Zevachim 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, said Abaye:

they disagree with regard to whether the verse is expounded in relation to what precedes it and what follows it,

the Sages and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon holds that a verse is expounded only in relation to what follows it, and therefore the “finger” in the verse, “And the koen shall take some of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger and place it on the corners 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 a verse is expounded both in relation to what precedes it and in relation to what follows it, and therefore the finger written in the verse refers also to receiving.

Abaye said: This

statement

of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

which is brought immediately below,

departs both from his father’s position and from that of the Rabbis,

as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagrees both 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 word “finger” is stated with regard to receiving

but the word “finger” is not stated with regard to placing, if one

deviated in receiving,

for example, if he received with his left hand,

it is invalid.

But 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 koen shall take some of the blood of the sin-offering,” which precedes it, and not to “and place it on the corners of the altar of the burnt-offering,” which follows it. Therefore, he learned by means of a gzera shava from the leper that the finger must be the right hand only with regard to receiving, but not with regard to placing.

And wherever the word “finger” is stated with regard to placing—

if one deviated in placing, it is invalid.

If he deviated

in receiving, it is valid!

And where is the word “finger” stated with regard to placing?

In the bull of the inauguration,

as it is written

in it: “

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

And he holds

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that

a verse is expounded in relation to what precedes it

only,

but not in relation to what precedes what precedes it,

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

that it is not

the verse expounded

in relation to what follows it,

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

It follows that he disagrees both with Rabbi Shimon, his father, who holds that a verse is expounded in relation to what follows it, and with the Rabbis, who say that a verse is expounded both in relation to what precedes it and in relation to what follows it.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Wherever it is stated “

finger”

and “

priesthood”—

it can only mean the right hand!

And the Gemara says:

It might have entered our minds that we require two

[finger and priesthood]

expressions,

as with regard to the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering it is stated: “

And the koen shall take some of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger,”

and he derives

specifically

from the leper

that the sprinkling must be performed with the right hand, because with regard to the leper both “finger and priesthood” are stated,

as it is written: “

And the koen shall dip his right finger,”

but it is impossible to derive the requirement of the right hand for a case in which only one of these words is stated, since with regard to the leper both are stated, and one may say that the reference is to the right hand only when both are stated.

And we challenge this:

But kemitza, with regard to which only priesthood is written,

alone,

and we learned in the Mishna: If he performed kemitza with his left hand, it is invalid?!

And we answer:

Rather, said Rava:

The rule is as follows: Wherever it is stated

either “finger” or “priesthood,”

it can only mean the right hand!

Abaye said to him,

to Rava:

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

And the koen shall present 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 [4:3] the procedure for carrying the limbs: 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 koen carries the head in his right hand, whereas

the right leg

he carries

in his left hand, and its hide-side

of the leg—that is, the place from which the hide was removed—is turned toward the people

on the outside,

whereas the place of the cut is turned toward the one carrying it, so that it will not be visible on the outside.

Apparently, this proves that the statement of Rava is not correct. Rava said, “Wherever priesthood or finger is stated, it can only mean the right hand,” yet with regard to carrying, “priesthood” is stated, and nevertheless he carries the leg in his left hand?!

Rava answers:

When we say “

wherever

either finger or priesthood

is stated, it can only mean the right hand,” this applies only

to something that invalidates atonement, analogous

to the sprinkling

of the leper,

which is indispensable for atonement. It does not apply to the carrying of the limbs, which does not invalidate atonement, since even if the sacrificial portions were not burned at all, the offering remains valid.

And we challenge this:

But receiving, with regard to which priesthood is written,

as it is stated, “The sons of Aharon, the kohanim, shall present it,”

and it is an act that invalidates atonement, and we learned: If he received with his left hand, it is invalid, yet Rabbi Shimon deems it valid!

How can Rabbi Shimon deem it valid?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon requires both expressions,

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

And we challenge this:

But does Rabbi Shimon require both? Was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever “hand” is stated, it can only mean the right hand,

and likewise wherever

“finger” is stated, it can only mean the right hand!

This proves that Rabbi Shimon, too, holds that it is sufficient for one of them to be written in order to teach that the right hand is required.

And we answer: Wherever “

finger” is stated, it

does not require “

priesthood”

in order to impose the requirement that it be performed with the right hand. But wherever only

“priesthood” is stated, it

requires

that

“finger” be written there

in order to impose the requirement that it be performed with the right hand. Therefore, with regard to receiving, where only priesthood is stated, Rabbi Shimon deems the use of the left hand valid.

And we challenge this:

But then why is the word “

koen”

stated with regard to receiving,

what do I need it for?

“The sons of Aharon” has already been stated with regard to it, and we know that priesthood is required. And it is impossible to derive from “koen” that it must be performed with the right hand, so why was “koen” also written with regard to it?

And we answer: “Koen,” stated with regard to receiving, teaches us that the service of the kohanim is valid only when they are

in their priestly state,

when they are wearing the priestly garments.

And we challenge this further:

But with regard to sprinkling, with which only “

priesthood”

is written, and we learned: If he sprinkled with his left hand, it is invalid,

and Rabbi Shimon does not disagree!

You said that according to Rabbi Shimon, for a service with regard to which “priesthood” is stated, “finger” must also be written in order to invalidate it when performed with the left hand. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon deems receiving with the left hand valid. Why, then, does he deem sprinkling with the left hand invalid?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Although the Mishna did not mention that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and deems sprinkling with the left hand valid, he

disagrees in a beraita.

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

And Rabbi Shimon deems it valid.

If he sprinkled with his left hand, it is invalid.

And Rabbi Shimon deems it valid!

And we raise another challenge based on the words of Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan [according to Rava], that wherever “priesthood” is stated, the act must be performed with the right hand:

But as for that which Rava said,

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

“hand”–“hand”

from the leper

for kemitza,

and likewise they learn

“leg”–“leg”

from the leper

for ḥalitza,

which must be performed with the right leg, and likewise

“ear”–“ear” for piercing!

Why did Rava need to learn kemitza by means of the gzera shava “hand”–“hand”?

It follows from Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

since “priesthood” is stated with regard to kemitza.

And we answer: Two teachings were necessary to establish that kemitza is performed with the right hand.

One is for the kemitz,

since the kemitza must be performed with the right hand,

and one is for the sanctification of the kemitz,

since after he performs kemitza, he must place the kemitz into another service vessel, and thereby it becomes sanctified within the kemitz. Holding the vessel and placing the kemitz into it must both be performed with the right hand, and therefore an additional teaching is necessary.