Zevachim 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

Two verses that come as one

to establish liability for death for performing the sacrificial service while disqualified.

And any two verses that come as one do not teach

that a third matter should have the same law as they do. Rather, the fact that both of them were written, and that it was not sufficient to have only one of them in order to derive the law from it by means of a binyan av, reveals that liability for death was stated only with regard to both of these cases, and not with regard to another disqualification.

And we challenge this:

And according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one do

teach, what can be said?

And we answer:

There is

an additional verse concerning

those intoxicated by wine,

who are also liable to death,

and it is

a

third

verse.

And three verses that come as one, according to everyone do not teach!

We learned in the Mishna: If he was

standing on top of vessels, on top of an animal, or on top of his fellow’s feet—

it is disqualified!

And we consider this matter:

From where

do we know that standing on top of an interposition disqualifies the service?

And we answer:

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor

of the Temple

is consecrated

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

and consecrated service vessels are consecrated

as it is written [Numbers 7:1], “And he anointed them and consecrated them,” —

just as with a consecrated service vessel

the law was stated that

there must be nothing interposing between it

and the priest receiving the blood in his hand

and the service vessel, so too the floor

of the Temple,

there must be nothing interposing between it

and the priest performing the service

and the floor!

And it was necessary.

The tanna in the Mishna needed to teach us that there must be no interposition in any case: whether the interposition is a vessel, an animal, or a person.

For had he taught us

the interposition of a

vessel,

I would have thought that it creates an interposition

because it is not of the type of flesh.

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

But with regard to an animal, which is of the type of flesh, I would say

that it does not create an interposition.

And had he taught us

the interposition of an

animal,

I would have thought that it creates an interposition

because it is not of the type of a person.

But

with regard to the foot of

his fellow, who is a person, I would say that it does not

create an interposition. Therefore,

it was necessary

to specify 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 vessel and one of his feet

was standing

on the floor,

or if

one of his feet was on the stone

that was placed on the floor but was not part of it,

and one of his feet was on the floor—

we assess: If, were the vessel removed and the stone removed, he would still be able to stand on one foot and perform the service,

then

and perform the service

his service is valid. But if not, his service is disqualified!

Rabbi Ami raised a dilemma: If the stone became loosened

from its setting, having previously been fixed in the Temple floor, so that it moves back and forth,

and

the priest performing the service

stood upon it—

what is the law?

And the Gemara explains:

Where he does not intend to reattach it

to its place,

you need not raise the dilemma; certainly

it is not considered part of the floor, and therefore

it creates an interposition.

When you raise the dilemma,

it is

where he intends to reattach it; what is the law?

Should we say

that since he intends to reattach it, it is considered as though it is attached,

or perhaps, at present it is nevertheless detached?

Rabba Zuti posed it as follows -

Rami Ami asked: 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 halakha?

When David sanctified [that is, they would sanctify the courtyard with two thanksgiving offerings and with the melody of “the song for afflictions,” and David used these to sanctify the site of the courtyard, as Tosafot explain],

the

upper floor

alone,

did he sanctify,

so that the place of the pit beneath the stone was not sanctified; or

perhaps

he sanctified

down to the depths of the earth,

to the ground of the depths,

and sanctified

the bottom of the pit as well?!

We raised a difficulty:

Then he should have asked

whether, if the floor of

the entire courtyard

was removed, it would be possible to perform the service. Why did Rav Ami raise his uncertainty only concerning a single stone that was removed, with the priest standing in the place of the pit?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Ami certainly knew

that, according to him,

the sanctification extends down to the depths of the earth.

And this is what he was asking:

When one stands in the place of a pit, is this

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

However, when the floor of the entire courtyard has been removed, so that he is not standing in the place of a pit, it is obvious that the service may be performed, because this is the proper manner of service, and he is standing on sanctified ground.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

If he received the blood with the left hand, it is disqualified.

And Rabbi Shimon deems it valid!

The Sages taught:

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

With his finger”

refers to

“and he shall take,”

which is written before it -

This teaches that the receiving

of the blood

must be with the right hand! Likewise, “

with his finger”

also refers to

“and he shall place,”

which follows it -

This teaches that the placing must be with the right hand!

Rabbi Shimon said: Is it in fact stated

“hand”

with regard to receiving?

If “hand” had been stated with regard to receiving, I would agree that it is with the right hand [as will be explained below]. However, since “hand” was not stated with regard to receiving, we do not expound “with his finger” with regard to the act preceding it,

but

expound it only with regard to what follows it - “

with his finger and he shall place,”

teaching that the placing

upon the horns of the altar

must be with the right hand!

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

if he received with the left hand, it is valid!

We raised a difficulty:

And Rabbi Shimon, whichever way one looks at it: If he accepts the gzera shava

that they derive below [24b] that taking the handful must be performed with the right hand through a gzera shava of “hand” from the case of the leper, where it is stated “his right hand’s thumb,” then

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

For one could derive receiving through a gzera shava of “finger” from the case of the leper.

And if he does not accept the gzera shava

from the case of the leper, then

what difference does it make that

“hand”

was stated with regard to receiving?

For there is no source that a service involving a “hand” must specifically be performed with the right hand.

Rav Yehuda said: In fact, he does not accept

according to Rabbi Shimon

the gzera shava

from the case of the leper.

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

Rabba said

to Rav Yehuda:

If so,

since Rabbi Shimon does not derive a gzera shava from the case of the leper,

even the placing

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

also

should be valid when performed with the left hand, since “the right finger” was not stated with regard to placing!?

Furthermore,

Rabba asked:

Does Rabbi Shimon not accept a gzera shava

from the case of the leper?

But it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever “hand” is stated, it refers only to the right hand, and wherever “finger” is stated, it refers only to the right hand.

And this law has no source other than a derivation by a gzera shava from the case of the leper, where “the thumb of his right hand” and “the thumb of his right foot” are stated!?

Rather, Rava said: In fact, he accepts

according to Rabbi Shimon

the gzera shava

from the case of 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, but rather

“finger” [“

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

and it is impossible to receive with a finger,

since the finger alone cannot hold the vessel into which the blood is received, the verse “he shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger” must refer to placing it upon the horns of the altar, which takes place after the blood has been received in a vessel: he dips his finger into the blood and places it upon the horns. It follows that “finger” was not stated with regard to receiving the blood either. Therefore, receiving the blood cannot be derived through a gzera shava from the case of the leper; consequently -

if he received with the left hand, it is valid!

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

Is it impossible to hold the vessel into which the blood is received with a finger?

It is possible to make a handle for the rim of the bowl,

and the kohen inserts his finger into that handle

and receives with it

the blood of the sin-offering?!