Parallel
זבחים 15
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[Now the question arises:] Can this be repaired or can it not be repaired? — Come and hear: If a fit person received [the blood] and handed it to an unfit one, the latter must return it to the fit one. Now, granted that the fit person receives it back, yet if you think that it cannot be repaired, it has [already] been made invalid. [This does not prove anything:] do you think that the lay-Israelite stood within? No: it means that the lay-Israelite stood without. It was stated: ‘Ulla said in R. Johanan's name: Carriage without [moving] the foot is invalid. This proves that it cannot be repaired. R. Nahman raised an objection to ‘Ulla: If [the blood] was spilled from the vessel on to the pavement, and one [a priest] collected it, it is valid? — The circumstances here are that [the blood] had run outward. Would it run without [only] and not enter within? — [It fell] on sloping ground. Alternatively, [it fell] into a depression. Another alternative is that it [the blood] was thick. But does the Tanna trouble to teach us all these! Moreover, instead of teaching in another chapter, ‘If it was spilt on to the ground and [the priest] collected it, it is unfit’ ; let him [the Tanna] draw a distinction in that very case, thus: When does this hold good? [Only] if [the blood] ran without; but if it entered within, it is unfit? This is indeed a refutation. It was stated: Carriage without moving the foot is [the subject of] a controversy between R. Simeon and the Rabbis. In the case of a long carriage all agree that it is unfit; they disagree only in respect of a short carriage. This was ridiculed in the West [Eretz Israel] : if so, as for [the law that] an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies a sin-offering of a bird, how is this possible according to R. Simeon? if [the priest] expressed this intention before the blood issued,it is nothing; if after the blood has issued, then surely the precept has already been performed? — What difficulty is this? perhaps [the priest expressed his intention] between the issuing [of the blood] and its reaching the altar? For surely R, Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if one was sprinkling, and the sprinkler's hand was cut off before the blood reached the altar air-space? And he answered him, It is invalid. What is the reason? Because it is essential that ‘he shall sprinkle’ and ‘he shall put’ [of the blood upon the horns of the altar]. When R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua came from [the academy] they stated: This was the [point of their] derision: Do they not differ about a long passage? Surely they differ precisely in respect of a long passage? Rather, all agree that it is not invalid in the case of a short passage; they differ in the case of a long passage. If a zar carried [the blood], whereupon a priest returned it and then carried it [himself], — the sons of R. Hiyya and R. Jannai disagree. One maintains that it is valid, while the other holds that it is invalid; the former holding that it can be repaired, while the latter holds that it cannot be repaired. If a priest carried [the blood] but returned it and then a zar carried it [to the altar] again, said R. Simi b. Ashi: He who declares it valid [in the previous case], holds [here] that it is invalid; while he who declares it invalid [there], holds [here] that it is valid. Raba said: Even he who declares it invalid [in the previous case], holds that it is invalid [here too]. What is the reason?-Because he is bound
—
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,
—