Reference for Menachot 18:21

אמר ליה ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא על בהן ידו הימנית ועל בהן רגלו הימנית דכתיב (בשמן דמצורע עשיר) למה לי

IF [THE PRIEST] TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND [IT IS INVALID]. Whence do we know this? - R'Zera said, The verse states, And he presented the meal-offering, and filled his hand therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IX, 17.');">²⁹</span> Now I do not know which hand was meant, but when another verse states, And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 15, in reference to the purificatory rites of a leper.');">³⁰</span> [I know that] only here ['hand' means] the left hand, but elsewhere wherever 'hand' is stated it means the right. But is not this expression required for its own purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only the left hand shall be employed and not the right, and one therefore cannot draw any conclusion or inference from this expression.');">³¹</span> - 'The left hand' is mentioned once again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16.');">³²</span> But should I not apply here the principle: 'a limitation followed by a limitation extends the scope of the law'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'the left hand' is stated twice, and inasmuch as each by itself serves as a limitation to exclude the right hand, the result is that the successive limitations actually amplify the law and include the right hand, that it, too, may be used in the purificatory rites of the leper.');">³³</span> - 'The left hand' is mentioned yet once again;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26. This third expression precludes the suggestion stated that the first two are to be regarded as limitation following limitation resulting in amplification, for if that were so this third expression would be superfluous.');">³⁴</span> so that we may say that only here ['hand' means] the left hand, whereas elsewhere ['hand'] cannot mean the left hand. perhaps I should say quite the contrary: just as here ['hand' means] the left hand so elsewhere ['hand' means] the left hand! - 'The left hand' is in fact stated four times: twice in the case of the poor man and twice in the case of the rich man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 14, 16, 26 and 27; the first two referring to the rites of a rich man that is being cleansed of his leprosy, and the latter two to those of a poor man. The result is therefore thus: the first expression 'the left hand' is required for its own purpose, the second to indicate that only here 'hand' means the left hand but not elsewhere, the third to preclude the suggestion that the first two are to be regarded as limitation following limitation, and the fourth to preclude the inference, suggested last, that wherever 'hand' is stated the left hand is meant.');">³⁵</span> R'Jeremiah said to R'Zera. For what purpose is it written, Upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right foot?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 17 and 28, with reference to the application of oil upon these parts, the former verse dealing with the case of the rich man and the latter with the poor man. In both cases, however, the passage is superfluous for in each verse appears the direction that the oil shall be applied on the place where the blood of the guilt-offering had been applied, and the latter, as expressly stated both in the case of the rich man and of the poor man (v. ibid. 14 and 25 respectively) , was applied upon the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right leg. It must be observed that the ivc ivc kg, thumb and the great toe are expressed in the Heb. by the same word ; thus the expression stated twice in this verse, is redundant.');">³⁶</span> -

Jastrow