Parallel
זבחים 15:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
to bring it up. R. Jeremiah said to R. Ashi, This is what R. Jeremiah of Difti said: [The validity of the argument,] ‘Surely he is bound to bring it up’, is disputed by R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. For we learned: R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE GOES WHERE HE NEEDS TO GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DISQUALIFIES IT; [IF HE GOES] WHERE HE NEED NOT GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY IT. Whereon Raba commented: All agree that if [the priest] received [the blood] without and carried it within, that is a necessary walk. If he received [it] within and carried it without, it is an unnecessary walk. They disagree only where he brought it within and then carried it without again: One Master holds, But he must surely bring it up [to the altar;] while the other Master holds: This is not the same as a carriage required for the service. Abaye refuted him: R. Eliezer said: If one goes where he must go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies it. How so? If he received it without and brought it within, it is a necessary walk. If he received it within and carried it without ‘ it is an unnecessary walk. Whence, if he carried it within again, it is a necessary walk? — Said he [Raba] to him: If it was taught, it was taught. C H A P T E R II MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHOSE BLOOD WAS CAUGHT BY A ZAR, AN ONEN, A TEBUL YOM, ONE LACKING SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT, ONE LACKING [PRIESTLY] VESTMENTS, ONE WHO HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS AND FEET, AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]. AN UNCLEAN [PRIEST]. ONE WHO WAS SITTING, ONE STANDING ON UTENSILS OR ON AN ANIMAL OR ON HIS FELLOW'S FEET, ARE DISQUALIFIED. IF [THE PRIEST] CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS DISQUALIFIED. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID. GEMARA. How do we know [that] a zar [disqualifies the sacrifice if he receives the blood]? — Because Levi taught: [Scripture says,] Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel etc. What does ‘the children [sons] of Israel’ exclude? Shall we say that it excludes [the sacrifice of] women? Can women's sacrifice be offered in uncleanness? Again, is it to exclude [the sacrifices of] heathens? seeing that [even] the headplate does not propitiate, for a Master said: But in the case of [the sacrifices of] heathens, whether [done] in ignorance or deliberately, propitiation is not effected, can these [actually] be offered in uncleanness! Hence this is what [Scripture] means: that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the children of Israel] profane not [My holy name]. The School of R. Ishmael taught: [That a zar disqualifies the sacrifice] is inferred a minori from [a priest] with a blemish: if [a priest] with a blemish, who may eat [of the sacrifice], profanes [it] when he officiates,
—