Zevachim 24bזבחים כ״ד ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
24bכ״ד ב

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 (שמות כט, יב) ולקחת מדם הפר ונתת על קרנות 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 (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו ויליף ממצורע דכתי' (ויקרא יד, טז) 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.

א"ל אביי הרי הולכת אברים לכבש דכתיב בהו כהונה דכתיב (ויקרא א, יג) 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 ור"ש 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.

ר"ש תרתי בעי

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon requires that both matters appear in the verse, i.e., both finger and priesthood.

מי בעי ר"ש 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.