## Menachot Daf 26a

###### Menachot 26a:1
[Menachot 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:1)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ בְּשׁוֹגֵג הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד לֹא הוּרְצָה – הָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – נִטְמָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד לֹא הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a refutation of Rav Sheila’s opinion based on the first *baraita*: **Come** and **hear:** In the case of **blood** of an offering **that became impure and** a priest **sprinkled it** on the altar, if he did so **unwittingly,** the offering is **accepted** and achieves atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood **intentionally,** the offering is **not accepted.** This contradicts Rav Sheila’s statement that even if the priest sprinkled the blood intentionally, it is accepted. The Gemara rejects this proof: According to Rav Sheila, **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** In the case of **blood that became impure and** a priest **sprinkled it, whether** it was sprinkled **unwittingly or intentionally,** if it was **rendered impure unwittingly** it is **accepted,** but if it was rendered impure **intentionally** then it is **not accepted.**


###### Menachot 26a:2
[Menachot 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, נִשְׂרְפוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, אָבְדוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ – כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּשֵׁירָה, וּכְמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If after the handful was removed **the remainder of** the meal offering **became ritually impure,** or if **the remainder of** the meal offering **was burned,** or if **the remainder of** the meal offering **was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer,** who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling even if there is no meat that can be eaten, the meal offering is **fit,** and the priest burns the handful. **But according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua,** who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling only if there is meat that can be eaten, it is **unfit** and the priest does not burn the handful, as the handful serves to render permitted the remainder.


###### Menachot 26a:3
[Menachot 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ כׇּל שְׁיָרֶיהָ, אֲבָל מִקְצָת שְׁיָרֶיהָ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s statement that according to Rabbi Yehoshua the meal offering is unfit if its remainder is rendered impure, **Rav says: And this** is the *halakha* only **when all of its remainder became impure. But** if only **a part of its remainder** became impure, the meal offering is **not** unfit.


###### Menachot 26a:4
[Menachot 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:4)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ: נִטְמָא – אִין, אָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף – לָא. מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר: שִׁיּוּרָא מִילְּתָא הִיא – אֲפִילּוּ אָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף נָמֵי! אִי קָסָבַר: שִׁיּוּרָא לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, וְנִטְמָא מַאי טַעְמָא – דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ? אִי הָכִי, כׇּל שְׁיָרֶיהָ נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **enters your mind** that Rav holds that only if a part of the remainder **became impure,** then **yes,** the meal offering is fit; but if part of the remainder **was lost or burned,** then the meal offering is **not** fit. The Gemara asks: **What does** Rav **hold? If he holds** that **what remains is significant,** so that even if a portion of the remainder cannot be eaten the handful is still sacrificed to render the rest permitted, then why would this not also be the *halakha* **even** if part of the remainder **was lost or burned?** Alternatively, **if he holds** that **what remains is not significant,** and the Gemara interjects: **And** accordingly, **what is the reason** that the handful is sacrificed if a part of the remainder **became impure?** It is **because** the **frontplate effects acceptance** for the impurity; **if that is so,** then **even** if **all of the remainder** became impure, the handful should still be sacrificed.


###### Menachot 26a:5
[Menachot 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:5)

לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: שִׁיּוּרָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, וְנִטְמָא – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר ״נִטְמָא״ – רֵישַׁיְיהוּ נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Actually, he holds** that **what remains is significant, and** just as when a part of the remainder **became impure** but the offering is still fit, the rest of the remainder is sacrificed, **the same is true** with regard **to** a case where a part of the remainder **was lost or burned. And** the reason **that he stated** this *halakha* specifically in a case where it **became impure** is that **he employed** the terminology of **the beginning of** the mishna, which discusses a case where the remainder became impure.


###### Menachot 26a:6
[Menachot 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:6)

כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר אוֹ כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava’s statement accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** With regard to **all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat** that is fit to be eaten **or an olive-bulk of fat** that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, the priest **sprinkles the blood.** Similarly, if a part of the remainder can be eaten the handful is still sacrificed, as the status of the remainder relative to the handful corresponds to the status of the meat relative to the blood.


###### Menachot 26a:7
[Menachot 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:7)

כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, וּבָעוֹלָה אֲפִילּוּ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל, וּבַמִּנְחָה אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the continuation of the *baraita*: If all that remains is **half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat,** the priest **does not sprinkle the blood.** This is because the half olive-bulk of meat and the half olive-bulk of fat do not combine to form one olive-bulk, since the former is eaten and the latter is sacrificed on the altar. **And with regard to a burnt offering, even** if all that was left was **half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat,** the priest **sprinkles the blood, because it is consumed** on the altar **in its entirety.** Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine to form one olive-bulk. **And with regard to a meal offering, although all of it remains** pure, the priest **shall not sprinkle** the blood.


###### Menachot 26a:8
[Menachot 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:8)

מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ – הוֹאִיל וּבַהֲדֵי זֶבַח קָא אָתְיָא, כְּגוּפֵיהּ דְּזִיבְחָא דָּמְיָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the last ruling of the *baraita*: **What is** the mention of **a meal offering doing** here? The discussion is about sprinkling blood, which is not relevant in the case of a meal offering. **Rav Pappa said:** The meal offering mentioned is **the meal offering** that accompanies the **libations** that accompany animal offerings. It could **enter your mind** to say: **Since** this meal offering **accompanies** the animal **offering,** it is **comparable to the offering itself,** and therefore if the offering became impure but the meal offering remained pure, the blood of the offering is sprinkled due to the remaining meal offering. To counter this, the *baraita* **teaches us** that this is not the *halakha*.


###### Menachot 26a:9
[Menachot 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:9)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וּמָטוּ בַּהּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהִקְטִיר הַחֵלֶב לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״, חֵלֶב – וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its discussion of the *halakha* that if only an olive-bulk of the fat remains, the priest sprinkles the blood of the offering. **From where is this matter** derived? **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and** there are those who **determined** that **it** was stated **in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: The verse states:** “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the door of the Tent of Meeting, **and he shall make the fat smoke for a pleasing aroma to the Lord”** (Leviticus 17:6). This verse never mentions the meat, but only the **fat,** indicating that the blood is sprinkled **even if there is no** ritually pure **meat,** but only fat.


###### Menachot 26a:10
[Menachot 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:10)

וְאַשְׁכְּחַן חֵלֶב, יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת מְנָלַן? דְּקָתָנֵי: וּבַמִּנְחָה, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת לֹא יִזְרוֹק. מִנְחָה הוּא דְּלֹא יִזְרוֹק, הָא יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת – יִזְרוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And we found** a source for the *halakha* that the priest sprinkles the blood if only **fat** remains. **From where do we** derive that the priest sprinkles the blood if all that is left is the **lobe** of the liver **or** the **two kidneys,** which are also sacrificed on the altar? The Gemara answers: The *halakha* that the priest sprinkles the blood in that case is derived from **that** which **is taught** at the end of the *baraita*: **And with regard to a meal offering, although all of it remains** pure, the priest **shall not sprinkle** the blood. This teaches that **it is** in the case of **a meal offering that** the priest **shall not sprinkle** the blood, as the meal offering is not part of the animal; **but** if the **lobe** of the liver **or** the **two kidneys** remain, the priest **sprinkles** the blood.


###### Menachot 26a:11
[Menachot 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:11)

מְנָלַן? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״ – כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Yoḥanan himself says:** The verse states: **“For a pleasing aroma** to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6). This teaches that the blood is sprinkled whenever **anything that you offer up** on the altar **for a pleasing aroma** remains. This includes anything burned on the altar.


###### Menachot 26a:12
[Menachot 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:12)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״חֵלֶב״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״, דְּאִי כְּתַב ״חֵלֶב״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֵלֶב – אִין, יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת – לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it **was necessary to write “fat”** in that verse, **and** it **was necessary to write “for a pleasing aroma.” As, if** the Merciful One **had written** only **“fat,” I would say** that if **fat** remains, **yes,** the priest sprinkles the blood, but if only the **lobe** of the liver **or** the **two kidneys** remain, since they are not as significant as the fat, the blood is **not** sprinkled. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote “for a pleasing aroma.” And if the Merciful One had written** only **“for a pleasing aroma,” I would say** that it includes **even a meal offering** brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote “fat,”** to teach that this *halakha* applies only to sacrificial parts of the animal, but not to accompanying libations and meal offerings.


###### Menachot 26a:13
[Menachot 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר. הִקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ פַּעֲמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** A handful of a meal offering **that was not** sanctified **in a service vessel** is **unfit, and Rabbi Shimon deems** it **fit.** If the priest **burned the handful of** a meal offering **twice,** i.e., in two increments, it is **fit.**


###### Menachot 26a:14
[Menachot 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם״. בָּא לְעוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּד כְּחַטָּאת – עוֹבְדָהּ בְּיָמִין, כְּחַטָּאת. בִּכְלִי – עוֹבְדָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל, כְּאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states** with regard to a meal offering: **“It is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering”** (Leviticus 6:10). Rabbi Shimon derives from here that the handful of the meal offering may be placed on the altar in the manner of the blood of either a sin offering or a guilt offering. If a priest **comes to perform the** sacrificial **rites of** a meal offering **with** his **hand, as** one performs the sprinkling of the blood of **a sin offering,** which is performed with the priest’s right index finger, **he must perform its rites with** his **right** hand, **like the sin offering.** If he performs the sacrificial rites **with a vessel,** as one performs the sprinkling of the blood of a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel on the altar and whose sprinkling may be performed with the priest’s left hand, **he may perform its rites with** his **left** hand, **like the guilt offering.**


###### Menachot 26a:15
[Menachot 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:15)

וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ מִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת, מַעֲלֵהוּ וּמַקְטִירוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֶמְיָינוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקִידָּה שֶׁל חֶרֶשׂ. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בַּקּוֹמֶץ שֶׁטָּעוּן קִידּוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yannai says:** According to Rabbi Shimon there are no restrictions on the manner in which the handful is sacrificed, as **once** the priest has **removed the handful from a service vessel, he may bring it up and burn it even** if he placed it **in his belt, or even in an earthenware vessel. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: All concede that** the **handful requires sanctification** in a service vessel before it is sacrificed.


###### Menachot 26a:16
[Menachot 26a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:16)

מֵיתִיבִי: הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים וְעֵצִים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בִּכְלִי, בֵּין בְּיָמִין וּבֵין בִּשְׂמֹאל – כְּשֵׁרִין; הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת וְהַלְּבוֹנָה שֶׁהֶעֱלָן, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בִּכְלִי, בֵּין בְּיָמִין בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאל – כְּשֵׁרִין. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Zevaḥim* 1:11): With regard to **the burning of** the **fats, and** the **limbs, and** the **wood** that were brought up to the altar, **that** the priest **brought them up** to the altar, **whether by hand or with a vessel, whether with** the **right** hand **or with** the **left** hand, **they are fit.** With regard to **the handful, and the incense, and the frankincense, that** the priest **brought them up** to the altar, **whether by hand or with a vessel, whether with** the **right** hand **or with** the **left** hand, **they are fit.** The Gemara suggests: This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** who stated that if the handful is sacrificed by hand, it must be sacrificed only with the right hand.


###### Menachot 26a:17
[Menachot 26a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:17)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי – בַּיָּד בְּיָמִין, בִּכְלִי – בֵּין בְּיָמִין בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** could **say to you** that the *tanna* of the *baraita* **teaches** it **disjunctively,** and the statement should be understood as follows: If these items are brought up **by hand, with** the **right** hand, or **with a vessel, whether with** the **right** hand **or with** the **left,** they are fit.


###### Menachot 26a:18
[Menachot 26a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:18)

תָּא שְׁמַע: קְמָצוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְקִידְּשׁוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְהֶעֱלוֹ וְהִקְטִירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת – פָּסוּל, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּמַתַּן כְּלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to refute the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak that all concede that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel before it is sacrificed. **Come** and **hear** that which is taught in a *baraita*: If the priest **removed the handful,** but **not from a service vessel, and sanctified it,** but **not in a service vessel, and brought it up and burned it,** but **not in a service vessel,** then it is **unfit. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem** it **fit in** a case where the handful had been **placed** in any type of **vessel.** This contradicts Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s claim that all concede that the handful must be sanctified in a service vessel.


###### Menachot 26a:19
[Menachot 26a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:19)

אֵימָא: מִמַּתַּן כְּלִי וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Say** that according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, **from** the point when the handful has been **placed** in a service **vessel** and sanctified **and onward,** it is no longer necessary to take it in a service vessel to the altar to sacrifice it. Therefore, the *baraita* does not contradict Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement.


###### Menachot 26a:20
[Menachot 26a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:20)

תָּא שְׁמַע: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קוֹמֶץ טָעוּן כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, כֵּיצַד? קוֹמְצוֹ מִכְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, וּמַעֲלוֹ וּמַקְטִירוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ מִכְּלִי שָׁרֵת, מַעֲלוֹ וּמַקְטִירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְדַיּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another refutation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s opinion from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 4:15). **Come** and **hear: And the Rabbis say:** The **handful requires** sanctification in **a service vessel. How** is this sanctification performed? The priest **removes the handful from a service vessel, and sanctifies it in a service vessel, and brings it up and burns it in a service vessel. Rabbi Shimon says: Once the handful is removed from a service vessel,** the priest may **bring it up and burn it** even if it is **not in a service vessel, and** this **is sufficient for it.** This *baraita* demonstrates that, in contrast to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the handful must be sanctified in a service vessel.


###### Menachot 26a:21
[Menachot 26a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:21)

אֵימָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ וְקִדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, מַעֲלוֹ וּמַקְטִירוֹ וְדַיּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Say** that according to Rabbi Shimon, **once** the priest **removes the handful and sanctifies it in a service vessel,** he may **bring it up and burn it, and** this **is sufficient for it.**


###### Menachot 26a:22
[Menachot 26a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/26a:22)

תָּא שְׁמַע: קָמַץ בִּימִינוֹ וְנָתַן בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ – יַחְזִיר לִימִינוֹ, בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof. **Come** and **hear:** If the priest **removed the handful with his right** hand **and put** it **in his left** hand, **he shall return it to his right** hand. If the handful was **in his left** hand