Zevachim 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require the handful to be sanctified in a service vessel

and

also

so

according to the one who says [in

Menahot 26a]

that according to Rabbi Shimon as well, the handful must be sanctified

while at the same time he maintains that even if he sanctifies it

with the left hand, Rabbi Shimon deems it valid.

If so,

the hand—

the hand stated by Rava, why do I need it?

For the sanctification of the handful in a vessel is either not required, or is valid even when performed with the left hand.

And

if

you say that the gzera shava teaches

with regard to the act of taking the handful itself

that it must be performed only with the right hand—for according to Rabbi Shimon, the word “priest” stated with regard to taking the handful does not teach that it is performed with the right hand—there is still a difficulty: surely the taking of the handful itself

is derived from Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya.

For Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon

who deemed valid the burning of the handful without a service vessel, and said that after taking it he may take it in his hand and place it as it is on the altar for burning?

For the verse states

with regard to a meal-offering:

“It is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering.”

And the comparison of the meal-offering to the sin-offering and the guilt-offering teaches that if he

comes to perform it—

the meal-offering—

by hand,

then he

performs it with the right hand, like the sin-offering—

like the hand-service of the sin-offering, namely, placing its blood with a finger, which must be performed specifically with the right hand because the terms “priesthood” and “finger” are stated with regard to it; and the same applies to taking the handful of a meal-offering, which is a hand-service and requires the right hand. But if he

comes to perform it

—the meal-offering—

with a vessel, he performs it with the left hand, like the guilt-offering—

whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel, and which, according to Rabbi Shimon, is valid even when performed with the left hand.

It is evident from his words that taking the handful, being performed by hand, must, according to Rabbi Shimon, be done specifically with the right hand, like the placing of the blood of the sin-offering, which is performed by hand and therefore with the “right” hand, by virtue of the comparison of the meal-offering to the sin-offering. If so, according to Rabbi Shimon there is a difficulty: why did we need to derive the right hand through the gzera shava “hand–hand”?

And we answer:

It was necessary

Rava did not need to derive from “hand–hand”

anything other than that the handful of a poor person’s meal-offering

must be taken with the right hand. For

it might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon said

that, strictly speaking, a poor person’s meal-offering should require oil and frankincense, so that the sinner would not profit, and why did it not require oil and frankincense? In order

that his offering

of the sinner

not be enhanced,

therefore it might enter your mind to say:

if he took it with the left hand, it too should be valid .

The verse therefore teaches us that the handful of a sinner’s offering must be taken with the right hand, as Rava derived through the gzera shava “hand–hand.”

Mishna:

If the blood was spilled

after the slaughter, from the animal’s neck,

onto the floor,

and it was not received in a service vessel,

and they collected it

from the floor into a service vessel—

it is invalid!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to the sprinklings of the blood of the sin-offering of the anointed priest [Leviticus 4]:

“And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bull.”

And we expound: “The priest shall take”

from the blood of the life,

which is the blood that spurts first from the body of the bull, with which its life departs,

and not from the blood of the skin,

upon which the life does not depend,

and not from the blood of exudation,

which drains from the bull after its life has departed.

Likewise, the expression

“of the blood of the bull”

is read as though it were written “blood from the bull,” and we expound:

“Blood from the bull he shall receive.”

That is, the blood must be received directly from the animal’s neck into the vessel; but if the blood of the slaughter spilled from the animal’s neck onto the floor and was collected from there into the vessel, it is invalid! And it is necessary to expound the verse in this manner,

for if it enters your mind

to interpret the verse

“of the blood of the bull”

according to its plain meaning, and to expound the letter mem in the word “of the blood” as it stands,

as it is written,

“of the blood,”

and

it would be understood from this that he may receive

even part of the blood,

this cannot be the law, because

did Rav not say: The one who slaughters must receive

into the vessel

all the blood of the bull, as it is stated:

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out.”

Rather,

by necessity, we must expound

“of the blood of the bull”—

“Blood from the bull he shall receive!”

The explanation of the form of this derivation is as follows:

And the tanna held

of the beraita that

we remove

a letter from one word,

and add

it to an adjacent word,

and expound

the meaning that emerges from that word. So too in this verse, the tanna removes the letter mem from the word “of the blood” and adds it to the word “the bull,” expounding the verse as though it were written: “Blood from the bull.”

The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The one who slaughters must receive all the blood of the bull.

As it is stated: “And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out.”

And we raise an objection:

But

this verse is written with regard to

the

pouring of

the remainder,

and not with regard to receiving the blood!

And we answer:

If it does not apply

to interpret it as referring

to the

pouring of

the remainder,

since it is impossible that the Torah instructed that all the blood be poured out,

for all the blood is not present,

as some of it has already been placed on the horns of the altar,

apply it

to expounding it with regard to

receiving,

to teach that he must receive all the blood.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The one who slaughters

must, immediately upon completing the slaughter,

raise the slaughtering knife

above the blood,

upward,

so that none of the blood on the knife will fall into the basin in which the blood of the bull was received. The reason for this is

as it is stated:

“And he shall take of the blood of the bull,”

and we expound:

“Of the blood of the bull”

alone shall he take,

and not of the blood of the bull and

blood from

something else.

The blood on the knife is considered blood from “something else,” and is invalid. Therefore, one must avoid mixing it with the blood of the slaughter.

The Gemara discusses:

And the blood on the knife—

with what does he wipe it?

For it may not be received into the vessel.

Abaye said:

He wipes the blood on the knife

on the rim of the basin,

and not inside it,

as it is written

in the Book of Ezra [chapter 1], where the basins are called

“golden kippurei,”

because the blood was wiped on them; and in several places we find that “wiping” is called kipur.