They disagree [on the question] whether a text is to be interpreted with what precedes and with what follows it. (1) Abaye said: The following [teaching] of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon disagrees with his father's and with the Rabbis’. For it was taught, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Wherever ‘finger’ is stated in connection with receiving, (2) if [the priest] varied the reception [of the blood], (3) it is unfit; if the application, it is fit. And wherever ‘finger’ is stated in connection with the application, if he varied the application, it is unfit; if the reception, it is fit. 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; (4) and he holds: A text is interpreted with its precedent, but not with its ante-precedent, nor with what follows it. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: (5) Wherever ‘finger’ and ‘priesthood’ are stated. they refer to the right only. It was assumed that we require both, as it is written. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger; (6) and it is learnt from a leper, where it is written, And the priest shall dip his right finger. (7) But surely ‘priesthood’ alone is written in connection with the taking of the fistful [of flour] yet we learnt: If [the priest] took the handful with his left [hand], is it unfit? — Said Raba: [He meant] either ‘finger’ or ‘priesthood’. 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, (8) 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. (9) 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. (10) 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’? (11) [To teach that they must be] in their priestly state. (12) 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 fit. If 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]. (13) — 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. (14)

---

(1). ↑ 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.
(2). ↑ As in the present case. He holds that ‘finger’ here refers to the preceding ‘and he shall take’, as its literal meaning does imply.
(3). ↑ Receiving it with the left hand.
(4). ↑ Ex. XXIX, 12.
(5). ↑ Sh. M. reads: in the name of Resh Lakish.
(6). ↑ Lev. IV, 25.
(7). ↑ Ibid. XIV, 16.
(8). ↑ Ibid. I, 13.
(9). ↑ Whereas even if the limbs are not burnt at all, the efficacy of the sacrifice is unaffected.
(10). ↑ ‘Finger’ and ‘priesthood’.
(11). ↑ In connection with receiving, seeing that it is already written that this must be done by the sons of Aaron.
(12). ↑ In their priestly vestments.
(13). ↑ V. Men. 9b and 10a. Raba refers to Lev. XIV, 14, which deals with a leper's purification: And the priest shall take of the blood of the guiltoffering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. Raba teaches that the ‘right’ is mentioned in these cases in order to teach that when ‘hand’, ‘foot’ and ‘ear’ are written in connection with the taking of the fistful, the ceremony of halizah (q.v. Glos; v. also Deut. XXV, 9) and the boring of the ear of a slave who refuses to accept his freedom (v. Ex XXI, 5f) respectively, the right is meant in each case.
(14). ↑ 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.