Zevachim 24b — the Talmud in English

Rather, Abaye said: ![](pamud.bmp "

")

They disagree concerning whether the verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it and what follows it:

the Sages and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon holds that the verse is expounded only with regard to what follows it, and not with regard to what precedes it. Therefore, the “finger” in the verse, “And the priest shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger and place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering,” refers to the placing, which is stated after it, and not to the receiving, which is stated before it. Whereas the Sages hold that the verse is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and with regard to what follows it; therefore, the finger written in the verse also refers to receiving.

Abaye said: This

statement

of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

which is brought nearby,

excludes the position of his father and excludes the position of the Rabbis:

the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disagree with the words of Rabbi Shimon, his father, and with the words of the Rabbis.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever the term finger is stated with regard to receiving,

and the term finger is not stated with regard to placing, if he

deviated in receiving,

for example, he received with the left hand,

it is invalid.

And if he deviated

in placing, it is valid,

and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that the “finger” stated with regard to the blood of the sin-offering refers exclusively to “and the priest shall take from the blood of the sin-offering,” which precedes it, and not to “and place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering,” which follows it. Therefore, he learned by means of a gezera shava from the leper that the finger is the right hand only with regard to receiving, but not with regard to placing.

And wherever the term finger is stated with regard to placing—

if he deviated in placing, it is invalid.

If he deviated

in receiving, it is valid!

And where is the term finger stated with regard to placing?

In the bull of the inauguration,

as it is written

in it: “

And you shall take from the blood of the bull, and place it on the horns of the altar, with your finger.”

And he holds,

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, that

the verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it

alone,

but not with regard to what precedes what precedes it.

And therefore, “finger” refers to the placing that precedes it, and not to the taking that precedes what precedes it. And likewise he holds

that the verse is not expounded

with regard to what

follows it,

as explained above with regard to the finger stated concerning the blood of the sin-offering: he does not expound the finger as referring to the placing that follows it.

And it follows that he disagrees both with Rabbi Shimon his father, who holds that the verse is expounded with regard to what follows it, and with the Rabbis, who said that the verse is expounded both with regard to what precedes it and with regard to what follows it.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Wherever it is stated “

finger”

and “

priesthood”—

it is only the right hand!

And the Gemara says:

It enters our minds: Do we require two [

finger and priesthood ]

requirements,

for the blood of the sin-offering is thrown, and it is stated: “

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

and he derives

specifically

from the leper

that the throwing is with the right hand because “finger and priesthood” are also stated with regard to the leper,

as it is written: “

And the priest shall dip his right finger.”

But it is impossible to derive this for a place where only one of these words is stated, for with regard to the leper both of them are stated, and one may say that only when both are stated is the right hand intended.

And we object:

But what of taking the handful, with regard to which only priesthood is written,

alone,

and we learned: If he took the handful with the left hand, it is invalid?!

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said,

the rule is as follows: wherever it is stated

either finger or priesthood,

it is only the right hand!

Abaye said to him,

to Rava:

But what of carrying the limbs to the ramp, with regard to which priesthood is written, as it is written: “

And the priest shall bring all of it and burn it on the altar,”

and the Master said—

This is the carrying of the limbs to the ramp!

And we learned in tractate Tamid [chapter 4, mishna 3]

how is the carrying of the limbs performed? First they carry the head of the offering and the right leg adjacent to the head. Since the head is more important than the leg, the priest carries the head in his right hand , whereas

the right leg

he carries

in his left hand, and its place of skin,

of the leg—that is, the place from which the skin was removed—is directed toward the people

outward,

whereas the cut place is directed toward the bearer, so that it should not be visible outward.

And it would apparently be proven that the halakha is not in accordance with Rava, who said, “Every place where priesthood or finger is stated is only the right hand,” for with regard to carrying, “priesthood” is stated, and nevertheless he carries with the left hand?!

And Rava answers:

When we say “

wherever it is stated

either finger or priesthood,

it is only the right hand,” this means only

with regard to something that prevents atonement, analogous

to the sprinkling

of the leper,

which prevents atonement, and not with regard to carrying the limbs, which does not prevent atonement, for even if the sacrificial portions were not offered at all, the offering is valid .

And we object:

But what of receiving, with regard to which priesthood is written,

as it is stated concerning it, “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall bring it,”

and it is something that prevents atonement, and we learned: If he received with the left hand, it is invalid, but Rabbi Shimon declares it valid!

And how does Rabbi Shimon declare it valid?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon requires two,

that both “finger” and “priesthood” be written!

And we object:

But does Rabbi Shimon require two? Was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever the term hand is stated, it is only the right hand,

and likewise wherever the term

finger is stated, it is only the right hand!

And it is proven that Rabbi Shimon too holds that it suffices to write one of them in order to teach that the “right hand” is required.

And we answer: A place where

finger

is stated does not require

priesthood

in order to obligate performing it with the right hand. But a place where only

priesthood

is stated

requires that there be written there

finger

in order to obligate performing it with the right hand. Therefore, with regard to receiving, concerning which only priesthood is stated, Rabbi Shimon declares the left hand valid.

And we object:

But if so,

priest

which is stated with regard to receiving,

why do I need it?

For it has already been stated with regard to it, “the sons of Aaron,” and we know that priesthood is required; whereas to teach that it must be performed with the right hand cannot be learned from “priest.” For what purpose, then, was “priest” also written with regard to it?

And we answer: “Priest,” which is stated with regard to receiving, comes to teach us that the service of the priests is valid only when they are

in their priestly state,

when they are dressed in the priestly garments.

And we object further:

But what of throwing, with regard to which only “

priesthood”

is written, and we learned: If he threw with the left hand, it is invalid!

And Rabbi Shimon does not disagree.

But you said that according to Rabbi Shimon, with regard to a service concerning which “priesthood” is stated, “finger” must also be written in order to invalidate it if it is performed with the left hand. Therefore Rabbi Shimon declares receiving with the left hand valid. Why, then, does he invalidate throwing with the left hand?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

although the Mishna did not mention that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and declares throwing with the left hand valid,

he disagrees in a beraita.

As it was taught in a beraita: If he received with the left hand, it is invalid.

But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid.

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

But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid!

And we object further according to the words of Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of Rabbi Yohanan [according to Rava], that wherever priesthood is stated, it must be performed with the right hand:

But this that Rava said,

that the source for the law of the right hand is learned by the gezera shava of

“hand, hand”

from the leper

for taking the handful,

and likewise they learn

“leg, leg”

from the leper

for the removal of the shoe,

which must be performed with the right foot, and likewise

“ear, ear” for piercing!

Why did Rava need to learn taking the handful by means of the gezera shava “hand, hand,” when

it follows from Rabba bar bar Hana,

for “priesthood” is stated with regard to taking the handful?

And we answer: Two teachings were needed for taking the handful with the right hand:

one for the handful,

for taking the handful must be performed with the right hand;

and one for sanctifying the handful,

for the handful, after it has been taken, must be placed into another service vessel, and thereby it is sanctified within the handful. Holding the vessel and placing the handful into it must be performed with the right hand , and therefore an additional teaching is needed.