Zevachim

GEMARA. Samuel said: It is the flesh that is unfit, but its owners are forgiven.1 What is the reason? — Because Scripture saith, And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement:2 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.3 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.4 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 lifeblood5 is still available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time.6 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?7 — Had a fit [priest] applied it [in the first place], that would indeed be so;8 the circumstances here are that an unfit [priest] applied it [in the first place].9 But let it constitute [complete] rejection.10 For we learnt: But if any of these11 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.12 Thus, only if they received [the blood with that intention], but not if they sprinkled [it thus];13 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] intention14 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,15 and in a place fit for the service!16 — Do not say, but not if they sprinkled it [thus]; ‘say rather, but not if they slaughtered it [thus]?17 What does he inform us? that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies? But we have learnt it: Therefore they18 invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention [purposed at slaughtering]?19 — This is what we are informed,20 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.21 it is valid.22 If he subsequently intended ‘altar’ is not further localised) is efficacious. But the fitness of the flesh is governed by its own peculiar laws. is as though he applied it in the proper place, which it is now assumed definitely invalidates the sacrifice, and it cannot be repaired. Glos.), since barley was unfit for other meal-offerings. infra 36a.