Zevachim 24a — the Talmud in English

Two verses written concerning one matter

to make one liable for death for performing the Temple service while disqualified.

And whenever there are two verses written concerning one matter, they do not teach

concerning a third matter that its law should be like theirs. Rather, the fact that both were written, and that one of them would not have sufficed to derive from it by a binyan av, reveals that the liability for death was stated only with regard to both of them, and not with regard to another disqualification.

And we raise an objection:

But according to the one who says

that two verses written concerning one matter do

teach, what is there to say?

And we answer:

There is

another verse, concerning

those intoxicated with wine

who are also liable for death,

and it is

a

third

verse.

verse. And three verses written concerning one matter, according to everyone do not teach!

We learned in the Mishna: He was

standing upon vessels, upon an animal, or upon the feet of his fellow—

disqualified!

And we inquire concerning it:

From where do we know

that one who stands upon an interposition disqualifies the service?

And the Hazon Ish ... [continued]

The tannaitic school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor

of the Temple

is sanctified

for standing and performing the service upon it with the sanctity with which David sanctified it,

and service utensils are sanctified,

as it is written: “He anointed them and sanctified them,”

just as service utensils

are subject to the rule that

there may be nothing intervening between him

the priest who receives the blood in his hand

and the service utensil, so too the floor

of the Temple

may have nothing intervening between him

the priest performing the service

and the floor!

And it was necessary

for the Mishna’s tanna to teach us that there may be no intervening object in every case: whether the intervening object is a utensil, an animal, or a person.

For if it had taught us only

the interposition of a

utensil,

we might have said that it constitutes an interruption

because it is not of the same type as flesh.

An object of one type interposes with regard to an object of another type.

But with regard to an animal, which is of the same type as flesh, one might say

that it does not constitute an interruption.

And if it had taught us only

the interposition of an

animal,

we might have said that it constitutes an interruption

because it is not of the same type as a person.

But

a

fellow’s foot, which is a person, one might say does not

constitute an interruption. Therefore,

it was necessary

to state all three forms of interposition.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says:

If the priest performed the service while

one of his feet

was standing

on the utensil and one of his feet

was standing

on the floor,

or if

one of his feet was on a stone

lying on the floor but not part of it,

and one of his feet was on the floor —

we examine the matter: If, when the utensil were removed and the stone were removed,

he would still

be able to stand on one foot and perform the service,

his service is valid. If not, his service is disqualified!

Rabbi Ami raised a question: If the stone became loosened

from its fixed position in the Temple floor, so that it moves back and forth,

and

the priest performing the service

stood on it —

what is the law?

And the Gemara explains:

When he does not intend to reattach it

to its place,

you need not ask about it; certainly

it is not considered part of the floor, and therefore

it constitutes an interruption.

But when you ask

about a case

in which he intends to reattach it, what is the law?

Should we say:

Since he intends to reattach it, it is considered as though it were attached,

or perhaps, at present it is nevertheless detached?

Rabba Zutra posed it as follows -

Rav Ami posed the question: If the stone was uprooted

from the floor, shifted from its place, and a pit was formed in its place,

and he stood in its place

inside the pit -

what is the law?

В «Керен Ора» написал, что, согласно Рамбаму, речь идет о сомнении в случае вынутого камня, и объяснил, что камень оставался на своем месте. Рав Хаим добавил, что сомнение связано с тем, что святость Храма распространяется только на то, что соединено с землей, поскольку она зависит от святости самого места. Поэтому если освятили только верхний пол, он сохраняет свою святость лишь в соединенном состоянии, так как только тогда считается частью места. Но если освятили пространство до глубины бездны и вопрос касается лишь преграды, то даже если камень вынут, поскольку он остается на своем месте, он считается полом двора и не создает преграды. А Хазон Иш [ в примечаниях) заметил, что согласно словам Рава Хаима расшатанный камень хуже вынутого: хотя он остается на своем месте, Гемара сомневается, не становится ли он непригодным из-за того, что отделен от земли; тогда как вынутый камень считается полом, и вопрос возникает лишь из-за того, что это не является надлежащим способом служения. Поэтому он написал [выше, лист 5б], что два варианта формулировки расходятся в вопросе, препятствует ли отсутствие пола или, поскольку камень стал частью здания, он не нуждается в соединении с землей и не создает преграды. Рамбам постановил согласно первому варианту: пол препятствует и должен быть именно соединен с землей. Поэтому он повторил этот закон применительно как к непригодности здания, так и к непригодности служения. Однако если камень вынут и коэн стоит на земле, служение непригодно из-за отсутствия пола. В этом Раавад разошелся с ним: по его мнению, даже если наличие пола само по себе не препятствует, расшатанный камень может сделать служение непригодным, поскольку это не является надлежащим способом служения. Ведь если человек намерен соединить камень с землей, то пока он этого не сделал, камень не считается окончательно включенным в здание, поскольку он не хочет, чтобы тот оставался в таком состоянии. А в «Авиезри» объяснил сомнение Гемары противоположным образом — не так, как его понял рав Хаим. Он считал, что если освятили только верхний пол, служение пригодно, даже если камень не соединен с землей, поскольку он все равно называется полом. Но если освятили пространство до глубины бездны, то если камень не соединен с землей, он создает преграду, и коэн стоит не на земле [см. Тосафот в трактате Песахим, 67б, где обсуждается, как Давид мог освятить пространство до глубины бездны, если под двором находились подземные помещения, имевшие неосвященную землю, а их крыши считались освященными, как объяснил «Беэр-Шева» в трактате Тамид, 27б. Он удивился: ведь в трактате Песахим, 86а, объясняется, что речь идет о пространстве под Храмовой горой, а не под двором.

When David consecrated [

that is, they would consecrate the Courtyard with two thanksgiving offerings and with the singing of the “Song of Afflictions,” and David consecrated through them the place of the Courtyard, as explained by Tosafot],

the upper floor

alone

did he consecrate,

and the place of the pit beneath the stone is not sacred; or

perhaps

as far as

the ground of the abyss

the ground of the abyss

did he consecrate,

so that the bottom of the pit too is consecrated?!

We raised an objection:

And he should have raised the question for himself

if the floor of

the entire Courtyard

was removed, whether it is possible to perform the service; and why did Rav Ami raise the doubt only when one stone was removed and he stands in the place of a pit?

And the Gemara explains:

It is obvious to him forever

to Rav Ami

that he consecrated as far as the ground of the abyss.

And this is what he was asking,

when one stands in the place of a pit, whether

this is the manner of service, or this is not the manner of service?!

But in a case where the floor of the entire Courtyard was removed, where he is not standing in the place of a pit, it is obvious that it is possible to perform the service, because this is the manner of service, and he is standing on consecrated ground.

And we conclude:

teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

If he received with the left hand, it is invalid.

And Rabbi Shimon declares it valid!

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “And the koen shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and place it upon the horns of the altar of the burnt offering.” And below [24b] we derive that everywhere that “finger” is stated, it means only the right. Since Scripture placed the finger, which is on the right, between receiving the blood [“and he shall take”] and placing it upon the horns of the altar, the verse is expounded as follows: “

with the finger”

refers to

“and he shall take,”

which is written before it -

this teaches that the receiving

of the blood

shall be only with the right!

Likewise, “

with the finger”

also refers to

“and he shall place,”

which follows it -

this teaches that the placing shall be only with the right!

Rabbi Shimon said: Is it stated

“hand”

with regard to receiving?

For had “hand” been stated with regard to receiving, I would agree that it is with the right [as he explains below]. However, since “hand” was not stated with regard to receiving, we do not expound “with his finger” with regard to what precedes it,

but

we expound only what follows it -

“with his finger, and he shall place,”

teaching that the placing

on the horns of the altar

shall be only with the right!

Since “hand” was not stated with regard to receiving -

if he received with the left, it is valid!

We raised an objection:

And Rabbi Shimon, either way: If he has a gzera shava

which they expounded below [24b], that kemitza must be performed with the right through a gzera shava of “hand” - “hand” from the leper, concerning whom it is stated, “the thumb of his right hand,” then

since “hand” was not stated with regard to receiving, what difference does that make?

For it is possible to learn by a gzera shava of “finger” - “finger” from the leper with regard to receiving.

And if he does not have a gzera shava

from the leper, then

since it is stated

“hand”

with regard to receiving, what difference does that make?

For there is no source that the service of “hand” is specifically with the right.

Rav Yehuda said: Actually, he does not have

according to Rabbi Shimon

a gzera shava

from the leper,

and this is what he is saying: Is “right hand” stated with regard to receiving? Since “right hand” was not stated with regard to receiving, if he received with the left, it is valid!

Rabba said to Rav Yehuda

:

If so,

that Rabbi Shimon did not expound a gzera shava from the leper,

even the placing

of the blood of the sin-offering upon the horns of the altar

also

should be rendered fit with the left, for “right finger” was not stated with regard to placing!?

And furthermore,

Rabba asked:

Does Rabbi Shimon truly not have a gzera shava

from the leper?

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Everywhere that “hand” is stated, it means only the right, and everywhere that “finger” is stated, it means only the right

and this law has no source other than the derivation through a gzera shava from the leper, concerning whom it is stated, “the thumb of his right hand” and “the thumb of his right foot”?!

Rather, Rava said: Actually, he does have

according to Rabbi Shimon

a gzera shava

from the leper.

And this is what he is saying: Is “hand” stated with regard to receiving? Since “hand” was not stated with regard to receiving

of the blood of the sin-offering

but “finger” [“and he shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger”],

he shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger”],

and it is impossible to receive with a finger,

for the finger alone cannot hold the vessel in which the blood is received, the verse “and he shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger” refers to placing upon the horns of the altar, which follows after the blood has been received in a vessel: he dips his finger in the blood and places it upon the horns. It follows that “finger” too was not stated with regard to receiving the blood. Therefore it is impossible to learn the receiving of the blood by a gzera shava from the leper, and therefore -

if he received with the left, it is valid!

Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina:

Is it indeed impossible to hold the vessel in which the blood is received with a finger? For

it is possible to make a handle for the rim of the basin,

and the koen inserts his finger into that handle

and receives with it

the blood of the sin-offering?!