Menachot 10a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

one

of them refers to the thumb and the great toe

to render their sides fit

—the sides of the thumb and great toe that are fit—,

and one refers to disqualifying the sides of the sides

that is, the lower flesh of the palm, for “upon” specifically means—and not beneath.

And we raise an objection: What do the two verses

“upon the blood of the guilt-offering” and “upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering” come for

—the two verses, since one verse must say that he shall place the oil

upon the blood of the guilt-offering and not beside it; rather, what is the need for an additional verse?

And we answer:

If the Torah had written “upon the blood of the guilt-offering”

alone,

I would have said: the blood is present—

yes,

he shall place the oil, but if

it has been wiped away

the blood,

no,

he shall not place it.

The Torah therefore wrote “upon the place,”

that even so he shall place the oil upon the place upon which the blood was placed.

And if the Torah had written “upon the place”

alone,

I would have said: specifically when it has been wiped away, but

if

it is present,

the blood,

I would say that it constitutes an interposition

between the oil and the great toe, and it would disqualify.

It teaches us

the additional verse that he places the oil upon the blood, and it is not called an interposition.

And now the Gemara explains why the verse says “right” several times with regard to the oil of the leper:

Rava said: Since it is written, “upon the blood of the guilt-offering” and “upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering,” and “right” is written with regard to the blood—“upon the great toe of his right hand” and “upon the great toe of his right foot,” which are written with regard to the oil of the wealthy and poor leper—why do I need them?

After all, the oil must be placed upon the blood that was placed on the right.

Rather, Rava said:

It is not that we learn to disqualify taking the handful with the left hand from the four times that “left” is written. Rather, this is how we learn: the word

“hand”

—“his right hand,” which is written with regard to the wealthy leper, which is not needed for itself—

“hand”

—“and he shall fill his palm,” which is written with regard to taking the handful [and although the expression “hand” is not said here, one must say that this follows Rabbi Yishmael, who expounds “and the priest shall return” as “and the priest shall come”: this is called returning, and this is called coming]—

to

learn that

taking the handful

is done with the right hand, as with the leper.

And we also learn by a gzera shava:

“foot”—

“foot,”

“foot” written with regard to the leper and “foot” written with regard to chalitza: “and she shall remove his shoe from upon his foot,” to learn that

chalitza

is performed with the right. And we also learn by a gzera shava:

“ear”—

“ear,”

“ear” written with regard to the leper and “ear” written with regard to piercing: “and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl,” to learn that just as the leper’s is with the right, so too

piercing

is with the right.

And we raise an objection:

“Left”

the second time it is written with regard to the

wealthy

leper: “And he shall pour it upon the palm of the priest’s left hand, and the priest shall dip his right finger from the oil that is upon his left palm”—

what does this come for?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shisha, son of Rabbi Idi, said,

this verse comes

to disqualify the right hand of the priest with regard to the leper,

for he must place it and dip his finger specifically in his left palm,

lest you say

a kal va-chomer:

And if in a place where the left was not increased,

that is, with all offerings, where every place that “finger” or “priesthood” is stated refers only to the right, as will be explained below—

the right was increased; in a place where the left was increased,

that is, here, with the priest of the leper,

is it not logical that the right was increased?

Therefore, the verse repeated “left” to say that it is specifically the left.

And we raise an objection:

And the other “left”

written with regard to the poor leper,

what does it come for?

After all, “left” has already been written with regard to the wealthy one.

And we answer:

For that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

For he said:

Every passage that was stated and repeated was repeated only because of a matter that was newly introduced in it,

and in the passage of the poor leper the ascending-and-descending offering was newly introduced, namely, that if his means are insufficient, he brings a lesser offering.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Resh Lakish: Every place where “finger” and “priesthood” are stated refers only to the right.

And we say:

It might enter your mind

that both of them, namely,

“finger” and “priesthood,”

are required, as it is written

with regard to the sin-offering:

“And the priest shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger,” and

there

he derives

the right

from the leper, as it is written

with regard to him:

“And the priest shall dip his right finger.”

And we raise an objection:

But taking the handful, with regard to which only priesthood is written, and we learned: If he took the handful with the left, it is disqualified?

And we answer:

Rava said:

This is the explanation: Every place where

either “finger” or “priesthood”

is stated refers only to the right!

Abaye said to him: But the carrying of the limbs

of the offering

to the ramp

of the altar,

with regard to which priesthood is written, as it is written: “And the priest shall bring all of it and burn it upon the altar,” and the Master said: This is the carrying of the limbs to the ramp ,

and

nevertheless

we learned: The right leg

of the animal he carries to the ramp

with

his

left hand, and its skin

of the leg—that is, the side of the leg from which the skin was removed, and not the cut side of the leg—is directed

outward

toward the people, so that the cut is not seen. We see from this that although priesthood is written, he carries it with the left?

And we answer:

When we say

that if “finger” or “priesthood” is written it refers only to the right,

it is with regard to a matter that prevents atonement

such as the sprinklings of the leper. But carrying does not prevent atonement, for he can slaughter and dismember the animal beside the ramp and will not need any carrying at all 36 .

wrote that the reason it is not a service that effects atonement is that he can skin and cut up the animal beside the altar, or he can pass it directly from hand to hand until the altar. And in Zevachim 24b, Rashi explained that the reason is that the burning itself of the limbs does not effect atonement. The Gri"z explained this based on the words of Tosafot below, who were uncertain whether burning is valid with the left hand, since burning does not effect atonement. It is evident from this that even something that does not invalidate, if it is a service, requires the right hand. Accordingly, this is the explanation of Rashi’s words: In our passage, he explained that the reason is that one can skin the animal beside the altar, because the fact that burning does not effect atonement does not make it a service that does not effect atonement. However, in Zevachim Rashi held that when the act itself does not effect atonement, although it is a service, it is considered a matter that does not effect atonement, and therefore even the carrying of the limbs is valid with the left hand. The Gri"z asked about Rashi’s statement that since one can cut up and skin the animal beside the altar, carrying it with the left hand is valid: What is the reason for this? At that point he is carrying the limbs. The Gri"z explained that since the animal had not been skinned and cut up, it is not included in the category of “limbs”; it is still considered an animal. Since it is not designated as “limbs,” carrying it to the ramp is not considered the carrying of limbs.

And we raise an objection:

But receiving

of the blood,

which is a matter that prevents atonement, and with regard to which priesthood is written, as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall bring the blood”

—this is the receiving of the blood; and we learned: If he received the blood with the left, he disqualified it, while Rabbi Shimon declares it fit.

And this is difficult with regard to Rabbi Shimon, who declares it fit even though priesthood is written?

And we answer:

Are you saying this with regard to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon requires two

—priesthood and finger—

he requires

in order to learn that the right is required.

And we raise an objection:

But does Rabbi Shimon require two? And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Every place where “hand” is stated—

it refers only to the right; “finger”—

it refers only to the right

We see that from “finger” alone we learn that the right is required?

And we answer: In truth,

“finger” does not require “priesthood,”

but we learn from “finger” alone that the right is required. However,

“priesthood” requires “finger,”

and from it alone we do not learn the right. And in receiving, priesthood alone is written; therefore Rabbi Shimon declares it fit with the left.

And we raise an objection: And

“priest,”

which is written where “finger” is also written,

why do I need it?

After all, “finger” does not require priesthood.

And we answer: From this we learn that the service must be performed

in his priesthood

that is, in priestly garments.