Zevachim 48

במקרא נדרש לפניו ולאחריו קמיפלגי

They disagree [on the question] whether a text is to be interpreted with what precedes and with what follows it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Simultaneously. R. Simeon holds that a text can be interpreted only with what follows; hence 'finger' refers to 'and he shall put', but not to 'and he shall take', which precedes. While the Rabbis hold that it goes with both.');">¹</span>

אמר אביי הא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מפקא מדאבוה ומפקא מדרבנן דתניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר אצבע בקבלה שינה בקבלה פסול בנתינה כשר וכל מקום שנאמר אצבע בנתינה שינה בנתינה פסול בקבלה כשר

Abaye said: The following [teaching] of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon disagrees with his father's and with the Rabbis'.

והיכן נאמר אצבע בנתינה דכתיב (שמות כט, יב) ולקחת מדם הפר ונתת על קרנות המזבח באצבעך וקסבר מקרא נדרש לפניו ולא לפני פניו ולאחריו:

For it was taught, R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon said: Wherever 'finger' Is stated in connection with receiving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the present case. He holds that 'finger' here refers to the preceding 'and he shall take', as its literal meaning does imply.');">²</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינה אלא ימין

if [the priest] varied the reception [of the blood],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Receiving it with the left hand.');">³</span>

קא סלקא דעתין תרתי בעינן כדכתיב (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת באצבעו ויליף ממצורע דכתי' (ויקרא יד, טז) וטבל הכהן את אצבעו הימנית והרי קמיצה דלא כתיב בה אלא כהונה ותנן קמץ בשמאל פסול

it is unfit; if the application, it is fit.

אלא אמר רבא או אצבע או כהונה

wherever 'finger' is stated in connection with the application, if he varied the application, it is unfit; if th reception, it is fit.

א"ל אביי הרי הולכת אברים לכבש דכתיב בהו כהונה דכתיב (ויקרא א, יג) והקריב הכהן את הכל [והקטיר] המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש ותנן הרגל של ימין בשמאלו ובית עורה לחוץ

And where is 'finger' stated in connection with the application? - For it is written, And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 12.');">⁴</span>

[כי אמרינן] או אצבע או כהונה בדבר המעכב כפרה דומיא דמצורע

and he holds: A text is interpreted with its precedent, but not with its ante-precedent, nor with what follows it.

והרי קבלה דכתב בהו כהונה ודבר המעכב בכפרה הוא ותנן קבל בשמאל פסול ור"ש מכשיר

Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in R'Johanan's name:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M. reads: in the name of Resh Lakish.');">⁵</span>

ר"ש תרתי בעי

Wherever 'finger' and 'priesthood' are stated.

מי בעי ר"ש תרתי והתניא רבי שמעון אומר כל מקום שנאמר יד אינו אלא ימין אצבע אינו אלא ימין

they refer to the right only.

אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונה בעיא אצבע

It was assumed that we require both, as it is written.

ואלא כהן למה לי בכיהונן

And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 25.');">⁶</span>

והרי זריקה דלא כתב בהו אלא כהונה ותנן זרק בשמאל פסול ולא פליג רבי שמעון

and it is learnt from a leper, where it is written, And the priest shall dip h right finger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 16.');">⁷</span>

אמר אביי פליג בברייתא דתניא קיבל בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר זרק בשמאל פסול ורבי שמעון מכשיר

But surely 'priesthood' alone is written in connection with the taking of the fistful [of flour] y we learnt: If [the priest] took the handful with his left [hand], is it unfit? - Said Raba: [He meant] either 'finger' or 'priesthood'.

אלא הא דאמר רבא יד יד לקמיצה רגל רגל לחליצה אזן אזן לרציעה למה לי מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא

Said Abaye to him: Yet 'priesthood' is written in connection with the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, as it is written, And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke on the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 13.');">⁸</span>

חד לקומץ וחד לקידוש קומץ

and a master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent; yet we learnt: [The priest carries] the right foot [of the sacrifice] in his left hand with the inside of the skin outward? - When do we say [that] either 'finger' or priesthood' [implies the right], only in respect of [a service] which is indispensable to atonement, as in the case of a leper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas even if the limbs are not burnt at all, the efficacy of the sacrifice is unaffected.');">⁹</span> But priesthood is written in connection with receiving, which is indispensable to atonement, yet we learnt: IF HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS UNFIT; BUT R'SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT? - R'Simeon requires both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Finger' and 'priesthood'.');">¹⁰</span> Does then R'Simeon require both? 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? - [Where] 'finger' [is stated] he does not require 'priesthood', [but] where 'priesthood' [is stated], he does require 'finger'. Then what is the purpose of 'priesthood'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with receiving, seeing that it is already written that this must be done by the sons of Aaron.');">¹¹</span> [To teach that they must be] in their priestly state.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their priestly vestments.');">¹²</span> But 'priesthood' alone is written in connection with sprinkling, yet we learnt: IF HE SPRINKLED WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS UNFIT, and R'Simeon does not disagree? - Said Abaye: He does disagree in a Baraitha, for it was taught: If [the priest] received with his left hand, it is unfit; but R'Simeon declares it he sprinkled with his left hand, it is unfit; but R'Simeon declares it fit. Then as to what Raba said. [We draw an analogy of] hand' 'hand' in respect of taking the fistful; 'foot', 'foot', in respect of halizah; ear' 'ear' in respect of boring [the ear].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Men. ');">¹³</span> - Why is this necessary [in respect of the fistful], seeing that it can be deduced from Rabbah B'Bar Hanah's [exegesis]? - One [is required] for the taking of the fistful, and the other for the sanctification of the fistful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fistful was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel. We now learn that while this is done the vessel must be held in the right hand.');">¹⁴</span>