Zevachim 47

וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

and two laws that come as one do not illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise only one should be mentioned, and by analogy the other as well as all analogous cases, would be included.');">¹</span> And on the view that they do illumine [other cases], one who has drunk wine is a third case, and [when] three [laws come as one] all agree that they do not illumine [other cases].

ולמאן דאמר מלמדין שתויי יין הוה ליה שלישי ושלשה לד"ה אין מלמדין:

ONE STANDING ON UTENSILS OR ON AN ANIMAL OR ON HIS FELLOW'S FEET, [THE SACRIFICES] ARE INVALID. Whence do we know it? - For the school of R'Ishmael taught: Since the pavement sanctifies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest, in that he may sacrifice there only, and not elsewhere. But v. next note.');">²</span>

עומד על גבי כלים על גבי בהמה על גבי רגלי חבירו פסול: מנלן דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל ורצפה מקדשת וכלי שרת מקדשים מה כלי שרת לא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין כלי שרת אף רצפה לא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הרצפה

and the service vessels sanctify;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood that is caught in them. This is the reading of cur. edd. Sh. M. offers an alternative reading, which is preferable: since the pavement is sanctified, and the service vessels are sanctified.');">³</span> just as with the service vessels nothing may interpose between him [the priest] and the service vessels;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he takes one for receiving the blood, nothing must be on his hands, e.g., gloves.');">⁴</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן כלי משום דלאו מינא דבשר נינהו אבל בהמה דמינא דבשר הוא אימא לא ואי אשמעינן בהמה דלא מינא דאדם הוא אבל חבירו דאדם הוא אימא לא צריכא

so with the pavement nothing must interpose between him and the pavement. Now they are all necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The enumeration of vessels, an animal, and his fellow's feet.');">⁵</span>

תניא רבי אליעזר אומר רגלו אחת על הכלי ורגלו אחת על הרצפה רגלו אחת על האבן ורגלו אחת על הרצפה רואין כל שאילו ינטל הכלי ותנטל האבן יכול לעמוד על רגלו אחת ויעבוד עבודתו כשירה ואם לאו עבודתו פסולה

For if we were informed about vessels, I would argue that [standing on them disqualifies] because they are not flesh, but in the case of an animal, which is flesh, [standing on it does] no [disqualify]. And if we were informed about an animal, [the reason is] because it is not human, but as for his fellow, who is human, I would say [that standing on his feet does] not [disqualify].

בעי רבי אמי נדלדלה האבן ועמד עליה מהו היכא דאין דעתו לחברה לא תיבעי לך דודאי חייצא כי תיבעי לך דדעתו לחברה מאי כיון דדעתו לחברה כמה דמחבר' דמיא או דילמא השתא מיהא הא תלישא

Hence [they are all] necessary. It was taught: R'Eliezer said: If one foot is on the utensil and the other on the pavement, one foot on the stone and the other on the pavement, we consider: wherever if the stone or the utensil be removed, he can stand on the other foot, his service is valid; if not, his service is invalid.

רבה זוטי בעי לה הכי בעי רבי אמי נעקרה האבן ועמד במקומה מהו

R'Ammi asked: What if a [paving] stone become loosened and he stood on it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it moves about.');">⁶</span> If it is not his intention to fit it [in the pavement] there is question, for it certainly interposes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not accounted part of the pavement.');">⁷</span>

מאי קא מיבעיא ליה כי קדיש דוד רצפה עליונה קדיש או דילמא עד לארעית דתהומא קדיש ותיבעי ליה כל העזרה כולה

the question arises where it is his intention to fit it in: what then? Si it is his intention to fit it in, it is as though [already] fitted; or perhaps [we say], Now at all events it is separate?

לעולם פשיטא ליה דעד ארעית דתהומא קדיש והכי קמיבעיא ליה דרך שירות בכך או אין דרך שירות בכך תיקו:

Rabbah Zuti<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the small.'');">⁸</span> stated the question thus: R'Ammi asked: What if the stone became uprooted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Entirely leaving the earth beneath it exposed.');">⁹</span>

קיבל בשמאל פסול ור"ש מכשיר: ת"ר באצבע ולקח מלמד שלא תהא קבלה אלא בימין (ויקרא ד, כה) באצבע ונתן מלמד שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין

and he stood in its place? What is the question?

אמר ר"ש וכי נאמרה יד בקבלה אלא באצבעו ונתן שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין הואיל ולא נאמרה יד בקבלה קיבל בשמאל כשר

[This:] When David sanctified [it], did he sanctify the upper pavement [only], or perhaps he sanctified [it] right to the nethermost soil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the soil of the deep'.');">¹⁰</span> Then let him ask about the whole of the Temple court?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What if the pavement is removed and the priests stand on the earth beneath?');">¹¹</span>

ור"ש ממה נפשך אי אית ליה גזירה שוה כי לא נאמרה יד בקבלה מאי הוי ואי לית ליה גזירה שוה כי נאמרה יד בקבלה מאי הוי

- In truth, he is certain that he sanctified it to the nethermost soil, but this his question: Is this a natural way of service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To stand on the earth beneath the paving stone.');">¹²</span> or is it not a natural way of service?

אמר רב יהודה לעולם לית ליה גזירה שוה והכי קאמר וכי נאמר יד ימין בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמר יד ימין בקבלה קבל בשמאל כשר

The question stands. IF [THE PRIEST] RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] IN HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS DISQUALIFIED; R'SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT.

א"ל רבה א"ה אפילו נתינה נמי ועוד וכי לית ליה לר"ש ג"ש והתניא ר"ש אומר כל מקום שנאמר יד אינה אלא ימין אצבע אינה אלא ימין

Our Rabbis taught: [And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 25.');">¹³</span> 'with his finger he shall take': this teaches that receiving must be done with the right hand; 'with his finger he shall put': this teaches that applying [the blood on the altar] must be done with the right hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Finger' stands between 'take' and 'put' in the text, and so the Rabbis apply it to both; and it is stated below that 'finger' always means that of the right hand.');">¹⁴</span>

אלא אמר רבא לעולם אית ליה ג"ש והכי קאמר וכי נאמרה יד בקבלה הואיל ולא נאמר' יד בקבלה אלא אצבע ואי אפשר לקבלה באצבע קיבל בשמאל כשר

Said R'Simeon: is then 'hand' stated in connection with receiving? Rather, [interpret it thus:] 'with his finger he shall put' teaches that the application must be with the right; [and] since 'hand' is not stated in connection with receiving, if he received [it] with his left [hand], it is fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that R. Simeon agrees that 'hand' means the right, but not 'finger'.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא איפשר דעביד ליה אזן לשפת מזרק ומקבל בה

Now as for R'Simeon, what will you? if he admits the gezerah shawah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby it is deduced that 'hand' in connection with sacrifices means the right. The gezerah shawah is from a leper, where both 'hand' and 'finger' are written.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר אביי

what does it matter if 'hand' is not written in connection with receiving?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Finger' is however written both here and in connection with a leper; and there it is definitely the right.');">¹⁷</span> While if he does not admit the gezerah shawah, what if 'hand' were written In connection with receiving? - Said Rab Judah: in truth, he does not admit the gezerah shawah, and this is what he means: Is then 'right hand' stated in connection with receiving? Since then 'right hand' is not stated in connection with receiving, if he received [it] with the left hand, [the service] is fit. Said Rabbah t him: If so, [the same applies] even to the application [of the blood on the altar] too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since right hand is not stated there either.');">¹⁸</span> Moreover, does not R'Simeon accept the gezerah shawah? Surely it was taught. R'Simeon said: Wherever 'hand' is stated, it refers to the right only; [wherever] 'finger' [is stated], it refers to the right only? - Rather said Raba: In truth he admits the gezerah shawah, and this is what he says: is then 'hand' stated in connection with receiving? Since not 'hand' but 'finger' is written, and [the blood] cannot be received with the finger,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The receiving vessel cannot be held by a finger only. Hence 'finger', which denotes the right one, must refer to the applying of the blood, but not to the receiving.');">¹⁹</span> therefore if he received it with the left [hand], it is fit. Said R'Sama the son of R'Ashi to Rabina: But it is possible to make a hand at the edge of the bowl<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the blood is caught.');">²⁰</span> and receive [the blood]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holding it with the finger only.');">²¹</span> - Rather said Abaye: