זבחים 24 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and two laws that come as one do not illumine [other cases]. And on the view that they do illumine [other cases], one who has drunk wine is a third case, and [when] three [laws come as one] all agree that they do not illumine [other cases]. ONE STANDING ON UTENSILS OR ON AN ANIMAL OR ON HIS FELLOW'S FEET, [THE SACRIFICES] ARE INVALID. Whence do we know it? — For the school of R. Ishmael taught: Since the pavement sanctifies and the service vessels sanctify; just as with the service vessels nothing may interpose between him [the priest] and the service vessels; so with the pavement nothing must interpose between him and the pavement. Now they are all necessary. For if we were informed about vessels, I would argue that [standing on them disqualifies] because they are not flesh, but in the case of an animal, which is flesh, [standing on it does] not [disqualify]. And if we were informed about an animal, [the reason is] because it is not human, but as for his fellow, who is human, I would say [that standing on his feet does] not [disqualify]. Hence [they are all] necessary. It was taught: R. Eliezer said: If one foot is on the utensil and the other on the pavement, one foot on the stone and the other on the pavement, we consider: wherever if the stone or the utensil be removed, he can stand on the other foot, his service is valid; if not, his service is invalid. R. Ammi asked: What if a [paving] stone become loosened and he stood on it? If it is not his intention to fit it [in the pavement] there is no question, for it certainly interposes; the question arises where it is his intention to fit it in: what then? Since it is his intention to fit it in, it is as though [already] fitted; or perhaps [we say], Now at all events it is separate? Rabbah Zuti stated the question thus: R. Ammi asked: What if the stone became uprooted, and he stood in its place? What is the question? [This:] When David sanctified [it], did he sanctify the upper pavement [only], or perhaps he sanctified [it] right to the nethermost soil? Then let him ask about the whole of the Temple court? — In truth, he is certain that he sanctified it to the nethermost soil, but this is his question: Is this a natural way of service, or is it not a natural way of service? The question stands. IF [THE PRIEST] RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] IN HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS DISQUALIFIED; R. SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT. Our Rabbis taught: [And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar]: ‘with his finger he shall take’: this teaches that receiving must be done with the right hand; ‘with his finger he shall put’: this teaches that applying [the blood on the altar] must be done with the right hand. Said R. Simeon: is then ‘hand’ stated in connection with receiving? Rather, [interpret it thus:] ‘with his finger he shall put’ teaches that the application must be with the right; [and] since ‘hand’ is not stated in connection with receiving, if he received [it] with his left [hand], it is fit. Now as for R. Simeon, what will you? if he admits the gezerah shawah, what does it matter if ‘hand’ is not written in connection with receiving? While if he does not admit the gezerah shawah, what if ‘hand’ were written In connection with receiving? — Said Rab Judah: in truth, he does not admit the gezerah shawah, and this is what he means: Is then ‘right hand’ stated in connection with receiving? Since then ‘right hand’ is not stated in connection with receiving, if he received [it] with the left hand, [the service] is fit. Said Rabbah to him: If so, [the same applies] even to the application [of the blood on the altar] too? Moreover, does not R. Simeon accept the gezerah shawah? Surely it was taught. R. Simeon said: Wherever ‘hand’ is stated, it refers to the right only; [wherever] ‘finger’ [is stated], it refers to the right only? — Rather said Raba: In truth he admits the gezerah shawah, and this is what he says: is then ‘hand’ stated in connection with receiving? Since not ‘hand’ but ‘finger’ is written, and [the blood] cannot be received with the finger, therefore if he received it with the left [hand], it is fit. Said R. Sama the son of R. Ashi to Rabina: But it is possible to make a handle at the edge of the bowl and receive [the blood]? — Rather said Abaye:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:For otherwise only one should be mentioned, and by analogy the other as well as all analogous cases, would be included.
^ᵇnote:The priest, in that he may sacrifice there only, and not elsewhere. But v. next note.
^ᶜnote:The blood that is caught in them. This is the reading of cur. edd. Sh. M. offers an alternative reading, which is preferable: since the pavement is sanctified, and the service vessels are sanctified.
^ᵈnote:When he takes one for receiving the blood, nothing must be on his hands, e.g., gloves.
^ᵉnote:The enumeration of vessels, an animal, and his fellow's feet.
^ᶠnote:So that it moves about.
^ᵍnote:It is not accounted part of the pavement.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘the small.’
^ⁱnote:Entirely leaving the earth beneath it exposed.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘the soil of the deep’.
^ᵏnote:What if the pavement is removed and the priests stand on the earth beneath?
^ˡnote:To stand on the earth beneath the paving stone.
^ᵐnote:Lev. IV, 25.
^ⁿnote:‘Finger’ stands between ‘take’ and ‘put’ in the text, and so the Rabbis apply it to both; and it is stated below that ‘finger’ always means that of the right hand.
^ᵒnote:It is now assumed that R. Simeon agrees that ‘hand’ means the right, but not ‘finger’.
^ᵖnote:Whereby it is deduced that ‘hand’ in connection with sacrifices means the right. The gezerah shawah is from a leper, where both ‘hand’ and ‘finger’ are written.
^ᵠnote:‘Finger’ is however written both here and in connection with a leper; and there it is definitely the right.
^ʳnote:Since right hand is not stated there either.
^ˢnote:The receiving vessel cannot be held by a finger only. Hence ‘finger’, which denotes the right one, must refer to the applying of the blood, but not to the receiving.
^ᵗnote:In which the blood is caught.
^ᵘnote:Holding it with the finger only.

²They disagree [on the question] whether a text is to be interpreted with what precedes and with what follows it. Abaye said: The following [teaching] of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon disagrees with his father's and with the Rabbis’. For it was taught, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Wherever ‘finger’ Is stated in connection with receiving, if [the priest] varied the reception [of the blood], it is unfit; if the application, it is fit. And wherever ‘finger’ is stated in connection with the application, if he varied the application, it is unfit; if the reception, it is fit. And where is ‘finger’ stated in connection with the application? — For it is written, And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger; and he holds: A text is interpreted with its precedent, but not with its ante-precedent, nor with what follows it. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: Wherever ‘finger’ and ‘priesthood’ are stated. they refer to the right only. It was assumed that we require both, as it is written. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger; and it is learnt from a leper, where it is written, And the priest shall dip his right finger. But surely ‘priesthood’ alone is written in connection with the taking of the fistful [of flour] yet we learnt: If [the priest] took the handful with his left [hand], is it unfit? — Said Raba: [He meant] either ‘finger’ or ‘priesthood’. Said Abaye to him: Yet ‘priesthood’ is written in connection with the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, as it is written, And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke on the altar, and a master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent; yet we learnt: [The priest carries] the right foot [of the sacrifice] in his left hand with the inside of the skin outward? — When do we say [that] either ‘finger’ or priesthood’ [implies the right], only in respect of [a service] which is indispensable to atonement, as in the case of a leper. But priesthood is written in connection with receiving, which is indispensable to atonement, yet we learnt: IF HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS UNFIT; BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT? — R. Simeon requires both. Does then R. Simeon require both? Surely it was taught. R. Simeon said: Wherever ‘hand’ is stated, it refers to the right only; [wherever] ‘finger’ [is stated], it refers to the right only? — [Where] ‘finger’ [is stated] he does not require ‘priesthood’, [but] where ‘priesthood’ [is stated], he does require ‘finger’. Then what is the purpose of ‘priesthood’? [To teach that they must be] in their priestly state. But ‘priesthood’ alone is written in connection with sprinkling, yet we learnt: IF HE SPRINKLED WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS UNFIT, and R. Simeon does not disagree? — Said Abaye: He does disagree in a Baraitha, for it was taught: If [the priest] received with his left hand, it is unfit; but R. Simeon declares it fit. If he sprinkled with his left hand, it is unfit; but R. Simeon declares it fit. Then as to what Raba said.[We draw an analogy of] hand’ ‘hand’ in respect of taking the fistful; ‘foot’, ‘foot’, in respect of halizah; ear’ ‘ear’ in respect of boring [the ear]. — Why is this necessary [in respect of the fistful], seeing that it can be deduced from Rabbah b. Bar Hanah's [exegesis]? — One [is required] for the taking of the fistful, and the other for the sanctification of the fistful.14^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵛnote:Simultaneously. R. Simeon holds that a text can be interpreted only with what follows; hence ‘finger’ refers to ‘and he shall put’, but not to ‘and he shall take’, which precedes. While the Rabbis hold that it goes with both.
^ʷnote:As in the present case. He holds that ‘finger’ here refers to the preceding ‘and he shall take’, as its literal meaning does imply.
^ˣnote:Receiving it with the left hand.
^ʸnote:Ex. XXIX, 12.
^ᶻnote:Sh. M. reads: in the name of Resh Lakish.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. IV, 25.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. XIV, 16.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ibid. I, 13.
^ᵃᵈnote:Whereas even if the limbs are not burnt at all, the efficacy of the sacrifice is unaffected.
^ᵃᵉnote:‘Finger’ and ‘priesthood’.
^ᵃᶠnote:In connection with receiving, seeing that it is already written that this must be done by the sons of Aaron.
^ᵃᵍnote:In their priestly vestments.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Men. 9b and 10a. Raba refers to Lev. XIV, 14, which deals with a leper's purification: And the priest shall take of the blood of the guilt-offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. Raba teaches that the ‘right’ is mentioned in these cases in order to teach that when ‘hand’, ‘foot’ and ‘ear’ are written in connection with the taking of the fistful, the ceremony of halizah (q.v. Glos; v. also Deut. XXV, 9) and the boring of the ear of a slave who refuses to accept his freedom (v. Ex XXI, 5f) respectively, the right is meant in each case.
^ᵃⁱnote:The fistful was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel. We now learn that while this is done the vessel must be held in the right hand.