Zevachim 25A

ולרבי שמעון ⁠– דלא בעי קידוש קומץ; ולמאן דאמר לרבי שמעון נמי בעי קידוש ⁠– קומץ בשמאל אכשורי מכשר; ״יד״–״יד״ דרבא למה לי?

The Talmud asks: And according to R' Shimon, who does not require sanctification of the handful, or according to the one who says that R' Shimon also requires the sanctification of the handful but that he deems the sanctification fit when performed with the left hand, why do I need the verbal analogy of Rava between “hand” and “hand”?

אי לקמיצה עצמה ⁠– מדרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא נפקא; דאמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא: מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון? דאמר קרא: ״קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם״;

If one suggests that it is necessary to indicate that the removal of the handful itself must be performed with the right hand, this cannot be, since that is derived from the verse cited by Rav Yehuda, son of R' Ḥiyya. As Rav Yehuda, son of R' Ḥiyya, says: What is the reason that R' Shimon does not require that the handful be sanctified in a service vessel? As the verse states with regard to the meal offering: “It is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10).

בא לעובדה ביד ⁠– עובדה בימין, כחטאת; בא לעובדה בכלי ⁠– עובדה בשמאל, כאשם!

The verse compares the meal offering to a sin offering and a guilt offering. Therefore, if the priest comes to perform the burning of the handful with his hand, then he performs it with his right hand, like a sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled by hand. And if he comes to perform it with a vessel, i.e., if he first sanctifies the handful in a service vessel, then he may perform it with his left hand, like a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel. Since the removal of the handful is performed by hand, the verse indicates that it must be performed with the right hand, and the verbal analogy is unnecessary.