The Eddie B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud.
The wealthy person brings an animal. The poor person cannot afford an animal, so he brings birds. The Torah therefore repeats the entire procedure. What does it mean that it repeats everything? There is a complete procedure: the blood is placed on the relevant points, and then the oil is placed on those same points. The Torah repeats the entire procedure twice, once for the wealthy person and once for the poor person.
The Gemara now discusses the different interpretations of the verses. When do we place the blood? On the person’s right thumb, right big toe, and right earlobe. The verse asks why it is necessary to say that the oil is placed on the right side. After all, the blood has already been placed on the right hand and the right foot, and the oil is placed where the blood was. If I already know where the blood is placed, I automatically know where the oil is placed. Why, then, does the Torah have to mention the right side again with regard to the oil?
That is the question. Regarding the blood, the Torah already tells me that it is placed on the right hand and the right foot. When the Torah then says, with regard to the oil, that it is placed where the blood was, I already know that it is placed on the right. So what is the additional verse teaching?
One verse teaches that the oil is placed not only on the precise point at the top of the thumb or toe, where the nail is, but also on the side. What does the second verse teach? It teaches that the oil may also be placed on the lower part—the underside of the thumb or the underside of the foot. Thus, the two verses teach that it may be placed on the top, on the sides, and on the underside.
Look at Rashi. When the verse says that it is placed on the right hand, it refers to the front of the hand, the area near the nail. The other verse teaches that it may be placed on the lower part, near the palm. In this way, the two verses account for the two interpretations.
Next, consider the blood of the guilt offering. Regarding the wealthy person, the verse says that the oil is placed where the blood of the guilt offering is. Regarding the poor person, the verse says the same thing. One verse says “on the blood of the guilt offering,” and the other says “at the place of the blood of the guilt offering.” Since the law is already stated for one person, why does the Torah repeat it for the other?
Perhaps the repetition is necessary to teach that the oil is placed there even if the blood has been wiped away. If the verse had merely said “on the blood of the guilt offering,” I might have thought that the oil is placed there only when the blood is still present. The phrase “at the place of the blood of the guilt offering” teaches that the oil is placed at the spot where the blood had been, even if the blood is no longer there.
Alternatively, I might have thought that the oil must be placed specifically on the blood, and that the blood would constitute an intervening substance if the oil were placed elsewhere. The additional wording teaches that this is not so. If the blood is still there, it does not invalidate the placement of the oil as an intervening substance; and if the blood has been removed, the oil is still placed at the location where the blood had been.
Thus, each of the verses is needed. One teaches that the oil is placed there even if the blood was wiped away, and the other teaches that if the blood remains, it does not constitute an intervening substance. The oil is placed at the location of the blood of the guilt offering.
We continue. The Torah says, regarding the oil, both “on the blood of the guilt offering” and “at the place of the blood of the guilt offering.” One verse refers to the wealthy person and one to the poor person. Regarding the wealthy person, the Torah also says that it is placed on the right. Why is that necessary? The word “on” has already taught that it is placed on top, rather than underneath. Why must the Torah also tell me that it is on the right?
The answer is that I do not need a separate verse to teach the right side. The blood has already been placed on the person’s right hand, right foot, and right earlobe. The oil is placed where the blood was, so I already know that it is on the right. This additional wording must therefore be used for another interpretation.
All of this began with the question we discussed on yesterday’s page: How do we know that taking the handful from the offering with the left hand is invalid? The discussion began with the person with tzara’at. The Torah uses the word “left” four times—twice regarding the wealthy person and twice regarding the poor person. From this repetition, the Gemara derived that the left hand is invalid for taking the handful, but it was not clear what to do with the corresponding repetitions regarding the right side.
Once we began deriving laws from the four occurrences of “left” in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at, we encountered a difficulty. What are we to do with the repeated references to the right side regarding the oil? The right side is seemingly extra. Therefore, Rava proposes that we begin again and derive the invalidity of the left hand differently.
If we treat the verses concerning the poor person as additional verses in the same way that we treat the verses concerning the wealthy person, we run into problems. We can account for the four occurrences of “left,” but then we also have four occurrences of “right,” and we do not know how to account for them. Moreover, the verses concerning the poor person cannot simply be counted as independent repetitions, because the Torah repeats that entire passage in order to teach the special law that a poor person may bring birds instead of an animal.
Therefore, Rava says that the left hand is invalid based on the word “right” in the passage concerning the wealthy person. The Torah says “right hand” there. I do not need those words merely to teach that the oil is placed on the right, because I already know that from the fact that it is placed where the blood was, and the blood was placed on the right.
The words “right hand” can therefore be used for a verbal analogy. The verse says “hand” in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at, and it says “hand” in the passage concerning taking the handful. Just as the hand mentioned in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at is the right hand, so too the taking of the handful must be performed with the right hand.
The same applies to the right foot. I do not need the words “right foot” merely to tell me where to place the oil, because I already know that the blood was placed on the right foot and the oil is placed where the blood was. The reference to the right foot is therefore available for another verbal analogy. Just as the foot in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at is the right foot, so too the shoe-removal ceremony is performed using the right foot.
Similarly, the reference to the right earlobe is not needed merely to tell me where the oil is placed, because the oil is placed where the blood was. It teaches another law: just as the earlobe in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at is the right earlobe, so too, when the ear of a slave who wishes to remain with his master is pierced, it is the right ear that is pierced.
Thus, Rava accounts for the additional references to the right hand, right foot, and right earlobe by means of verbal analogies. The right hand teaches the right hand for taking the handful; the right foot teaches the right foot for the shoe-removal ceremony; and the right earlobe teaches the right ear for a slave whose ear is pierced.
The Gemara then asks: What do we do with the word “left” in the passage concerning the wealthy person? The procedure uses the left hand to hold the oil. The priest dips his right finger into the oil held in the other priest’s left hand, and then places the oil on the person. We already have a verse teaching that the oil is held in the left hand. What is the additional occurrence of “left” teaching?
According to the earlier interpretation, all four occurrences of “left”—two concerning the wealthy person and two concerning the poor person—were used to teach the invalidity of the left hand. According to Rava, however, the two references concerning the poor person are not counted as additional verses, because the entire passage is repeated to teach the special law that the poor person brings birds. What, then, do we do with the two occurrences concerning the wealthy person?
One of them teaches that the right hand is required for taking the handful. I might have thought that the left hand is invalid, but that the right hand is certainly valid without any special verse. The Torah therefore repeats the reference to the right hand to teach that the taking of the handful must be performed with the right hand.
What does the second occurrence of “left” teach? It teaches that the left hand is specifically the hand used to hold the oil. I might have reasoned as follows: If, in other procedures, the left hand is invalid, then certainly the right hand should be acceptable here. The Torah therefore states explicitly that the oil is held in the left hand.
Let us review the entire discussion. It began on yesterday’s page with the search for the source that taking the handful with the left hand is invalid. The word “left” appears four times in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at: twice regarding the wealthy person and twice regarding the poor person. There are four occurrences because the Torah discusses two separate placements, the blood and the oil, and repeats both procedures for the wealthy person and for the poor person.
From those four occurrences, the earlier interpretation derived that taking the handful with the left hand is invalid. However, once we begin counting each occurrence independently, we encounter a problem. The Torah also mentions the right side four times, and we have no corresponding way to account for all those references.
Rava therefore rejects that method and begins again. He says that the references concerning the poor person are not counted as separate repetitions, because the Torah repeats the passage in order to teach the special law that the poor person brings birds. The repetition is necessary for that new law, but it does not create two additional independent derivations.
We are therefore left with the verses concerning the wealthy person. The blood is placed on the right finger, right toe, and right earlobe. Nothing in those verses is extra; those are the actual laws of the procedure. The Torah then says that the oil is placed where the blood was, which already tells me that it is on the right. The additional mention of the right hand, right foot, and right earlobe can therefore be used for verbal analogies.
The additional reference to the right hand teaches that taking the handful is done with the right hand. The additional reference to the right foot teaches that the shoe-removal ceremony is performed with the right foot. The additional reference to the right earlobe teaches that the ear of the slave who wishes to remain with his master is pierced on the right.
We still have two references to the left regarding the wealthy person. One teaches that the left hand is invalid for taking the handful. The other teaches that the oil is held in the left hand. Why is that necessary? Because I might have thought that since the left hand is invalid in one context, the right hand should certainly be acceptable in this context. The Torah therefore specifically says that the oil is held in the left hand.
Now we come to a new interpretation. In the Temple, procedures generally involve the right hand. How do we know this? The rule is that whenever the Torah uses the word “priest” together with the word “finger,” the right hand is required and the use of the left hand is invalid.
This is stated regarding the sin offering, where the Torah uses both the word “priest” and the word “finger.” Regarding the person with tzara’at, the Torah also uses the words “priest” and “finger,” and it explicitly adds the word “right.” At first, one might think that both words—“priest” and “finger”—are needed in order to teach that the right hand is required.
However, the passage concerning the person with tzara’at already says “right.” The passage concerning the sin offering says only “priest” and “finger”; it does not specify which finger. We can therefore say that the word “priest” alone teaches that the procedure is performed with the right hand. The word “finger” is not needed for that purpose.
Consider the procedure of carrying the limbs of an offering to the ramp. After slaughtering an elevation offering, the priest carries the limbs to the ramp so that they can be taken up. The verse says that the priest carries them. Since it says “priest,” the rule would seem to be that the right hand is required.
But the verse also describes carrying the right leg of the animal in the left hand. The skin is held on the outside, while the cut portion, where the flesh is exposed, is held toward the inside. The incision is not displayed on the outside. Thus, the verse says “priest,” which would seem to imply the right hand, but it also says that the left hand is used.
The answer is that carrying the limbs to the ramp is not an essential component of the offering. If the animal were slaughtered immediately next to the ramp, there would be no need to carry the limbs there. Since the carrying is not an indispensable part of the service, it does not establish a contradiction to the general rule that an essential priestly service performed by a priest is performed with the right hand.
The question is not resolved by saying that Rabbi Shimon considers the procedure valid. What does it mean that Rabbi Shimon considers it valid? The discussion had just established that receiving the blood is an essential component of the service. Yet Rabbi Shimon says that it is valid even when performed with the left hand.
Rabbi Shimon maintains that the word “priest” alone does not establish that the right hand is required. According to him, the Torah must say both “priest” and “finger” in order to require the right hand. Therefore, only procedures described with both words require the right hand; a procedure described with the word “priest” alone does not necessarily require it.
But Rabbi Shimon also says that whenever the Torah says “finger,” the reference is to the right hand. The word “finger” itself teaches the right side. If so, why is the word “priest” needed in passages that contain both words?
The answer is that when both words appear, the Torah teaches two matters. The word “finger” teaches that the right hand is required, while the word “priest” teaches that the person performing the service must be wearing the priestly garments. In a passage that says only “priest,” the word “priest” does not establish that the right hand is required; it teaches the requirement of priestly status and garments.
This explains why Rabbi Shimon does not argue in the first source when the left hand is declared invalid, but does argue in the other source. In the first source, the verse contains both “priest” and “finger,” so the right hand is required. In the other source, the verse says only “priest,” so Rabbi Shimon maintains that the left hand is valid.
According to the Sages, however, whenever the verse contains either the word “priest” or the word “finger” in the relevant context, the service must be performed with the right hand. From this, the Sages derive that taking the handful is performed with the right hand.
The Gemara then asks why a verbal analogy concerning the hand is necessary. The verse regarding taking the handful says that the priest takes the handful. If the rule is that whenever the Torah says “priest” the right hand is required, then the right hand is already established by the verse concerning taking the handful. Why do we need an additional verbal analogy between the hand mentioned here and the hand mentioned in the passage concerning the person with tzara’at?
The answer is that there are two separate matters. One derivation teaches that the actual taking of the handful must be performed with the right hand. The other teaches that placing the handful into the sacred vessel must also be done with the right hand. The first concerns the handful itself; the second concerns the sanctification of the handful when it is placed into the vessel.
According to Rabbi Shimon, there is a position that does not require placing the handful into a sacred vessel at all. The handful may be taken from the flour and placed directly on the altar. Once the priest has taken the handful, he places it directly on the altar. According to that view, there is no separate requirement of sanctifying the handful in a vessel, so why would two derivations be necessary?
Even according to the view that the handful must be placed into a sacred vessel, Rabbi Shimon maintains that it may be done with the left hand. Therefore, the additional verbal analogy seems unnecessary. If Rabbi Shimon says that the handful itself must be taken with the right hand, but that placing it into the vessel may be done with the left hand—or that the handful may be placed directly on the altar—what is the additional derivation teaching?
The Gemara answers that the additional derivation is needed for another case: the meal offering of a sinner. A person who commits one of the sins for which the Torah requires a sacrifice must bring a meal offering in certain circumstances. If he cannot afford the regular offering, he brings a meal offering instead.
I might have thought that the handful of a sinner’s meal offering may be taken with the left hand. Since the offering is not intended to be a beautiful or distinguished offering, perhaps the Torah does not require the same ideal procedure. One might say that the sinner is bringing an inferior offering in any event, so performing the taking of the handful with the left hand should be acceptable.
The additional reference to the hand teaches that this is not so. Even a sinner’s meal offering must have its handful taken with the right hand. Although the offering is not a fully distinguished offering, the basic law requiring the right hand remains in force.
Let us return to Rabbi Shimon. At least according to one view, Rabbi Shimon holds that the handful does not have to be placed into a sacred vessel. It may be taken directly from the priest’s hand and placed on the altar. It cannot be placed into an ordinary vessel, because once the handful has been taken, the relevant procedure is either to place it into the sacred vessel or to bring it directly to the altar.
According to another view, Rabbi Shimon does require the sanctification of the handful in a sacred vessel, but he permits that placement to be performed with the left hand. These are two different opinions: one says that the handful does not require placement into a sacred vessel at all, while the other says that it does require such placement but that the left hand is acceptable for it.
Accordingly, what does Rabbi Shimon do with the additional verbal analogy between hand and hand? Perhaps one could say that it teaches that the taking of the handful itself must be performed with the right hand. But that is already known from the word “priest,” which teaches that the taking of the handful is performed with the right hand.
The answer is that the verbal analogy is needed for the meal offering of a sinner. I might have thought that, because the offering is not meant to be a distinguished offering, the taking of its handful could be performed with the left hand. The verbal analogy teaches that even this offering requires the right hand.
We therefore have the following distinction. According to the Sages, the verse concerning the priest teaches that the taking of the handful is performed with the right hand, and the verbal analogy teaches that placing the handful into the sacred vessel must also be performed with the right hand. According to Rabbi Shimon, the verbal analogy is needed to teach that even the meal offering of a sinner requires the right hand, despite the fact that it is not an especially distinguished offering.
That is where we stand in the discussion.