Zevachim 25a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require the sanctification of the handful

in a service vessel,

and

likewise

according to the one who says [במנחות כו א]

[in Menachot 26a]

according to Rabbi Shimon as well, the sanctification of the handful is required, but at the same time he holds that even if he sanctifies it

although at the same time he holds that even if one consecrates it

with the left hand, Rabbi Shimon deems it valid,

Rabbi Shimon—if so,

“hand”—

why do I need Rava’s derivation from “hand”?

For the sanctification of the handful in a vessel is either not required, or it is valid even with the left hand?

And

if

you say that the gezera shava comes to teach

about the act of taking the handful itself,

that it is only with the right hand [for according to Rabbi Shimon, “priest,” stated with regard to taking the handful, does not teach that it is with the right hand], it still remains difficult: the act of taking the handful itself

is derived from Rav Judah son of Rabbi Hiyya.

For Rav Judah 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 one may take it in his hand after taking the handful and bring it up as it is for burning upon the altar?

For the verse says

with regard to the meal-offering: “

It is holy of holies, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering.”

And the comparison of the meal-offering to the sin-offering and the guilt-offering comes to teach you 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 the blood with the finger, which must be done specifically with the right hand because priesthood and finger are stated with regard to it; and the same law 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,

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

for the tossing of its blood is performed with a vessel, and according to Rabbi Shimon it is valid even with the left hand.

And it is demonstrated from his words that taking the handful, which is by hand, must according to Rabbi Shimon be performed specifically with the right hand, like the placing of the blood of a sin-offering, which is performed by hand, and that hand is the “right” hand, by virtue of the comparison of the meal-offering to the sin-offering. If so, according to Rabbi Shimon it is difficult: why did we need to derive the right hand by means of the gezera shava “hand”—“hand”?

And we answer:

It was not necessary

Rava did not need to expound “hand”—“hand”

except with regard to the handful of the meal-offering of a sinner,

so that its handful-taking should be with the right hand. For

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

that by strict law the meal-offering of a sinner ought to require oil and frankincense, so that the sinner should not benefit, and why did it not require oil and frankincense? So that

the offering of the sinner should not be

of the sinner

enhanced,

therefore it might enter your mind to say,

that if he took its handful with the left hand, it should also be valid ,

it teaches us that taking the handful of the sinner’s offering must be performed with the right hand, as Rava derived by means of the gezera shava “hand”—“hand.”

Mishna:

The blood was spilled,

after the slaughter, from the animal’s neck,

onto the floor,

and they did not receive it in a service vessel,

and they gathered it

from the floor into a service vessel—

it is invalid!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the sprinklings of the blood of the sin-offering of the anointed priest [Leviticus 4]: “

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

And we expound: “and the priest shall take”

from the blood of the life,

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

and not from the blood of the skin,

for the life does not depend upon it,

and not from the blood of the residue,

which drains from the bull after the life has departed.

And likewise, with regard to what is written, “

from the blood of the bull,”

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

he shall receive blood from the bull;

that is, the blood must be received directly from the animal’s neck into the vessel; but if the blood of the slaughter was spilled from the animal’s neck onto the floor, and they gathered it from there into the vessel, it is invalid! And the necessity to expound it in this manner is:

For if it enters your mind

to interpret the verse

“from the blood of the bull”

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

as it is written, “

from blood,”

and

it would follow from this that he may receive

even part of the blood;

this law is impossible, for

did Rav not say: the slaughterer must receive

into the vessel

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

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

Rather,

it is necessary to expound:

“from the blood of the bull”—

“He shall receive blood from the bull!”

And the explanation of the form of the exposition is:

And the tanna holds,

the tanna of the beraita,

we remove

a letter from one word,

and add

it to another adjacent word,

and expound

from that word what follows from it. And in this verse as well, the tanna removes the letter mem from the word “from the blood” and adds it to the word “the bull,” and expounds the text as though it were written, “blood from the bull.”

The body of the matter: Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: The slaughterer must receive all the blood of the bull.

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

And we raise an objection:

But

this verse—

with regard to

the pouring of

the remainder is written,

and not with regard to the law of receiving the blood!

And we answer:

If it is not applicable

to interpret it

with regard to

the pouring of

the remainder,

since it is impossible that the Torah said to pour all the blood,

for all the blood is not present,

which was received in the vessel, since some of it was diminished by what he placed upon the horns of the altar,

apply it

to expound it

with regard to receiving,

to teach that he must receive all the blood.

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: The slaughterer

must immediately, upon completion of the slaughter,

raise the slaughtering knife

of the slaughter

upward,

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

as it is stated, “

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

and we expound:

from the blood of the bull

alone shall he take,

and not from the blood of the bull and

blood of

another thing.

And the blood on the knife is considered the blood of “another thing,” and is invalid. Therefore one must avoid mixing it with the blood of the slaughter.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the blood of the knife—

with what does he wipe it?

For it may not be received into the vessel.

Abaye said:

he wipes the blood of the knife

on the rim of the basin,

and not inside it,

as it is written in the Book of Ezra [chapter 1],

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

golden kippurei,

because the blood is wiped with them; and in several places we find that “wiping” is called kippur.