Menachot 19

(דהא כתב על דם האשם) חד להכשיר צדדין וחד לפסול צידי צדדין

One serves to permit [the application of the oil] upon the sides;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of the thumb and of the great toe; for the Hebrew particle may mean 'close to' as well as 'upon'.');">¹</span>

(ויקרא יד, יז) על דם האשם על מקום דם האשם למאי אתו

and the other to forbid it on the sides of th side.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the inner side of the thumb (facing the palm) , and the lower side of the great toe (facing the ground) .');">²</span>

הני צריכי אי כתב רחמנא על דם האשם הוה אמינא איתיה אין נתקנח לא כתב רחמנא על מקום

And for what purpose are stated, Upon the blood of the guilt-offering, and, Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 17 and 28. Surely one of them is superfluous (Rashi) . According to Tosaf, the question is, Why the variation in the expressions; why in the second verse is 'the place of' added?');">³</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא על מקום הוה אמינא דוקא נתקנח אבל איתיה אימא הוי חציצה קמ"ל על דם האשם:

- They are both necessary; for had the Divine Law only stated, upon the blood of the guilt-offering, I should have said that only if [the blood] was still there it is [valid], but if it had wiped off it is not [valid]; the Divine Law therefore stated, 'Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering And had the Divine Law only stated, 'Upon the place etc.' , I should have said that it [the blood] must first be wiped off, but if it was still there it would be regarded as an interposition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the oil must touch the body of the leper on the parts specified directly without any other substance interposing.');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא מאחר דכתיב על דם האשם ועל מקום [דם] האשם וכתיבא ימנית בדם על בהן ידו הימנית ועל בהן רגלו הימנית וכתיבי בשמן דמצורע עשיר ועני למה לי

the Divine Law therefore stated, 'Upon the blood of the guilt-offering'.

אלא אמר רבא יד יד לקמיצה

Raba said, Since there have been stated [with regard to the application of the oil] the expressions 'Upon the blood of the guilt-offering' and 'Upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering', and moreover since with regard to the application of the blood the term 'right' is used, for what purpose then does the verse state, concerning the application of the oil upon the leper.'

רגל רגל לחליצה

Upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right leg', both in the case of the rich man and of the poor man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is concerning the superfluous word 'right' stated with regard to the hand and the leg; for even if Scripture had omitted the word in each case we should still have known that the right hand and right leg were intended, either because the application of the blood was upon these limbs and the oil was to be applied upon the blood, or because of the original opinion expressed by R. Zera that 'hand' generally means the rnt right hand. V. Tosaf. s.v. .');">⁵</span>

אוזן אוזן לרציעה

- Raba therefore said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba on account of this last question abandons the conclusions of R. Zera that were derived from the expression 'the left hand' being stated four times, whereby the rule was established that 'hand' generally means the right hand and therefore the taking of the handful must be performed with the right hand, but proceeds to interpret anew all the expressions employed in this passage dealing with the purificatory rites of the leper.');">⁶</span>

שמאלית (העני) למאי אתא אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי ליפסול ימין דכהן במצורע שלא תאמר ומה במקום שלא נתרבתה שמאל נתרבתה ימין במקום שנתרבתה שמאל אינו דין שנתרבתה ימין

The term 'hand' [is required for purposes of analogy] with 'hand' in respect of the taking out of the handful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'hand' is stated here in connection with the rites of a rich man (Lev. XIV, 17) and also in connection with the taking of the handful from the meal-offering (ibid IX, 17) : as in the former case the right hand is meant for it is expressly stated so, so in the latter case, too, the right hand is meant.');">⁷</span>

ואידך שמאלית ויד ורגל ימנית דעני למאי אתא לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונשנית לא נשנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה

the term 'leg' with 'leg' in respect of halizah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'leg' is stated here in connection with the rites of the rich man (ibid. XIV, 17) and also in connection with the ceremony of halizah');">⁸</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש כל מקום שנאמרה אצבע וכהונה אינה אלא ימין

the term 'ear' with 'ear' in respect of 'boring of the ear'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'ear' is stated here in connection with the rites of the rich man (Lev. ibid.) and also in connection with the boring of the ear of an Israelite slave who desired to continue in servitude (v. Ex. XXI, 5, 6) : as here the right ear is meant, so there too the right ear is meant.');">⁹</span>

קס"ד אצבע וכהונה בעינן כדכתיב (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו וגמר ממצורע דכתיב (ויקרא יד, טז) וטבל הכהן את אצבעו הימנית הרי קמיצה דלא כתיבא בה אלא כהונה ותנן קמץ בשמאל פסול

Wherefore is 'the left' stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. Xlv, 16, in connection with the rites of the rich man: And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand. In the preceding verse (15) 'the left hand' is admittedly required for its own purpose, that the priest shall pour the oil into his left hand.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבא או אצבע או כהונה

- R'Shisha the son of R'Idi answered, In order to rule out the use of the priest's right hand in the case of the leper; lest you argue as follows: if in the case where the left hand is not allowed the right hand nevertheless is, in the case where the left hand is allowed surely the right hand is allowed too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture therefore repeated 'the left hand' to indicate that the service shall be performed with the left hand only.');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה אביי הרי הולכת אברים לכבש דכתיב בהו כהונה דכתיב (ויקרא א, יג) והקריב הכהן את הכל המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש ותנן הרגל של ימין בשמאל ובית עורה לחוץ

And wherefore is 'the left' stated again?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 27, in connection with the rites of the poor man. This question applies to all the expressions used in connection with the rites of the poor leper.');">¹²</span>

כי אמרי' או אצבע או כהונה בדבר המעכב כפרה

- For the reason taught at the school of R'Ishmael: Any Biblical passage that was stated once, and then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of some new point contained therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The new point being that the offerings for purification vary according to the means of the leper.');">¹³</span>

והרי קבלה דבר המעכב כפרה הוא וכתב בה כהונה דכתיב (ויקרא א, ה) והקריבו בני אהרן הכהנים את הדם זו קבלת הדם ותנן קבל בשמאל פסל ורבי שמעון מכשיר

Rabbah B'Bar Hannah said in the name of R'Simeon B'Lakish, Wherever the words 'priest' and 'finger' are stated [in connection with a service of the Temple] they signify the right [hand] only.

לר' שמעון קאמרת ר"ש תרתי בעי

Now it was assumed that both these terms 'priest' and 'finger' were necessary [to signify this], as in the verse, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 25.');">¹⁴</span>

ומי בעי רבי שמעון תרתי והתניא ר"ש אומר כל מקום שנאמרה יד אינה אלא ימין אצבע אינה אלא ימין אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונ' בעי' אצבע

and [there the finger of the right hand is meant for] it is inferred from the case of the leper where it is written, And the priest shall dip his right finger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 16. And as in this verse where both the expressions 'priest' and finger' are stated the right must be used, so wherever these two expressions are found they imply the use of the right hand.');">¹⁵</span>

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.