Menachot 10
Share this shiur:
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:
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.
Hullin 10: The Possibly Non-Kosher Shechitah of 13 Animals
Menachot Daf 9-16- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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.
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
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
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, 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
Phoenix, AZ, United States
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,
