״עַל דַּם הָאָשָׁם״!), חַד לְהַכְשִׁיר צְדָדִין, וְחַד לִפְסוֹל צִידֵּי צְדָדִין.
After all, a verse already indicates that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe, as it is written: “Upon the blood of the guilt offering” (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? Isn’t it already clear from the verse where the oil must be placed, as it states: “Upon the place of the blood of the guilt offering” (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.
״עַל דַּם הָאָשָׁם״, (על) [וְ״עַל] מְקוֹם דַּם הָאָשָׁם״ – לְמַאי אָתוּ?
The Gemara inquires with regard to the verse: “Upon the blood of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 14:17), stated with regard to the purification of a wealthy leper, and the verse: “Upon the place of the blood of the guilt offering” (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?
הָנֵי צְרִיכִי, אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל דַּם הָאָשָׁם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אִיתֵיהּ – אִין, נִתְקַנֵּחַ – לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל מְקוֹם״.
The Gemara responds: These verses are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only: “Upon the blood of the guilt offering,” 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: “Upon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,” indicating that the oil is placed upon the location of the blood, not necessarily upon the blood itself.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל מְקוֹם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דַּוְקָא נִתְקַנֵּחַ, אֲבָל אִיתֵיהּ – אֵימָא הָוֵי חֲצִיצָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״עַל דַּם הָאָשָׁם״.
And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: “Upon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,” 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 “upon the blood of the guilt offering,” and the blood is not considered an interposition.
אָמַר רָבָא: מֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב ״עַל דַּם הָאָשָׁם״ וְ״עַל מְקוֹם [דַּם] הָאָשָׁם״, וּכְתִיבָא יְמָנִית בְּדָם ״עַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית״, וּכְתִיבִי בְּשֶׁמֶן דִּמְצוֹרָע עָשִׁיר וְעָנִי, לְמָה לִי?
Rava said: Since it is written that the priest places the oil “upon the blood of the guilt offering,” and: “Upon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,” 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: “Upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot,” 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?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״יָד״ ״יָד״ לִקְמִיצָה.
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: “Upon the place of the blood of the guilt offering.” Rather, these verses are the source of verbal analogies for other halakhot. When the verse states with regard to a wealthy leper: “Of his right hand” (Leviticus 14:17), this teaches a verbal analogy between the term “hand” written here and “hand” written with regard to the removal of a handful, as the verse states about the removal of a handful: “And he filled his hand from it” (Leviticus 9:17). The verbal analogy teaches that the removal of the handful must also be performed with the right hand.
״רֶגֶל״ ״רֶגֶל״ לַחֲלִיצָה.
Similarly, when the verse states: “Of his right foot” (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term “foot” written here and “foot” written with regard to the ritual through which the yavam, a man whose married brother died childless, frees his brother’s widow, the yevama, of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], as the verse states with regard to ḥalitza: “And remove his shoe from upon his foot” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The verbal analogy teaches that the shoe is removed from his right foot.
״אוֹזֶן״ ״אוֹזֶן״ לִרְצִיעָה.
Additionally, when the verse states: “Upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed” (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term “ear” written here and “ear” written with regard to the piercing of a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl, as the verse states: “And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl” (Exodus 21:6). The verbal analogy teaches that the slave’s right ear is pierced.
״שְׂמָאלִית״ (הֶעָנִי) לְמַאי אֲתָא? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: לִיפְסוֹל יָמִין דְּכֹהֵן בִּמְצוֹרָע, שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נִתְרַבְּתָה שְׂמֹאל נִתְרַבְּתָה יָמִין, בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבְּתָה שְׂמֹאל אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנִּתְרַבְּתָה יָמִין?
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, isn’t it logical that the right hand should also be included? Therefore, the verse repeats that the oil is poured into the priest’s left hand, in order to disqualify the right hand.
וְאִידָּךְ ״שְׂמָאלִית״ (וְיָד וָרֶגֶל יְמָנִית דְּעָנִי), לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כׇּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית, לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And concerning the other verses that specify the left hand of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:26–27) as well as the right hand and foot of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:25–28), 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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה אֶצְבַּע וּכְהוּנָּה, אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא יָמִין.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, אֶצְבַּע וּכְהוּנָּה בָּעֵינַן, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ״, וְגָמַר מִמְּצוֹרָע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְטָבַל הַכֹּהֵן אֶת אֶצְבָּעוֹ הַיְמָנִית״. הֲרֵי קְמִיצָה דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּהוּנָּה, וּתְנַן: קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל פָּסוּל!
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: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger” (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: “And the priest shall dip his right finger” (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.
אָמַר רָבָא: אוֹ ״אֶצְבַּע״ אוֹ ״כְּהוּנָּה״.
Therefore, Rava said: This statement means that if the verse mentions either a finger or the priesthood, only the right hand may be used.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ כְּהוּנָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, וְאָמַר מָר: זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, וּתְנַן: הָרֶגֶל שֶׁל יָמִין בִּשְׂמֹאל וּבֵית עוֹרָהּ לַחוּץ.
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: “And the priest shall sacrifice the whole and make it smoke upon the altar” (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.
כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״אוֹ אֶצְבַּע אוֹ כְּהוּנָּה״ – בְּדָבָר הַמְעַכֵּב כַּפָּרָה.
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.
וַהֲרֵי קַבָּלָה (דבר) [דְּדָבָר] הַמְעַכֵּב כַּפָּרָה הוּא, וּכְתִב בָּהּ כְּהוּנָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם״ – זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם, וּתְנַן: קִבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל פָּסַל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.
The Gemara asks: But isn’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: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood” (Leviticus 1:5), and this is referring to the collection of the blood. And yet we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 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.
לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמְרַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תַּרְתֵּי בָּעֵי.
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.
וּמִי בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תַּרְתֵּי? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה ״יָד״ – אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא יָמִין, ״אֶצְבַּע״ – אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא יָמִין! אֶצְבַּע לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, כְּהוּנָּה בָּעֲיָא אֶצְבַּע.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon really require both? But isn’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.
אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן לְמָה לִּי? בְּכִהוּנוֹ.
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.
וַהֲרֵי זְרִיקָה דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּיהּ אֶלָּא כְּהוּנָּה, וּתְנַן: זָרַק בִּשְׂמֹאל פָּסוּל, וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פְּלִיג בְּבָרַיְיתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: קִבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר; זָרַק בִּשְׂמֹאל פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.
The Gemara asks: But isn’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.
וְאֶלָּא, הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: ״יָד״ ״יָד״ לִקְמִיצָה, לְמָה לִי? מִכְּהוּנָּה נָפְקָא!
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 “hand” written in that passage and the word “hand” 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 verse’s mention of the priesthood, as it is stated: “And the priest shall remove his handful” (Leviticus 5:12).
חַד לְקוֹמֶץ, וְחַד לְקִידּוּשׁ קוֹמֶץ.
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.
לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּלָא בָּעֵי קִידּוּשׁ קוֹמֶץ, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי קִידּוּשׁ קוֹמֶץ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּבִשְׂמֹאל אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשַׁר – ״יָד״ ״יָד״ דְּרָבָא לְמָה לִי?
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 “hand” and “hand”?
אִי לִקְמִיצָה גּוּפַהּ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם״.
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 Ḥiyya. As Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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: “It is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10).
בָּא לְעוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּד – עוֹבְדָהּ בְּיָמִין, כְּחַטָּאת; בָּא לְעוֹבְדָהּ בִּכְלִי – עוֹבְדָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל, כְּאָשָׁם.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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.
לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְקוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר, כִּי קָמֵיץ לַהּ נָמֵי בִּשְׂמֹאל תִּתַּכְשַׁר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
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 sinner’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.
קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ צְרוֹר, אוֹ גַרְגֵּר מֶלַח,
§ The mishna teaches: If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone or a grain of salt emerged in his hand,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Tel Aviv, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Ontario, Canada
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Menachot 10
(ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄Χ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄!), ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨ Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
After all, a verse already indicates that the oil must be placed on the right thumb and big toe, as it is written: βUpon the blood of the guilt offeringβ (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? Isnβt it already clear from the verse where the oil must be placed, as it states: βUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offeringβ (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.
Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄, (Χ’Χ) [ΧΦ°Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ] ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΌ?
The Gemara inquires with regard to the verse: βUpon the blood of the guilt offeringβ (Leviticus 14:17), stated with regard to the purification of a wealthy leper, and the verse: βUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offeringβ (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?
ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ· β ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧ΄.
The Gemara responds: These verses are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written only: βUpon the blood of the guilt offering,β 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: βUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,β indicating that the oil is placed upon the location of the blood, not necessarily upon the blood itself.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧ΄, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄.
And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: βUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,β 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 βupon the blood of the guilt offering,β and the blood is not considered an interposition.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ [ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ] ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ’ Χ’ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ?
Rava said: Since it is written that the priest places the oil βupon the blood of the guilt offering,β and: βUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering,β 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: βUpon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot,β 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?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ.
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: βUpon the place of the blood of the guilt offering.β Rather, these verses are the source of verbal analogies for other halakhot. When the verse states with regard to a wealthy leper: βOf his right handβ (Leviticus 14:17), this teaches a verbal analogy between the term βhandβ written here and βhandβ written with regard to the removal of a handful, as the verse states about the removal of a handful: βAnd he filled his hand from itβ (Leviticus 9:17). The verbal analogy teaches that the removal of the handful must also be performed with the right hand.
Χ΄Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄ Χ΄Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ.
Similarly, when the verse states: βOf his right footβ (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term βfootβ written here and βfootβ written with regard to the ritual through which the yavam, a man whose married brother died childless, frees his brotherβs widow, the yevama, of her levirate bonds [αΈ₯alitza], as the verse states with regard to αΈ₯alitza: βAnd remove his shoe from upon his footβ (Deuteronomy 25:9). The verbal analogy teaches that the shoe is removed from his right foot.
Χ΄ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ.
Additionally, when the verse states: βUpon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansedβ (Leviticus 14:17), with regard to a wealthy leper, this teaches a verbal analogy between the term βearβ written here and βearβ written with regard to the piercing of a Hebrew slaveβs ear with an awl, as the verse states: βAnd his master shall bore his ear through with an awlβ (Exodus 21:6). The verbal analogy teaches that the slaveβs right ear is pierced.
Χ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧ΄ (ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ) ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ’, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ?
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, isnβt it logical that the right hand should also be included? Therefore, the verse repeats that the oil is poured into the priestβs left hand, in order to disqualify the right hand.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° Χ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧ΄ (ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ), ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧͺ, ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks: And concerning the other verses that specify the left hand of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:26β27) as well as the right hand and foot of a poor leper (Leviticus 14:25β28), 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Β§ Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana 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.
Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ’, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺΧ΄. ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ!
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: βAnd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his fingerβ (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: βAnd the priest shall dip his right fingerβ (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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Χ΄ ΧΧΦΉ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄.
Therefore, Rava said: This statement means that if the verse mentions either a finger or the priesthood, only the right hand may be used.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ₯.
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: βAnd the priest shall sacrifice the whole and make it smoke upon the altarβ (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.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ΄ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ (ΧΧΧ¨) [ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨] ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΧΦΉ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: But isnβt 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: βAnd Aaronβs sons, the priests, shall present the bloodβ (Leviticus 1:5), and this is referring to the collection of the blood. And yet we learned in a mishna (ZevaαΈ₯im 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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Χ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon really require both? But isnβt 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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨; ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: But isnβt 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ!
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 βhandβ written in that passage and the word βhandβ 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 verseβs mention of the priesthood, as it is stated: βAnd the priest shall remove his handfulβ (Leviticus 5:12).
ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©Χ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯.
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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©Χ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©Χ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ β Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ?
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 βhandβ and βhandβ?
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄.
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 αΈ€iyya. As Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi αΈ€iyya, 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: βIt is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offeringβ (Leviticus 6:10).
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ β Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ; ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi αΈ€iyya, 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.
ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨, Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
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 sinnerβs 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.
Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ,
Β§ The mishna teaches: If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone or a grain of salt emerged in his hand,
