זבחים 26 — parallel

26:1

if he slaughtered and then cut off [the legs], it is unfit. ‘If he cut off [the legs] and then slaughtered [it], it is fit’? Surely he offers a blemished animal! — Say rather: if he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood], it is fit; if he received [the blood] and then cut off [the legs] it is unfit. ‘If he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood] it is fit’? Surely R. Zera said: if one slits the ear of a firstling and then receives its blood, it is unfit, because it says. ‘And he shall take of the blood of the bullock’, [implying,] the bullock as it was originally! — Said R. Hisda in Abimi's name: He cuts the limb as far as the bone. ‘If he received [the blood] and then cut, it is unfit’: from this you may infer that the blood which is absorbed in the limbs is blood? — [No:] perhaps [the unfitness is] on account of the fattiness. Then you may infer from this that if the flesh of sacrifices of lower sanctity passes out [from the Temple court] before the sprinkling of the blood, it is unfit? — [No:] perhaps [R. Ammi in R. Eleazar's name] referred to sacrifices of higher sanctity. Our Rabbis taught: Sacrifices of higher sanctity are slaughtered on the north [side of the Temple court], and their blood is received on the north in service vessels. If he stood in the south, stretched out his hand to the north and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he [thus] received [the blood], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body [into the north side]. it is as though he had entered [the north] entirely. If [the animal] struggled and passed over into the south and then returned, it is fit. Sacrifices of lower sanctity are slaughtered [anywhere] within [the Temple court], and their blood is received in a service vessel within. If he stood without and stretched his hand within and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he received [the blood thus], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body within, he is not regarded as having entered. If it struggled and went without and returned, it is unfit. This proves that sacrifices of lower sanctity whose flesh went without before the sprinkling of the blood are unfit! — [No:] perhaps this refers to the fat-tail, the lobe above the liver, and the two kidneys. Samuel's father asked Samuel: What if it [the animal] is within, while its feet are without? — It is written, Even that they may bring them unto the Lord, he replied, [which intimates] that the whole of it must be within. What if one suspended [the animal] and slaughtered it? It is valid, he replied. You have erred, he observed, for the slaughtering must be ‘on the side’ [of the altar], which provision is unfulfilled. What if [the slaughterer] was suspended and slaughtered [thus]? — It is invalid, he replied. You have erred, said he; the slaughtering must be ‘on the side’ but the slaughterer need not be ‘on the side’. What if he suspended himself and received [the blood]? It is valid, he replied. You have erred, observed he, for such is not the way of service. What if he suspended [the sacrifice] and received [the blood]? — It is invalid, he answered. You have erred, he retorted: slaughtering must be ‘on the side’, but receiving need not be ‘on the side’. Abaye said: In the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity they are all invalid, except where he suspended himself and slaughtered. In the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity, they are all valid, except where he suspended himself and received [the blood]. Said Raba: Why do you say that if he suspended [the animal] and received the blood it is valid in the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity? [Presumably] because the air-space of within is as within! Then in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity too, the air-space of the north is as the north? — Rather said Raba: In the case of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity they are [all] valid, except in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity, where he suspended [the animal] and slaughtered it, and in the cases of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity, where he suspended himself and received [the blood]. R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if he [the priest] is within and his locks [of hair] are without? — Said he to him, Have you not said that ‘even that they may bring them unto the Lord’ intimates that the whole of it [the animal] must come within? So here too, when they go in unto the tent of meeting intimates, that the whole of him must enter the tent of meeting. MISHNAH. IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT, [OR ON THE ALTAR, BUT] NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; IF HE APPLIED [THE BLOOD] WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW [THE SCARLET LINE] ABOVE [IT]. OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, BELOW; OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN [HE APPLIED] WITHOUT, OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT [HE APPLIED] WITHIN, IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.30

—

26:2

GEMARA. Samuel said: It is the flesh that is unfit, but its owners are forgiven. What is the reason? — Because Scripture saith, And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement: once the blood has reached the altar, the owners are forgiven. If so, the flesh too [should be fit]? — Scripture saith, ‘to make atonement’: I have given it for atonement, but not for any other purpose. Now this proves that he holds that [when blood is] not [applied] In its [proper] place, it is as [though applied] in its [proper] place. Now we learned in another chapter: If [the priest] applied it [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar, but] not over against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it], or that which should be applied above, below; or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or what should be applied without [he applied] within: then if lifeblood is still available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time. Now if you maintain that [when blood is] not [applied] in its [proper place], it is as though [applied] in its [proper] place, why must a fit [priest] receive [it] again? And should you answer, In order to permit the flesh for consumption; is there a sprinkling which makes no atonement yet permits the consumption of the flesh? — Had a fit [priest] applied it [in the first place], that would indeed be so; the circumstances here are that an unfit [priest] applied it [in the first place]. But let it constitute [complete] rejection. For we learnt: But if any of these received [the blood, intending to consume the flesh] after time or without bounds, and the life blood is [still] available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time. Thus, only if they received [the blood with that intention], but not if they sprinkled [it thus]; what is the reason? is it not because this effects [complete] rejection? — No: the reason is because it became unfit through an [illegitimate] intention. If so [the same should apply to] receiving? Moreover, does an [illegitimate] intention disqualify it? Surely Raba said: An [illegitimate] intention is without effect save [when purposed] by one who is fit for the service and in connection with that which is fit for the service, and in a place fit for the service! — Do not say, but not if they sprinkled it [thus]; ‘say rather, but not if they slaughtered it [thus]? What does he inform us? that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies? But we have learnt it: Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention [purposed at slaughtering]? — This is what we are informed, viz., that from receiving and onwards intention [on the part of an unfit priest] does not invalidate. What is the reason? As [that stated] by Raba. An objection is raised: If [the priest] intends applying [the blood] which should be applied above [the line] below [it], [or what should be applied] below, above, immediately. it is valid. If he subsequently intended

—