Parallel
זבחים 25
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But according to R. Simeon, who does not require the sanctification of the fistful [at all], or on the view that R. Simeon does indeed require the sanctification of the fistful, yet he certainly holds that it is fit if done with the left, what is the purpose of Raba's [analogy of] ‘hand’, ‘hand’? If in respect of the actual taking of the fistful, that is deduced from Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya's [teaching]. For Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya said, What is R. Simeon's reason? Scripture saith. It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering: [this teaches:] If [the priest] comes to perform its service with his hand, he does so with the right hand, as in the case of a sin-offering; [if he comes] to perform the service with a vessel, he may do so with the left hand, as in the case of the guilt-offering? — It is necessary only in respect of [a priest] who takes the fistful of a sinner's meal-offering: You might think, since R. Simeon said, [The reason is] that his sacrifice should not be adorned, let it be fit too even if [the priest] takes the fistful with his left hand. Therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND [THE PRIEST] COLLECTED IT, IT IS FIT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bullock: [this means,] of the life blood, but not of the blood of the skin or of the draining blood; ‘of the blood of the bullock’ [implies,] he is to receive the blood [direct] from the bullock. For if you think that ‘of the blood of the bullock’ [is meant literally] as it is written, [viz.,] of the blood [indicating] even a portion of the blood [only], Surely Rab said: He who slaughters [the sacrifice] must receive all the blood of the bullock, for it says, And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out. Hence ‘from the blood of the bullock’ means, he is to receive the blood [direct] from the bullock; for [the author of this exegesis] holds: You subtract, add, and interpret. The [above] text [stated]: Rab said: He who slaughters [the sacrifice] must receive all the blood of the bullock, for it says, ‘And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out’. But surely this is written of the remainder [of the blood]? — Since it is inapplicable to the remainder, for all the blood is not available [at the time], apply it to receiving. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He who slaughters must raise the knife upwards. for it is said, ‘And he shall take of the blood of the bullock,’ but not of the blood of the bullock plus something else. And with what does he wipe the knife? — Said Abaye: With the edge of the bowl, as it is written, Wipers [cleaners] of gold. R. Hisda said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba: He who slaughters must let
—
[the blood of] the jugular veins run [straight] into the vessel. It was stated likewise: R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: The jugular veins must see the air-space of the vessel. R. Assi asked R. Johanan: What if one was receiving, and the bottom of the bowl split before the blood reached the air-space? is [an object in] the air, where it will not eventually come to rest, regarded as at rest, or not? — Said he to him, We have learnt it: If a barrel lies beneath a spout, the water inside it and outside it is unfit; if one joined its mouth to the spout, the water inside it is fit, and the water outside it is unfit. How now! He asked him about [an object in] the air, where it will not eventually come to rest, and he answered him about [an object in] the air where it will eventually come to rest? — He asked him two [questions]: should you say that [an object in] the air where it will not eventually come to rest is not regarded as at rest, how about [an object in] the air where it will eventually come to rest? That is how R. Joseph recited it. R. Kahana recited it that he asked him about a barrel, and he answered him about a barrel. Rabbah recited it that he asked him about a barrel, and he solved [it] for him [from the case of] a bowl; [arguing thus,] do you not agree that in the case of the bowl, sprinkling [of blood] is unavoidable? We learnt elsewhere: If one places [there] one's hand or foot or vegetables leaves, in order that the water should flow into the barrel, it [the water] is unfit. [If one placed there] leaves of canes or leaves of nuts, it is fit. This is the general rule: [If the water is conducted into the barrel by means of] anything which can become unclean, it is unfit; [by means of] anything which cannot become unclean, it is fit. How do we know it? — Because R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Jose b. Abba: Scripture saith, Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean: its existence must be [effected] through purity. R. Hiyya said in R. Johanan's name: This proves that the air-space of a vessel is as the vessel [itself]. Said R. Zera to R. Hiyya b. Abba: But perhaps It refers to a direct run [into the barrel]? — Fool! replied he: we learnt, ‘So that the water shall flow into the barrel.’ R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in R. Johanan's name: This Mishnah was taught on the testimony of R. Zadok. For we learnt: R. Zadok testified that running water which is assembled by means of nut leaves is fit. There was such a case in Ahaliyya, which was referred to the Sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and they declared it fit. R. Zera said in the name of Rab: If [the priest] slits the [sacrificial] bullock's ear and then receives its blood, it is unfit, for it is said: And [the anointed priest] shall take of the blood of the bullock: [this implies:] the bullock as it was before. We have thus found [this law true of] sacrifices of higher sanctity; how do we know [it of] sacrifices of lower sanctity? — Said Raba, it was taught: Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: [this teaches] that it must be without a blemish and a year old when it is slaughtered. How do we know [that it must be likewise] at the receiving [of the blood], the carrying, and the sprinkling? Because it says, ‘it shall be’, [teaching that] at all its stages [as a sacrifice] it must be without blemish and a year old. Abaye raised an objection to him: R. Joshua said: [In the case of] all sacrifices prescribed in the Torah whereof as much as an olive of flesh or fat remained, [the priest] sprinkles the blood? — Relate this to [the provision that it must be] a year old. Yet is it possible for it to be a year old at the slaughtering, yet two years old at the carrying and sprinkling? — Said Raba: This proves that [even] hours disqualify in the case of sacrifices. R. Ammi said in R. Eleazar's name: [In the case of the animal] being within [the Temple court] while its legs were without, if he cut off its legs and then slaughtered it, it is fit; 28
—