one who is intoxicated and one who is [physically] blemished are unfit to receive [the blood], carry [it] and sprinkle [it], and the same applies to one who is sitting and to [the performance of these by] ‘the left hand. This is indeed a refutation! But R. Hisda quotes a text? — It means that he [the zar] served as a [mere] post. Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintained: Carriage by a zar is a [subject of] controversy between R. Simeon and the Rabbis. [According to] R. Simeon who says that a [Temple] service which can be dispensed with is not a service, [carriage] by a zar is valid. But according to the Rabbis it is invalid. Said Abaye to them: But slaughtering is a service which cannot be dispensed with, and yet it is valid [when done] by a zar? — Slaughtering is not a service, he replied. Is it not? Surely R. Zera said in Rab's name: The slaughtering of the [red] heifer by a zar is invalid; and R. Papa observed thereon: [The reason is because] ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ are written in connection with it. — The [red] heifer is different, because it is of the holy things of the Temple repair. But does it not follow a fortiori: it is a service in the case of the holy objects of the Temple repair, yet it is not a service in the case of holy objects dedicated to the altar! — Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi: Let it be analogous to the inspection of [leprous] plagues, which is not a service, and yet requires the priesthood. Yet the carrying of the limbs to the ascent is a service which can be dispensed with, and yet it is invalid [when done] by a zar, for it is written, And the priest shall offer [bring near] the whole, and make it smoke [burn it] upon the altar, and a Master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent? — Where [Scripture] has revealed [that a priest is required], it has revealed [it], but where [Scripture] has not revealed [it], it has not. But does not [the reverse] follow a fortiori: if the carrying of the limbs to the ascent requires the priesthood, though it is not indispensable to atonement, how much the more [does] the carrying of the blood [require a priest], seeing that it is indispensable to atonement! It was stated likewise: ‘Ulla said in R. Eleazar's name: Carriage by a zar is invalid even according to R. Simeon. It was asked: Is carriage without [moving] the foot called carriage or not? — Come and hear: And the same applies to one who is sitting and to [the performance of these by] the left hand, [which renders it] invalid. Hence standing similar to sitting is valid! — [No:] perhaps sitting means that he drags himself along, [and then] standing similar to sitting means that he moves slightly. Come and hear: A [lay-] Israelite slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and a priest received [the blood]; he handed it to his colleague, and his colleague to his colleague! — There too it means that they [the priests] moved slightly. Then what does he [the Tanna] inform us? — That in the multitude of people is the king's glory. 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! — Say, the fit person must go round and take it. It was stated: ‘Ulla said in R. Johanan's name: Carriage without [moving] the foot is not called carriage.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘ