Zevachim

and two laws that come as one do not illumine [other cases].1 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 sanctifies2 and the service vessels sanctify;3 just as with the service vessels nothing may interpose between him [the priest] and the service vessels;4 so with the pavement nothing must interpose between him and the pavement. Now they are all necessary.5 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?6 If it is not his intention to fit it [in the pavement] there is no question, for it certainly interposes;7 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 Zuti8 stated the question thus: R. Ammi asked: What if the stone became uprooted,9 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?10 Then let him ask about the whole of the Temple court?11 — 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,12 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]:13 ‘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.14 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.15 Now as for R. Simeon, what will you? if he admits the gezerah shawah,16 what does it matter if ‘hand’ is not written in connection with receiving?17 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?18 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,19 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 bowl20 and receive [the blood]?21 — Rather said Abaye: included. preferable: since the pavement is sanctified, and the service vessels are sanctified. ‘finger’ always means that of the right hand. leper, where both ‘hand’ and ‘finger’ are written. applying of the blood, but not to the receiving.