Parallel
זבחים 32
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
BUT IF ANY OF THESE RECEIVED THE BLOOD [INTENDING TO EAT THE FLESH OR BURN THE EMURIM] AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS AND LIFE-BLOOD IS [STILL] AVAILABLE, A FIT [PRIEST] MUST RECEIVE [IT] A SECOND TIME. IF A FIT PERSON RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] AND GAVE [IT] TO AN UNFIT ONE, HE MUST RETURN IT TO THE FIT ONE. IF HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] IN HIS RIGHT HAND AND TRANSFERRED [IT] TO HIS LEFT, HE MUST RE-TRANSFER IT TO HIS RIGHT. IF HE RECEIVED [IT] IN A SACRED VESSEL AND POURED IT [THENCE] INTO A SECULAR [NON-SACRED] VESSEL, HE MUST RETURN IT TO THE SACRED VESSEL. IF IT SPILT FROM THE VESSEL ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND ONE COLLECTED IT, IT IS FIT. IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT ON THE ASCENT [OR ON THE ALTAR], [BUT] NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; [OR] IF HE APPLIED WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW [THE SCARLET LINE] ABOVE [IT], OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, BELOW; OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN [HE APPLIED] WITHOUT, OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT, WITHIN AND LIFE-BLOOD IS [STILL] AVAILABLE, A FIT [PRIEST] MUST RECEIVE [BLOOD] ANEW. GEMARA. ‘WHO SLAUGHTERED’ [implies] only if done, but not at the very outset. But the following contradicts it: And he shall slaughter: [this teaches that] slaughtering by a zar is valid, for slaughtering by zarim, women, slaves, and unclean persons is valid, even in the case of most sacred sacrifices. Yet perhaps that is not so, but rather [it must be done] by priests? You can answer: Whence do you come [to propose this]? From the fact that it is said, And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep the priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, you might think that this applies to shechitah too. Therefore Scripture states, And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood: from receiving onwards priesthood is prescribed, which teaches that shechitah by any person is valid! — The truth is that it [may be performed] even at the very outset too, but because [the Tanna] wishes to include unclean, who may not [slaughter] in the first place lest they touch the flesh, he states, WHO SLAUGHTERED. Is then [the slaughtering by] an unclean person well if it was done? The following, however, contradicts it: And he shall lay [his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering . . . ] and he shall kill the bullock [before the Lord]: as ‘laying’ must be [done] by clean [persons only], so must shechitah [be done] by clean [persons only]? — That is [only] a Rabbinical law. Why does ‘laying’ differ? because it is written, before the Lord? Yet surely ‘before the Lord’ is written of shechitah too? — It is possible to make a long knife and slaughter. But in the case of ‘laying’ too, he can project his hands [into the Temple court] and lay? — He holds that partial entry is designated entry. R. Hisda recited it reversely: And he shall lay . . . and he shall kill: as shechitah requires clean persons, so ‘laying’ requires clean persons. Why does shechitah differ? because it is written, ‘before the Lord’?
—
but ‘before the Lord’ is written in connection with ‘laying’ too? — He can project his hands within and lay [them on the bullock]. Then in the case of shechitah too, he can make a long knife and slaughter? — This agrees with Simeon the Temanite. For it was taught: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: the bullock [must be] before the Lord, but the slaughterer need not be before the Lord. Simeon the Temanite said: Whence do we know that the slaughterer's hands must be on the inner side of the slaughtered? From the text, And he shall slaughter the bullock before the Lord: he that slaughters the bullock [must be] before the Lord. ‘Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: If an unclean person projects his hands within, he is flagellated, because it says, She shall touch no hallowed things, nor come into the sanctuary: entry is assimilated to contact. As partial contact ranks as contact, so partial entry is designated entry. R. Hoshaia raised an objection to ‘Ulla: If a leper whose eighth day fell on the eve of Passover and who had a nocturnal discharge on that day, and performed immersion, — the Sages said: Though any other tebul yom may not enter [the Levitical camp], this one does enter: it is preferable that an affirmative precept which involves kareth should come and override an affirmative precept which does not involve kareth. Now R. Johanan said: By the law of the Torah there is not even an affirmative precept in connection therewith, for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court. What does ‘the new court’ mean? That they introduced a new law there and ruled: A tebul yom must not enter the Levitical camp. Now if you say that partial entry is called entry, how can he insert his hands for [the sprinkling of his] thumbs; in both cases there is an affirmative precept involving kareth? — from your very refutation [I can answer you], he replied: A leper is different. Since he was permitted in respect of his leprosy, he was permitted in respect of his nocturnal discharge. R. Joseph observed: ‘Ulla holds [that] if the majority were zabin and they became unclean through the dead, since they are permitted in respect of their defilement, they are permitted in respect of their zibah. Said Abaye to him, How can you compare? Uncleanness was permitted, but zibah was not permitted! Perhaps this is what you meant: If the majority are unclean through the dead and they become zabin, since they are permitted in respect of their uncleanness they are permitted in respect of their zibah? — Yes, he replied. Said he to him: Yet they are still not alike. [In the case of] a leper it is permitted, [and] since it is permitted [in respect of leprosy], it is permitted [in respect of his nocturnal discharge]. But defilement is [merely] superseded: in respect of one it was superseded, [while] in respect of the other [zibah] it was not superseded? — Said Raba to him: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: [In the case of] a leper it is permitted: then it is permitted in respect of the one and not permitted in respect of the other. But uncleanness is superseded: What does it matter then whether it is superseded in one instance or whether it is superseded in two instances?
—