Today's Daf Yomi
May 7, 2018 | כ״ב באייר תשע״ח
-
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. May his memory be blessed.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.
Zevachim 24
What is considered a chatzitza between the kohen and the floor that will disqualify the work of the kohen? There is a debate in the mishna about whether accepting the blood can be done using the left hand. The basis of this disagreement is explained. Rules regarding what items need to be done in the right hand are analyzed,
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין
And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to similar cases. Therefore, one cannot assume that analogous prohibitions carry penalty of death at the hand of Heaven as well.
ולמאן דאמר מלמדין שתויי יין הוה ליה שלישי ושלשה לדברי הכל אין מלמדין
And even according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect, the prohibition against service by those who drank wine also contains explicit mention of death at the hand of Heaven and constitutes a third verse. And all agree that three verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect.
עומד על גבי כלים על גבי בהמה על גבי רגלי חבירו פסול מנלן דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל ורצפה מקדשת וכלי שרת מקדשים מה כלי שרת לא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין כלי שרת אף רצפה לא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הרצפה
§ The mishna teaches that one who is standing upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another, is unfit to perform rites. The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive this? This is derived as the Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor of the Temple courtyard sanctifies the priest to perform the service, and service vessels, i.e., priestly vestments, also sanctify him, one may draw a comparison between the two: Just as with regard to service vessels, nothing may interpose between the priest and the service vessel, so too with regard to the floor, nothing may interpose between the priest and the floor.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן כלי משום דלאו מינא דבשר נינהו אבל בהמה דמינא דבשר הוא אימא לא ואי אשמעינן בהמה דלא מינא דאדם הוא אבל חבירו דאדם הוא אימא לא צריכא
The Gemara adds: And each of the three cases mentioned in the mishna is necessary. As, had the mishna taught us only that a vessel interposes between the priest’s feet and the floor, one might have thought that this is only because it is not a type of flesh, but with regard to an animal, which is a type of flesh, I will say that it does not constitute an interposition. And had it taught us only that an animal interposes, one might have thought that this is only because it is not of the human species, but another person, who is human, I will say that he does not interpose. Therefore, each is necessary.
תניא רבי אליעזר אומר רגלו אחת על הכלי ורגלו אחת על הרצפה רגלו אחת על האבן ורגלו אחת על הרצפה רואין כל שאילו ינטל הכלי ותנטל האבן יכול לעמוד על רגלו אחת ויעבוד עבודתו כשירה ואם לאו עבודתו פסולה
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one of the priest’s feet was on a vessel and one of his feet was on the floor, or if one of his feet was on a stone and one of his feet was on the floor, one sees: Any case where, were the vessel to be removed or the stone removed, he would still be able to stand on one foot and perform rites, his service is valid. But if he would not be able to stand on one foot, his service is disqualified.
בעי רבי אמי נדלדלה האבן ועמד עליה מהו היכא דאין דעתו לחברה לא תיבעי לך דודאי חייצא כי תיבעי לך דדעתו לחברה מאי כיון דדעתו לחברה כמה דמחברא דמיא או דילמא השתא מיהא הא תלישא
Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma: If one of the stone tiles of the Temple floor came loose and began to wobble, and the priest stood on it, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where he does not intend to attach the stone to the floor again, as it certainly interposes in such a case, since it is considered an item separate from the Temple. Rather, when you raise this dilemma, do so with regard to a case where he intends to attach it again. In such a case, what is the halakha? Does one say that since he intends to attach it, it is considered like that which is already attached? Or perhaps now, at least, it is disconnected, and it is considered a separate item.
רבה זוטי בעי לה הכי בעי רבי אמי נעקרה האבן ועמד במקומה מהו
Rabba Zuti raises this dilemma like this: Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma: If one of the stone tiles was uprooted and the priest stood in its empty place, what is the halakha?
מאי קא מיבעיא ליה כי קדיש דוד רצפה עליונה קדיש או דילמא עד לארעית דתהומא קדיש ותיבעי ליה כל העזרה כולה
The Gemara interjects: What is the dilemma he is raising? Perhaps this is the dilemma: When King David sanctified the site of the Temple, did he sanctify the upper level of the floor but nothing underneath it, or perhaps he sanctified it to the depths of the earth? But if this is the dilemma, let him raise the dilemma with regard to the entire Temple courtyard, i.e., what is the halakha if the entire floor is removed?
לעולם פשיטא ליה דעד ארעית דתהומא קדיש והכי קמיבעיא ליה דרך שירות בכך או אין דרך שירות בכך תיקו
The Gemara responds: Actually, it is obvious to him that King David sanctified the site of the Temple to the depths of the earth, and this is the dilemma that he raised: When a priest stands on an unfinished part of the Temple floor, is this a normal manner of ministration, or is this not a normal manner of ministration? Concerning the dilemma itself, the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קיבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר תנו רבנן באצבעו ולקח מלמד שלא תהא קבלה אלא בימין באצבעו ונתן מלמד שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין
§ The mishna teaches: If the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the service is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). The conjunction of the term “with his finger” and the term “and the priest shall take” teaches that the collection of the blood may be performed only with the right hand, since the word “finger” in the context of priesthood is always referring to the right hand. Likewise, the phrase “with his finger and put it” teaches that the placing of the blood may be performed only with the right hand.
אמר רבי שמעון וכי נאמרה יד בקבלה אלא באצבעו ונתן שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין הואיל ולא נאמרה יד בקבלה קיבל בשמאל כשר
Rabbi Shimon said: But is the word: Hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Rather, the verse states only: “With his finger and put it,” teaching that the placing of the blood may be performed only with the right hand. Since the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, even if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
ורבי שמעון ממה נפשך אי אית ליה גזירה שוה כי לא נאמרה יד בקבלה מאי הוי ואי לית ליה גזירה שוה כי נאמרה יד בקבלה מאי הוי
The Gemara asks: But as for Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, his opinion is difficult. If he holds that one derives a verbal analogy from the passage discussing a leper (Leviticus, chapter 14), which indicates that all references to hands and fingers mean specifically the right hand, then even if the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, what of it? In any event, the word “finger” is stated. And if he does not hold that one derives this verbal analogy, then even if the word: Hand, were stated with regard to the collection of the blood, what of it? The word would have no significance.
אמר רב יהודה לעולם לית ליה גזירה שוה והכי קאמר וכי נאמר יד ימין בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמר יד ימין בקבלה קבל בשמאל כשר
Rav Yehuda says: Actually, he does not hold that one derives this verbal analogy. And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: But is the phrase: Right hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Rather, since the phrase: Right hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, even if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
אמר ליה רבה אי הכי אפילו נתינה נמי ועוד וכי לית ליה לרבי שמעון גזירה שוה והתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר יד אינה אלא ימין אצבע אינה אלא ימין
Rabba said to him: If so, then even the rite of placing the blood should be valid when performed with the left hand, since the phrase: Right hand, does not appear with regard to it as well. And furthermore, does Rabbi Shimon really not hold that one derives this verbal analogy? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “hand” is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever the verse mentions “finger,” it is referring only to a finger of the right hand?
אלא אמר רבא לעולם אית ליה גזירה שוה והכי קאמר וכי נאמרה יד בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמרה יד בקבלה אלא אצבע ואי אפשר לקבלה באצבע קיבל בשמאל כשר
Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Shimon holds that one derives this verbal analogy, and this is what he is saying: But is the word: Hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, but the word “finger” is stated, and collection cannot be performed with a finger alone, one must conclude that the word “finger” must actually be referring to the placing of the blood. Therefore, while the placing of the blood must be performed with the right hand, if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא איפשר דעביד ליה אזן לשפת מזרק ומקבל בה
Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: But it is possible to fashion a small handle for the rim of the bowl, and one could then hold the bowl with his finger and collect the blood in it. If so, it is possible for one to collect the blood with only his finger.
אלא אמר אביי
Rather, Abaye says:
במקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו קמיפלגי
They disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted based on juxtaposition to the language preceding it and to the language following it. According to Rabbi Shimon, a verse is interpreted only based on the language following it. Therefore, when the verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar,” the word “finger” is referring only to the placing of the blood and not its collection. The Rabbis hold that the verse is also interpreted based on the language preceding it. Accordingly, they require that both rites be performed with the right hand.
אמר אביי הא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מפקא מדאבוה ומפקא מדרבנן דתניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר אצבע בקבלה שינה בקבלה פסול בנתינה כשר וכל מקום שנאמר אצבע בנתינה שינה בנתינה פסול בקבלה כשר
Abaye says: This statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, diverges from the opinion of his father, and it diverges from the opinion of the Rabbis: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “finger” is stated with regard to collection of the blood and not with regard to placing of the blood on the altar, if the priest deviated from the proper method of collection and performed it with the left hand, the offering is disqualified, but if he deviated from the proper method of placing the blood, the offering remains fit. And in every instance that the word “finger” is stated only with regard to placing the blood, if the priest deviated from the proper method of placing, the offering is disqualified, but if he deviated from the proper method of collection, the offering remains fit.
והיכן נאמר אצבע בנתינה דכתיב ולקחת מדם הפר ונתת על קרנת המזבח באצבעך וקסבר מקרא נדרש לפניו ולא לפני פניו ולאחריו
And where is the word “finger” stated only with regard to placing? As it is written: “And you shall take of the blood of the bullock and put it upon the corners of the altar with your finger” (Exodus 29:12). And he holds that a verse is interpreted based on juxtaposition to the language immediately preceding it and not to the language before that which immediately precedes it, nor to the language following it.
אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינה אלא ימין
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In every instance in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger and by members of the priesthood, it may be performed only with the right hand.
קא סלקא דעתין תרתי בעינן כדכתיב ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו ויליף ממצורע דכתיב וטבל הכהן את אצבעו הימנית והרי קמיצה דלא כתיב בה אלא כהונה ותנן קמץ בשמאל פסול
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 (Menaḥot 6a): If one removed the handful with his left hand, the meal offering is disqualified.
אלא אמר רבא או אצבע או כהונה
Rather, Rava says: This statement means that if the verse mentions either a finger or the priesthood, only the right hand may be used.
אמר ליה אביי הרי הולכת אברים לכבש דכתיב בהו כהונה דכתיב והקריב הכהן את הכל [והקטיר] המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש ותנן הרגל של ימין בשמאלו ובית עורה לחוץ
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.
[כי אמרינן] או אצבע או כהונה בדבר המעכב כפרה דומיא דמצורע
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.
והרי קבלה דכתב בהו כהונה ודבר המעכב בכפרה הוא ותנן קבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the collection of the blood in a service vessel, about which priesthood is written and which is a matter that precludes atonement? And yet we learned in the mishna: If one collected the blood with his left hand, the blood is disqualified for offering, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.
רבי שמעון תרתי בעי
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon requires that both matters appear in the verse, i.e., both finger and priesthood.
מי בעי רבי שמעון תרתי והתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר יד אינו אלא ימין אצבע אינו אלא ימין
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon really require both? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “hand” is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever the verse mentions “finger,” it is referring only to a finger of the right hand?
אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונה בעיא אצבע
The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Shimon, if the verse mentions only “finger,” then 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 a mention of “finger” for the limitation to apply.
ואלא כהן למה לי בכיהונן
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 the priests must perform the collection of the blood in their priestly state, i.e., while wearing the priestly vestments.
והרי זריקה דלא כתב בהו אלא כהונה ותנן זרק בשמאל פסול ולא פליג רבי שמעון
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 “finger”?
אמר אביי פליג בברייתא דתניא קיבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר זרק בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר
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.
אלא הא דאמר רבא יד יד לקמיצה רגל רגל לחליצה אזן אזן לרציעה למה לי מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא
The Gemara asks: But that which Rava says with regard to the superfluous phrases in the passage discussing a leper: One derives a verbal analogy between “hand” and “hand” mentioned 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. Additionally, one derives a verbal analogy between “foot” and “foot” mentioned with regard to the ḥalitza ritual. And one derives a verbal analogy between “ear” and “ear” mentioned with regard to the piercing of a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl. One may ask: Why do I need the first analogy? The requirement that the handful be removed with the right hand can be derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana above, since priesthood is mentioned in the verse describing it.
חד לקומץ וחד לקידוש קומץ
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.
-
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. May his memory be blessed.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Zevachim 24
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין
And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to similar cases. Therefore, one cannot assume that analogous prohibitions carry penalty of death at the hand of Heaven as well.
ולמאן דאמר מלמדין שתויי יין הוה ליה שלישי ושלשה לדברי הכל אין מלמדין
And even according to the one who says that they do teach their common aspect, the prohibition against service by those who drank wine also contains explicit mention of death at the hand of Heaven and constitutes a third verse. And all agree that three verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect.
עומד על גבי כלים על גבי בהמה על גבי רגלי חבירו פסול מנלן דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל ורצפה מקדשת וכלי שרת מקדשים מה כלי שרת לא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין כלי שרת אף רצפה לא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הרצפה
§ The mishna teaches that one who is standing upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another, is unfit to perform rites. The Gemara elaborates: From where do we derive this? This is derived as the Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor of the Temple courtyard sanctifies the priest to perform the service, and service vessels, i.e., priestly vestments, also sanctify him, one may draw a comparison between the two: Just as with regard to service vessels, nothing may interpose between the priest and the service vessel, so too with regard to the floor, nothing may interpose between the priest and the floor.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן כלי משום דלאו מינא דבשר נינהו אבל בהמה דמינא דבשר הוא אימא לא ואי אשמעינן בהמה דלא מינא דאדם הוא אבל חבירו דאדם הוא אימא לא צריכא
The Gemara adds: And each of the three cases mentioned in the mishna is necessary. As, had the mishna taught us only that a vessel interposes between the priest’s feet and the floor, one might have thought that this is only because it is not a type of flesh, but with regard to an animal, which is a type of flesh, I will say that it does not constitute an interposition. And had it taught us only that an animal interposes, one might have thought that this is only because it is not of the human species, but another person, who is human, I will say that he does not interpose. Therefore, each is necessary.
תניא רבי אליעזר אומר רגלו אחת על הכלי ורגלו אחת על הרצפה רגלו אחת על האבן ורגלו אחת על הרצפה רואין כל שאילו ינטל הכלי ותנטל האבן יכול לעמוד על רגלו אחת ויעבוד עבודתו כשירה ואם לאו עבודתו פסולה
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one of the priest’s feet was on a vessel and one of his feet was on the floor, or if one of his feet was on a stone and one of his feet was on the floor, one sees: Any case where, were the vessel to be removed or the stone removed, he would still be able to stand on one foot and perform rites, his service is valid. But if he would not be able to stand on one foot, his service is disqualified.
בעי רבי אמי נדלדלה האבן ועמד עליה מהו היכא דאין דעתו לחברה לא תיבעי לך דודאי חייצא כי תיבעי לך דדעתו לחברה מאי כיון דדעתו לחברה כמה דמחברא דמיא או דילמא השתא מיהא הא תלישא
Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma: If one of the stone tiles of the Temple floor came loose and began to wobble, and the priest stood on it, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do not raise the dilemma with regard to a case where he does not intend to attach the stone to the floor again, as it certainly interposes in such a case, since it is considered an item separate from the Temple. Rather, when you raise this dilemma, do so with regard to a case where he intends to attach it again. In such a case, what is the halakha? Does one say that since he intends to attach it, it is considered like that which is already attached? Or perhaps now, at least, it is disconnected, and it is considered a separate item.
רבה זוטי בעי לה הכי בעי רבי אמי נעקרה האבן ועמד במקומה מהו
Rabba Zuti raises this dilemma like this: Rabbi Ami raises a dilemma: If one of the stone tiles was uprooted and the priest stood in its empty place, what is the halakha?
מאי קא מיבעיא ליה כי קדיש דוד רצפה עליונה קדיש או דילמא עד לארעית דתהומא קדיש ותיבעי ליה כל העזרה כולה
The Gemara interjects: What is the dilemma he is raising? Perhaps this is the dilemma: When King David sanctified the site of the Temple, did he sanctify the upper level of the floor but nothing underneath it, or perhaps he sanctified it to the depths of the earth? But if this is the dilemma, let him raise the dilemma with regard to the entire Temple courtyard, i.e., what is the halakha if the entire floor is removed?
לעולם פשיטא ליה דעד ארעית דתהומא קדיש והכי קמיבעיא ליה דרך שירות בכך או אין דרך שירות בכך תיקו
The Gemara responds: Actually, it is obvious to him that King David sanctified the site of the Temple to the depths of the earth, and this is the dilemma that he raised: When a priest stands on an unfinished part of the Temple floor, is this a normal manner of ministration, or is this not a normal manner of ministration? Concerning the dilemma itself, the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קיבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר תנו רבנן באצבעו ולקח מלמד שלא תהא קבלה אלא בימין באצבעו ונתן מלמד שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין
§ The mishna teaches: If the priest collected the blood with his left hand, the service is disqualified, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). The conjunction of the term “with his finger” and the term “and the priest shall take” teaches that the collection of the blood may be performed only with the right hand, since the word “finger” in the context of priesthood is always referring to the right hand. Likewise, the phrase “with his finger and put it” teaches that the placing of the blood may be performed only with the right hand.
אמר רבי שמעון וכי נאמרה יד בקבלה אלא באצבעו ונתן שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין הואיל ולא נאמרה יד בקבלה קיבל בשמאל כשר
Rabbi Shimon said: But is the word: Hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Rather, the verse states only: “With his finger and put it,” teaching that the placing of the blood may be performed only with the right hand. Since the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, even if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
ורבי שמעון ממה נפשך אי אית ליה גזירה שוה כי לא נאמרה יד בקבלה מאי הוי ואי לית ליה גזירה שוה כי נאמרה יד בקבלה מאי הוי
The Gemara asks: But as for Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, his opinion is difficult. If he holds that one derives a verbal analogy from the passage discussing a leper (Leviticus, chapter 14), which indicates that all references to hands and fingers mean specifically the right hand, then even if the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, what of it? In any event, the word “finger” is stated. And if he does not hold that one derives this verbal analogy, then even if the word: Hand, were stated with regard to the collection of the blood, what of it? The word would have no significance.
אמר רב יהודה לעולם לית ליה גזירה שוה והכי קאמר וכי נאמר יד ימין בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמר יד ימין בקבלה קבל בשמאל כשר
Rav Yehuda says: Actually, he does not hold that one derives this verbal analogy. And this is what Rabbi Shimon is saying: But is the phrase: Right hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Rather, since the phrase: Right hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, even if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
אמר ליה רבה אי הכי אפילו נתינה נמי ועוד וכי לית ליה לרבי שמעון גזירה שוה והתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר יד אינה אלא ימין אצבע אינה אלא ימין
Rabba said to him: If so, then even the rite of placing the blood should be valid when performed with the left hand, since the phrase: Right hand, does not appear with regard to it as well. And furthermore, does Rabbi Shimon really not hold that one derives this verbal analogy? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “hand” is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever the verse mentions “finger,” it is referring only to a finger of the right hand?
אלא אמר רבא לעולם אית ליה גזירה שוה והכי קאמר וכי נאמרה יד בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמרה יד בקבלה אלא אצבע ואי אפשר לקבלה באצבע קיבל בשמאל כשר
Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Shimon holds that one derives this verbal analogy, and this is what he is saying: But is the word: Hand, stated with regard to the collection of the blood? Since the word: Hand, is not stated with regard to the collection of the blood, but the word “finger” is stated, and collection cannot be performed with a finger alone, one must conclude that the word “finger” must actually be referring to the placing of the blood. Therefore, while the placing of the blood must be performed with the right hand, if one collected the blood with his left hand, the offering is fit.
אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא איפשר דעביד ליה אזן לשפת מזרק ומקבל בה
Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: But it is possible to fashion a small handle for the rim of the bowl, and one could then hold the bowl with his finger and collect the blood in it. If so, it is possible for one to collect the blood with only his finger.
אלא אמר אביי
Rather, Abaye says:
במקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו קמיפלגי
They disagree with regard to whether a verse is interpreted based on juxtaposition to the language preceding it and to the language following it. According to Rabbi Shimon, a verse is interpreted only based on the language following it. Therefore, when the verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the corners of the altar,” the word “finger” is referring only to the placing of the blood and not its collection. The Rabbis hold that the verse is also interpreted based on the language preceding it. Accordingly, they require that both rites be performed with the right hand.
אמר אביי הא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מפקא מדאבוה ומפקא מדרבנן דתניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר אצבע בקבלה שינה בקבלה פסול בנתינה כשר וכל מקום שנאמר אצבע בנתינה שינה בנתינה פסול בקבלה כשר
Abaye says: This statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, diverges from the opinion of his father, and it diverges from the opinion of the Rabbis: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “finger” is stated with regard to collection of the blood and not with regard to placing of the blood on the altar, if the priest deviated from the proper method of collection and performed it with the left hand, the offering is disqualified, but if he deviated from the proper method of placing the blood, the offering remains fit. And in every instance that the word “finger” is stated only with regard to placing the blood, if the priest deviated from the proper method of placing, the offering is disqualified, but if he deviated from the proper method of collection, the offering remains fit.
והיכן נאמר אצבע בנתינה דכתיב ולקחת מדם הפר ונתת על קרנת המזבח באצבעך וקסבר מקרא נדרש לפניו ולא לפני פניו ולאחריו
And where is the word “finger” stated only with regard to placing? As it is written: “And you shall take of the blood of the bullock and put it upon the corners of the altar with your finger” (Exodus 29:12). And he holds that a verse is interpreted based on juxtaposition to the language immediately preceding it and not to the language before that which immediately precedes it, nor to the language following it.
אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינה אלא ימין
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In every instance in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger and by members of the priesthood, it may be performed only with the right hand.
קא סלקא דעתין תרתי בעינן כדכתיב ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו ויליף ממצורע דכתיב וטבל הכהן את אצבעו הימנית והרי קמיצה דלא כתיב בה אלא כהונה ותנן קמץ בשמאל פסול
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 (Menaḥot 6a): If one removed the handful with his left hand, the meal offering is disqualified.
אלא אמר רבא או אצבע או כהונה
Rather, Rava says: This statement means that if the verse mentions either a finger or the priesthood, only the right hand may be used.
אמר ליה אביי הרי הולכת אברים לכבש דכתיב בהו כהונה דכתיב והקריב הכהן את הכל [והקטיר] המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש ותנן הרגל של ימין בשמאלו ובית עורה לחוץ
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.
[כי אמרינן] או אצבע או כהונה בדבר המעכב כפרה דומיא דמצורע
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.
והרי קבלה דכתב בהו כהונה ודבר המעכב בכפרה הוא ותנן קבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the collection of the blood in a service vessel, about which priesthood is written and which is a matter that precludes atonement? And yet we learned in the mishna: If one collected the blood with his left hand, the blood is disqualified for offering, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.
רבי שמעון תרתי בעי
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon requires that both matters appear in the verse, i.e., both finger and priesthood.
מי בעי רבי שמעון תרתי והתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר יד אינו אלא ימין אצבע אינו אלא ימין
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon really require both? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: In every instance in the Torah that the word “hand” is stated, the verse is referring only to the right hand, and whenever the verse mentions “finger,” it is referring only to a finger of the right hand?
אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונה בעיא אצבע
The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Shimon, if the verse mentions only “finger,” then 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 a mention of “finger” for the limitation to apply.
ואלא כהן למה לי בכיהונן
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 the priests must perform the collection of the blood in their priestly state, i.e., while wearing the priestly vestments.
והרי זריקה דלא כתב בהו אלא כהונה ותנן זרק בשמאל פסול ולא פליג רבי שמעון
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 “finger”?
אמר אביי פליג בברייתא דתניא קיבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר זרק בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר
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.
אלא הא דאמר רבא יד יד לקמיצה רגל רגל לחליצה אזן אזן לרציעה למה לי מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא
The Gemara asks: But that which Rava says with regard to the superfluous phrases in the passage discussing a leper: One derives a verbal analogy between “hand” and “hand” mentioned 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. Additionally, one derives a verbal analogy between “foot” and “foot” mentioned with regard to the ḥalitza ritual. And one derives a verbal analogy between “ear” and “ear” mentioned with regard to the piercing of a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl. One may ask: Why do I need the first analogy? The requirement that the handful be removed with the right hand can be derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana above, since priesthood is mentioned in the verse describing it.
חד לקומץ וחד לקידוש קומץ
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.
