Commentary for Menachot 19:19

אלא כהן למה לי בכהונו

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the occurrence of either of these terms in connection with any service signifies that that service shall be performed with the right hand or with the right finger.');">¹⁶</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 13.');">¹⁷</span> and a Master said, This refers to the bringing of the limbs to the [altar] ascent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. ');">¹⁸</span> and yet we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tamid 31b.');">¹⁹</span> The right [hind-]leg was carried in the left hand with the part covered with the skin outermost!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence although the term 'priest' is used in connection with the service of 'bringing nigh', it nevertheless may be performed with the left hand!');">²⁰</span> - 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the service of 'bringing nigh' is not indispensable, for even if it were omitted, e.g., If the sacrifice was 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.');">²¹</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 15b. In cur. edd. before 'we have learnt' are inserted the following lines: 'and with regard to which the term " priest"="" is="" stated,="" as="" it="" written,="" and="" aaron's="" sons,="" the="" priests,="" shall="" present="" blood="" (lev.="" i,="" 5)="" ,="" which="" refers="" to="" receiving="" of="" blood'.="" these="" lines="" are="" not="" found="" in="" any="" mss.="" apparently="" they="" were="" text="" that="" was="" before="" rashi.="" also="" omitted="" by="" sh.="" mek.');"="">²²</span> If [the priest] received the blood in his left hand, It is invalid; but R'Simeon declares it valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding the expression 'priest' used in connection with the service, v. prec. n.');">²³</span> - You raised this [difficulty] according to R'Simeon's view, did you not? But R'Simeon requires both terms.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the expressions 'priest' and 'finger' are necessary in order to signify the right hand.');">²⁴</span> 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 on - The term 'finger' does not require with it the term 'priest',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to signify the right finger.');">²⁵</span> but the term 'priest' requires with it the term 'finger'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to signify the right finger.');">²⁵</span> Why then is the term 'priest' stated at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case where the term 'finger' is used the addition of the term 'priest' is of no significance whatsoever. This question and the answer which follows are omitted in all MSS.');">²⁶</span> [That he shall be clad] in the priestly robes.

Explore commentary for Menachot 19:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.