Menachot

One serves to permit [the application of the oil] upon the sides;1 and the other to forbid it on the sides of the side.2 And for what purpose are stated, Upon the blood of the guilt-offering, and, Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering?3 — 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;4 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?5 — Raba therefore said,6 The term ‘hand’ [is required for purposes of analogy] with ‘hand’ in respect of the taking out of the handful,7 the term ‘leg’ with ‘leg’ in respect of halizah,8 the term ‘ear’ with ‘ear’ in respect of ‘boring of the ear’.9 Wherefore is ‘the left’ stated?10 — 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.11 And wherefore is ‘the left’ stated again?12 — 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.13 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,14 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.15 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].16 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,17 and a Master said, This refers to the bringing of the limbs to the [altar] ascent,18 and yet we have learnt:19 The right [hind-]leg was carried in the left hand with the part covered with the skin outermost!20 — 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].21 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:22 If [the priest] received the blood in his left hand, It is invalid; but R. Simeon declares it valid!23 — You raised this [difficulty] according to R. Simeon's view, did you not? But R. Simeon requires both terms.24 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’,25 but the term ‘priest’ requires with it the term ‘finger’.25 Why then is the term ‘priest’ stated at all?26 [That he shall be clad] in the priestly robes. the expressions; why in the second verse is ‘the place of’ added? Scripture had omitted the word in each case we should still have known that the right hand and right leg were intended, either because the application of the blood was upon these limbs and the oil was to be applied upon the blood, or because of the original opinion expressed by R. Zera that ‘hand’ generally means the right hand. V. Tosaf. s.v. rnt. left hand’ being stated four times, whereby the rule was established that ‘hand’ generally means the right hand and therefore the taking of the handful must be performed with the right hand, but proceeds to interpret anew all the expressions employed in this passage dealing with the purificatory rites of the leper. the taking of the handful from the meal-offering (ibid IX, 17): as in the former case the right hand is meant for it is expressly stated so, so in the latter case, too, the right hand is meant. the ceremony of halizah (the drawing off of the shoe, v. Deut. XXV, 5-10): as here the right leg is meant, so there too the right leg is meant. boring of the ear of an Israelite slave who desired to continue in servitude (v. Ex. XXI, 5, 6): as here the right ear is meant, so there too the right ear is meant. in his left hand. In the preceding verse (15) ‘the left hand’ is admittedly required for its own purpose, that the priest shall pour the oil into his left hand. connection with the rites of the poor leper. so wherever these two expressions are found they imply the use of the right hand. performed with the right hand or with the right finger. performed with the left hand! slaughtered close to the altar ascent so that there was no need for bringing the limbs to the altar, the atonement would not be impaired. "priest" is stated, as it is written, And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood (Lev. I, 5), which refers to the receiving of the blood’. These lines are not found in any of the MSS. and apparently they were not in the text that was before Rashi. They are also omitted by Sh. Mek. question and the answer which follows are omitted in all MSS.