Menachot 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

One

of them refers to the thumb of the hand and foot,

to validate the sides

of the thumb that are valid,

and one to invalidate the sides of the sides

that is, the flesh beneath the palm, for “on” specifically means on, and not beneath.

And we ask: What do

“on the blood of the guilt-offering” and “on the place of the blood of the guilt-offering” come to teach?

These two verses: one verse is needed to state that he must place the oil

on the blood of the guilt-offering and not beside it. But why is an additional verse necessary?

And we answer:

Had the Torah written only “on the blood of the guilt-offering,”

alone,

I would have said: When the blood is present,

yes,

he must place the oil; but if

the blood had been wiped away,

the blood,

no,

he may not place it.

Therefore the Torah writes “on the place,”

teaching that even so he must place the oil on the place upon which the blood had been placed.

And had the Torah written only “on the place,”

alone,

I would have said: Specifically when the blood had been wiped away, but

if

it is present,

the blood,

I would say that it constitutes an interposition

between the oil and the thumb, and the oil would be disqualified.

It teaches us

that the additional verse teaches that he places the oil on the blood, and it is not considered an interposition.

asked: Why is a verse needed to teach that the blood does not interpose before the oil? It is stated explicitly in Zevachim 35a that the halakha is that liquid blood does not constitute an interposition, and it does not seem that the innovation applies only to dried blood. The Gri"z answered that although liquid blood does not constitute an interposition, this applies to the matter discussed in Zevachim, namely, that there must not be an interposition between his foot and the floor. In that case, since blood does not interpose, the service is valid. However, regarding a leper, where there is a requirement that he place the oil on the thumb, one might have said that although the blood does not constitute an interposition, the oil is nevertheless not on the thumb, since “thumb” means the actual thumb. Therefore, the verse is needed to teach that even with liquid blood the act is valid. The Gri"z further added that although it has been newly taught that placing the oil on the blood is effective, this does not mean that it has been newly taught that even where there is an interposition the act is valid. Rather, it has been newly taught that the prescribed place for placing the oil is on the blood; and since that is the essential requirement, the concept of interposition does not apply, because that is precisely the prescribed procedure. And now the Gemara explains why the verse mentions “right” several times with regard to the oil of the leper:

Rava said: Since it is written “on the blood of the guilt-offering” and “on the place of the blood of the guilt-offering,” and “right” is written with regard to the blood, why do I need “on his right thumb” and “on his right big toe,” which are written with regard to the oil of the wealthy and poor leper?

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

Rather, Rava said:

It is not from the four times that “left” is written that we learn to invalidate kemitza with the left hand. Rather, this is how we learn it: There is

“hand”

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

“hand”

and “he shall fill his palm,” which is written with regard to kemitza [and although the expression “hand” is not stated here, this must be understood in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, who expounds: “And the priest shall return” and “and the priest shall come”—this is called returning and this is called coming],

to

learn that

kemitza

is performed with the right hand, just as in the case of the leper.

And we also learn by means of a gzera shava:

“foot”

—“foot,”

“foot,” which is written with regard to the leper, and “foot,” which is written with regard to halitza: “And he shall remove his shoe from upon his foot,” to learn that

halitza

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

“ear”

—“ear,”

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

piercing

is performed with the right.

And we ask:

“Left,”

the second mention of “left” written with regard to the

wealthy leper,

“and he shall pour it onto the priest’s left palm, and the priest shall dip his right finger into the oil that is on his left palm”

—what does it come to teach?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shisha, son of Rabbi Idi, said:

This verse comes

to invalidate the priest’s right hand in the case of the leper,

for he must place the oil and dip his finger specifically into his left palm,

lest you say

a kal va-chomer:

If, in a place where the left hand was not included,

that is, with all other offerings, where wherever “finger” or “priesthood” is stated it refers only to the right, as will be explained below,

the right hand was included, then in a place where the left hand was included,

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

is it not logical that the right hand was included?

Therefore, the verse repeats “left” to teach that it must specifically be the left.

And we ask:

And the other mention of “left,”

which is written with regard to the poor leper,

what does it come to teach?

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

And we answer:

To teach that which the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

As he said:

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

and in the passage concerning the poor leper, the sin-offering and guilt-offering brought according to one’s means was newly introduced, meaning that if he cannot afford it, he brings a less costly offering.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: Wherever “finger” and “priesthood” are stated, it refers only to the right hand.

And we say:

It might have entered our minds

that both of them, namely,

“finger” and “priesthood,”

are required, as it is written

with regard to a sin-offering:

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

there

he derives

the right hand

from the leper, as it is written

with regard to him:

“And the priest shall dip his right finger.”

And we ask:

But kemitza, with regard to which only priesthood is written—yet we learned: If he performed kemitza with the left hand, it is invalid?

And we answer:

Rava said:

This is the meaning: Wherever

either “finger” or “priesthood”

is stated, it refers only to the right hand.

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 present them all and burn them on the altar,” and the Master said: This refers to carrying the limbs to the ramp,

and

nevertheless

we learned: The right leg

of the animal is carried to the ramp

with the

left hand,

and its stripped side

of the leg—that is, the side of the leg from which the hide was removed, and not the cut side of the leg—is turned

outward

toward the people, so that they should not see the cut. It follows from this that although “priesthood” is written, it is carried with the left hand?

asked: Everywhere that the carrying of the limbs is mentioned, it is described as carrying the limbs to the ramp. Seemingly, since the burning of the limbs takes place at the top of the altar, why is the ramp mentioned? It should have said “carrying the limbs to the altar,” since that is the primary requirement. The Gri"z answered that in truth the entire requirement of carrying the limbs applies only until the ramp; carrying them farther afterward is not considered carrying, but rather is the requirement of bringing them up for burning. The requirement of carrying applies only until the ramp. This has a practical consequence, for regarding carrying, it is explained in Zevachim that there is an opinion that it must be done on foot, meaning that one is obligated to walk. Accordingly, from the ramp to the altar, since this is not carrying but bringing up for burning, there is no requirement that it be done on foot; bringing it up without walking is also effective. Rabbi Yitzḥak Ze’ev raised an objection to him from the Gemara in Eruvin 103a, where the Mishna states that they would place salt on the ramp so that they would not slip, and the Gemara asks that this constitutes an interposition for the carrying of the limbs. But if we accept the Gri"z’s statement that carrying the limbs on the ramp itself is not at all a Temple service, why does the Gemara ask that it constitutes an interposition? From the ramp to the altar, it is merely bringing them up, and it is not a service with regard to which an interposition disqualifies. The Gri"z replied that perhaps there is also a distinction within the ramp itself, as is explained by Tosafot in Yoma 45b: The principle that overnight lodging does not apply at the top of the altar applies only from the midpoint of the altar and above. It follows that there are distinctions between different areas even on the altar itself: the lower half of the altar is not considered an altar, whereas the upper half is considered an altar. Accordingly, even though carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar is bringing them up, this applies only from the midpoint of the altar and above, where it is considered an altar. What is stated in Eruvin—that it is an interposition—refers to the area from the midpoint of the altar and below, where it is indeed carrying. Since from the midpoint of the altar and above it is not considered carrying, the phrase “carrying the limbs to the ramp” is used. And we answer:

When we say

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

it is with regard to a matter that effects atonement

such as the sprinklings of the leper. But carrying does not effect atonement, since one could slaughter and cut up the animal beside the ramp and would not need to carry it 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 ask:

But the receiving

of the blood,

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

this refers to the receiving of the blood; and we learned: If he received the blood with the left hand, he disqualified it, while Rabbi Shimon deems it valid.

This is difficult according to Rabbi Shimon, who deems it valid even though “priesthood” is written?

And we answer:

Are you asking according to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon requires two

—priesthood and finger—

to learn

that the right hand is required.

And we ask:

But does Rabbi Shimon require two? Was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever “hand” is stated,

it refers only to the right; “finger”

refers only to the right,

so it is evident that from “finger” alone we learn that the right hand is required?

And we answer: In truth,

“finger” does not require “priesthood,”

rather, from “finger” alone we learn that the right hand is required. But

“priesthood” does require “finger,”

and from “priesthood” alone we do not learn that the right hand is required. In the case of receiving the blood, “priesthood” alone is written, and therefore Rabbi Shimon deems it valid with the left hand.

And we ask: But

“priest,”

which is written wherever “finger” is also written,

why do I need it?

After all, “finger” does not require “priesthood.”

And we answer: We learn from it that the service must be performed

in his priesthood,

that is, while wearing the priestly garments.