We begin today's discussion on the second page of the eighth chapter of Zevachim, starting four lines from the bottom. Yesterday, we learned a principle in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: anytime the Torah uses the word "Yad" (hand) in the context of a sacred service, that service must be performed with the right hand. This principle is derived from the purification of a leper, the metzorah, where the word "Yimani" (right) appears three times. Rabbi Yochanan interprets each instance to teach a distinct halacha.
The three halachot derived are as follows: First, "Yad, Yad L'kemitzah" – just as the metzorah's purification involves the right hand, so too must the kemitzah (taking a handful of flour from the meal offering) be performed by the priest with his right hand. This is a gezera shava (a textual analogy) from metzorah to kemitzah. Second, "Regel, Regel L'chalitzah" – just as the metzorah's purification mentions the right foot, so too in chalitzah (the ceremony where a widow removes her brother-in-law's shoe), she must remove the shoe from his right foot. Third, "Ozen, Ozen L'ritziah" – just as the metzorah's purification mentions the right ear, so too when piercing the ear of an indentured servant who wishes to remain with his master after six years, it must be his right ear that is pierced. Thus, these three actions – kemitzah, chalitzah, and ritziah – are all performed with the right side.
The Gemara questions the need for these gezera shava derivations for kemitzah. We already learned from Rabbi Yochanan on yesterday's page that any time the Torah mentions "Etzba" (finger) and "Kehuna" (priesthood) together, it implies the right hand. Since the Torah mentions "Kehuna" and "Etzba" in relation to kemitzah, the right hand requirement is already established. Why, then, the superfluous gezera shava?
The Gemara answers that the extra derivation is needed for two distinct actions related to the meal offering. One derivation teaches that the kemitzah itself, the act of taking the handful, must be done with the right hand. The other derivation teaches about the "Kiddush Komets" – the sanctification of the handful. After taking the handful, the priest must place it into a special holy vessel (keli sharet). This act of placing the handful into the vessel must also be performed with the right hand. So, there are two distinct requirements: taking the handful with the right hand, and then placing it into the keli sharet with the right hand.
The act of placing the handful into the keli sharet is comparable to the "Kabbalat HaDam" (receiving the blood) in other offerings, which is a crucial part of the service. We are told this because Rabbi Shimon holds a different view. He believes that one does not need to place the handful into a keli sharet at all; it can go directly from the priest's hand to the altar. If so, what does Rabbi Shimon do with the extra derivation for "Kiddush Komets"? Even if he were to agree that a keli sharet is needed, he might say it can be done with the left hand, as some opinions allow. In either case, according to Rabbi Shimon, the derivation for "Kiddush Komets" seems superfluous.
The Gemara asks: "Yad, Yad D'rabbah Lamma Li?" Why does Rabbi Shimon need the gezera shava of "Yad, Yad" if he doesn't require the handful to be placed into a keli sharet, or if he permits it to be done with the left hand? What does the Torah come to teach him?
The Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon's reasoning: The handful, once taken, has a holy status. How do we compare it to other offerings? If one chooses to place the handful directly onto the altar with their hands, without using a keli sharet, then it is treated like a sin offering (chatat). The blood of a chatat is sprinkled on the corners of the altar with the right hand. Therefore, if the handful is brought by hand, it must be with the right hand, just like a chatat. However, if one chooses to place the handful into a keli sharet and then from the vessel to the altar, it is treated like a guilt offering (asham). The law for an asham is that it is permissible to perform its service with either hand. So, according to Rabbi Shimon, the choice of method determines whether the right hand is mandatory. If one uses a keli sharet, the right hand is not required for placing it on the altar.
This implies that according to Rabbi Shimon, the act of placing the handful on the altar is comparable to the sprinkling of blood (zerikat hadam). If performed by hand, it must be with the right hand, as it is one of the essential services. Therefore, the kemitzah itself, also a service performed by hand, should similarly be done with the right hand. This means that Rabbi Shimon already knows from a different source that kemitzah must be done with the right hand, and he doesn't require a keli sharet for the handful. So, the question remains: what does the gezera shava of "Yad, Yad" teach him?
The Gemara answers that the derivation of "Yad, Yad" comes to teach a specific case: the meal offering of a sinner (Minchat Choteh). This offering is intentionally not made beautiful or elaborate. For example, unlike other meal offerings, it does not include frankincense (levonah) or oil. One might think that just as its ingredients are diminished to reflect its nature, so too should it be brought with the left hand to further diminish its status. The Torah, through the "Yad, Yad" derivation, teaches us that even a Minchat Choteh must be performed with the right hand. This derivation is specifically for the Minchat Choteh, ensuring it is always brought with the right hand, despite its diminished status.
We now turn to a new topic. If an animal is slaughtered and its blood spills onto the floor before being collected, it is disqualified. Why? The Torah states, "Midam HaPar" – "from the blood of the bull." This implies that the blood must come from the living animal itself, the "blood of life" (dam ha'nefesh), which is the circulatory blood that sustains the animal. This is the blood that gushes out when the main pipes are cut during slaughter. It is not the blood from merely cutting the skin (dam ha'or) or the blood that trickles out afterward (dam tamtzit). The primary blood for the altar must be the "blood of life" that flows directly from the animal when the tubes are cut.
The phrase "Midam HaPar" literally means "from the blood of the bull," which could imply that not all the blood needs to be collected. However, the Sages interpret this by re-reading the phrase. They take the letter "Mem" from "Midam" and attach it to "HaPar," creating "Dam Me'HaPar" – "blood from the bull." This emphasizes that the blood must come directly from the bull, not from the floor. This method of "subtracting a letter and adding a letter" (gor'in u'mosifin u'dorshin) is a recognized exegetical tool when a literal reading doesn't make sense or is insufficient.
The Gemara then asks about the phrase "Kol Damo Shel Par Yishpoch" (all the blood of the bull he shall pour). This verse refers to the leftover blood in the vessel after the sprinkling, which is poured onto the base of the altar. How can this verse be used to teach about collecting the initial blood from the neck of the animal? The Gemara clarifies that if this verse were only about leftover blood, it would be superfluous, as the law of pouring leftover blood is already known. Therefore, it must be teaching about the initial collection of blood, emphasizing that all the "blood of life" must be collected.
Rava states that after slaughtering, the priest must lift the knife. If the knife remains down, blood from it might drip into the collecting vessel, mixing with the blood from the animal. The Torah states "Midam HaPar" – "from the blood of the bull," not "from the bull and something else" (velo midam ha'par v'davar acher). This means the blood must come directly from the animal, not from the knife. To prevent this, the knife is lifted. To clean the knife before the next slaughter, it is not proper to simply wipe it with a towel, as the blood is holy. Instead, one should rub the knife against the back or outside of a keli sharet (a holy vessel) that was used to receive blood. This is considered a respectful way to clean it. We learn this from the verse "Ki Pori Zahav," where "Pori" is interpreted as "Mechaperim" (to clean).
Another point discussed concerns the collection of blood. When slaughtering, the priest must not only cut the trachea and esophagus but also ensure that the blood vessels (viridim) connected to them are positioned directly over the opening of the collecting vessel (keli). Why? Because blood also flows through these vessels, and it must be collected directly into the vessel. If the vessels are not directly over the opening, the blood might trickle down or splatter into the air before entering the vessel, which is not considered a direct collection. The blood must go straight into the vessel, ensuring it enters the "airspace of the vessel" (avir ha'keli) directly from the animal.
This leads to a fundamental question: If blood enters the airspace of a vessel, but the bottom of the vessel breaks before the blood actually settles, is it still considered as if the blood was received by the vessel? This is the query of Rabbi Yirmiyah: "Avir she'ein sofo lanuach k'munach damei, o lo k'munach damei?" Is airspace that is not destined to settle in the vessel considered as if it has settled, or not? The practical difference (nafka mina) is whether this blood, if it then falls to the ground, can be collected and used. If the airspace is considered like the vessel itself, then even if the blood falls to the ground, it was already "received" by the vessel. If not, it is disqualified.
This question is similar to a case involving the waters of the purification offering (mei chatat). To prepare these waters, one must fill a vessel from a natural spring (ma'ayan or bor). If a pipe (tzinur) is used to direct water from a spring on a mountain into a pit (habit) on the ground, is this water kosher for mei chatat? The issue is whether the water, by going through the pipe and then falling through the air into the pit, is considered to have entered a vessel with the proper intention. If the pit was not specifically designated for mei chatat, any water directly entering it is disqualified. However, if the water is caught in the airspace above the pit before it settles, and the airspace is considered like the vessel, then it would be disqualified. But if the airspace is not considered like the vessel, then catching it while still in the air might be permissible.
A Baraisa (an external teaching) addresses this: If a pit is placed under a spring, the water that enters the pit is disqualified because the pit was not designated for mei chatat. Even the water in the airspace above the pit is disqualified, as it is destined to land in the pit. However, if one lifts a barrel and places it directly against the pipe, so the water flows straight from the pipe into the barrel, the water inside the barrel is still disqualified if the barrel was not designated for mei chatat. But the water still inside the pipe, which has not yet entered the barrel's airspace, is kosher. This implies that airspace destined to settle in a non-designated vessel is considered like the vessel itself.
The Gemara clarifies that Rabbi Yirmiyah's question was specifically about airspace "she'ein sofo lanuach" – airspace where the blood is not destined to settle in the vessel because its bottom broke. Airspace "she'sofo lanuach bikli" – airspace where the blood is destined to settle in a complete vessel – is indeed considered like the vessel itself. Therefore, if blood is in the airspace above a complete vessel, and then a strong wind blows it to the floor, it is still considered to have been received by the vessel, and can be collected. This is a crucial principle: if blood is in the airspace of a vessel that has a bottom and is destined to receive it, it is considered as if it is already in the vessel.
A different version of the story is presented: The question about "Avir she'ein sofo lanuach" was not about blood offerings but about the waters of mei chatat, and the answer was also from the context of mei chatat. A third version states that Rav asked the question about the waters of mei chatat, and the answer came from the practice of collecting blood from an animal. When collecting blood, it's impossible for it to always fall directly into the vessel without any splashing or horizontal movement. The blood often squirts horizontally into the airspace and then lands in the vessel. Yet, this is considered kosher. This demonstrates that the "airspace of the vessel" (avir ha'keli) is considered like the vessel itself, even if the flow is not perfectly vertical. This answers the initial question about the viridim as well: as long as the viridim are over the airspace of the vessel, the blood is considered to be received directly into the vessel, even if it splatters slightly.
The discussion then pivots to another aspect of mei chatat. When directing the water from a spring into a pit, one cannot use items that can contract ritual impurity (mekabel tumah), such as human hands, feet, or edible items like vegetables or fruits. However, items that do not contract impurity, such as reeds or walnut branches, can be used to direct the water. Rabbi Yochanan explains that this is because the water must enter the vessel "through something that receives" (davar hamakabel) and not through something that can contract impurity. If a person uses their hand to direct the water, even if the water then travels through the air before entering the pit, it is disqualified. Why? Because if the airspace is considered like the vessel, then the moment the water is over the airspace, it is considered to be in the vessel. Since the hand is over the airspace, it is as if the hand is putting the water into the vessel, which is forbidden if the hand is mekabel tumah. If, however, the airspace were not considered like the vessel, then the hand would merely be directing the water, and it would only enter the vessel directly from the air, which should be permissible.
The Mishnah supports this by stating that water should not pass through a person's hands and then into the pit, implying that even if there is airspace between the hand and the pit, the hand disqualifies the water. This confirms that the airspace above the vessel is considered like the vessel itself. We also learn that if one directs the water with something that does not contract impurity, it is kosher. The Baraisa cites Rabbi Tzadok's testimony regarding a flowing spring whose waters were directed using walnut branches, which are not mekabel tumah. This case was brought before the Sanhedrin and was approved. This further solidifies the principle that one can direct the waters of mei chatat into a pit using an item that does not contract impurity, provided it is not itself a place of impurity. Blessed is the Lord forever. Amen.