Parallel
מנחות 10
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
One serves to permit [the application of the oil] upon the sides; and the other to forbid it on the sides of the side. And for what purpose are stated, Upon the blood of the guilt-offering, and, Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering? — They are both necessary; for had the Divine Law only stated, upon the blood of the guilt-offering, I should have said that only if [the blood] was still there it is [valid], but if it had been wiped off it is not [valid]; the Divine Law therefore stated, ‘Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering’. And had the Divine Law only stated, ‘Upon the place etc.’, I should have said that it [the blood] must first be wiped off, but if it was still there it would be regarded as an interposition; the Divine Law therefore stated, ‘Upon the blood of the guilt-offering’. Raba said, Since there have been stated [with regard to the application of the oil] the expressions ‘Upon the blood of the guilt-offering’ and ‘Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering’, and moreover since with regard to the application of the blood the term ‘right’ is used, for what purpose then does the verse state, concerning the application of the oil upon the leper. ‘Upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right leg’, both in the case of the rich man and of the poor man? — Raba therefore said, The term ‘hand’ [is required for purposes of analogy] with ‘hand’ in respect of the taking out of the handful, the term ‘leg’ with ‘leg’ in respect of halizah, the term ‘ear’ with ‘ear’ in respect of ‘boring of the ear’. Wherefore is ‘the left’ stated? — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi answered, In order to rule out the use of the priest's right hand in the case of the leper; lest you argue as follows: if in the case where the left hand is not allowed the right hand nevertheless is, in the case where the left hand is allowed surely the right hand is allowed too. And wherefore is ‘the left’ stated again? — For the reason taught at the school of R. Ishmael: Any Biblical passage that was stated once, and then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of some new point contained therein. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, Wherever the words ‘priest’ and ‘finger’ are stated [in connection with a service of the Temple] they signify the right [hand] only. Now it was assumed that both these terms ‘priest’ and ‘finger’ were necessary [to signify this], as in the verse, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and [there the finger of the right hand is meant for] it is inferred from the case of the leper where it is written, And the priest shall dip his right finger. But there is the case of the taking of the handful, with regard to which only the word ‘priest’ is written, and yet we have learnt: IF [THE PRIEST] TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND IT IS INVALID! — Raba answered, It is either the word ‘priest’ or the word ‘finger’ [that is meant]. Thereupon Abaye said to him, Take the case of the bringing of the limbs [of the sacrifice] to the [altar] ascent, with regard to which the word ‘priest’ is written, as it is said, And the priest shall present the whole and burn it upon the altar, and a Master said, This refers to the bringing of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, and yet we have learnt: The right [hind-]leg was carried in the left hand with the part covered with the skin outermost! — The rule [that the word] ‘priest’ or ‘finger’ [implies the right hand] we apply only to such services as would invalidate the atonement [by their omission]. Then take the case of receiving [of the blood in a vessel]; it is surely a service that would invalidate the atonement [by its omission], and yet we have learnt: If [the priest] received the blood in his left hand, It is invalid; but R. Simeon declares it valid! — You raised this [difficulty] according to R. Simeon's view, did you not? But R. Simeon requires both terms. Does then R. Simeon require both terms? Surely it has been taught: R. Simeon says. Wherever the term ‘hand’ is stated it signifies the right hand only, likewise the term ‘finger’ signifies the right finger only! — The term ‘finger’ does not require with it the term ‘priest’, but the term ‘priest’ requires with it the term ‘finger’. Why then is the term ‘priest’ stated at all? [That he shall be clad] in the priestly robes.
—
Consider the case of the sprinkling [of the blood], with regard to which only the term ‘priest’ is used, yet we have learnt: If [the priest] sprinkled the blood with his left hand it is invalid; and R. Simeon does not differ! — Abaye answered, He does indeed differ in the Baraitha, for it was taught: If he received the blood in his left hand it is invalid, but R. Simeon declares it valid. If he sprinkled the blood with his left hand it is invalid, but R. Simeon declares it valid. But then Raba's statement that the term ‘hand’ [is required for the purposes of analogy] with ‘hand’ in respect of the taking out of the handful, is quite unnecessary, for it would have been inferred from the expression ‘priest’! — One [teaching] is required for the taking out of the handful and the other for the hallowing of the handful. But according to R. Simeon who holds [according to one view] that the hallowing of the handful is not essential, and even according to the other view that the hallowing of the handful is indeed essential but that it is valid if performed with the left hand, is not Raba's analogy by means of the common word ‘hand’ necessary? It cannot serve to indicate that the actual taking out of the handful [shall be performed with the right hand], as this is already established by the teaching of R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya. For R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said, What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? Because the verse says, It is most holy as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering; that is to say, if [the priest] comes to perform the service with his hand he must do so with his right hand as the sin-offering, and if he comes to perform it in a vessel he must do so with his left hand as the guilt-offering! — It is only necessary with regard to the handful of the sinner's meal-offering; for I might have said that, since R. Simeon has expressed the view that his [the sinner's] offering shall not be sumptuous, then even if the handful were taken out with the left hand it should be valid, we are therefore taught [by Raba's analogy that it must nevertheless be performed with the right hand]. IF ON TAKING THE HANDFUL THERE CAME INTO HIS HAND A SMALL STONE OR A GRAIN OF SALT
—