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 intendedᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛ