Zevachim 15b

לְאַמְטוֹיֵיהּ.

to bring it again. Therefore, the second conveying must also be performed by a priest.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: ״הָא צָרִיךְ לְאַמְטוֹיֵיהּ״ – מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר וְרַבָּנַן.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Yirmeya of Difti said when he stated that it is necessary to bring the blood to the altar again, and that therefore the second conveying is considered a sacrificial rite and must be performed by a priest: He meant that this principle is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַמְהַלֵּךְ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ – מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת. מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ – אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת.

This is as we learned in the mishna (13a): Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who conveys the blood in a situation where he is required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it disqualifies the offering. If he conveys the blood in a situation where he is not required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it does not disqualify the offering.

וְאָמַר רָבָא, הַכֹּל מוֹדִים: קִבְּלוֹ בַּחוּץ וְהִכְנִיסוֹ בִּפְנִים – זֶהוּ הִילּוּךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ. קִבְּלוֹ בִּפְנִים וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַחוּץ – זֶהוּ הִילּוּךְ שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ.

And Rava says: All of the tanna’im concede that if one collected the blood outside, i.e., at a distance from the altar, and he brought it inside, close to the altar, that is considered necessary conveying. If one collected it inside and took it outside, that is considered unnecessary conveying.

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהִכְנִיסוֹ וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאוֹ; מָר סָבַר: הָא צָרִיךְ לְאַמְטוֹיֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּהִילּוּךְ הַצָּרִיךְ לַעֲבוֹדָה דָּמֵי.

They disagree only with regard to a case where he brought it in and took it out again. One Sage, the first tanna , holds that since it is necessary to bring it back to the altar, it is considered necessary conveying, and prohibited intent while performing it disqualifies the offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that since the rite of conveying to the altar was already performed, it is not considered conveying that is necessary for the sacrificial service, and prohibited intent while performing it does not disqualify the offering. Apparently, the same dispute applies to a case where a non-priest conveyed the blood the second time.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, רַבִּי אֶלְיעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַמְהַלֵּךְ מָקוֹם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ – מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת. כֵּיצַד? קִבְּלוֹ בַּחוּץ וְהִכְנִיסוֹ לִפְנִים – זֶהוּ הִילּוּךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ. קִבְּלוֹ בִּפְנִים וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַחוּץ – זֶהוּ הִילּוּךְ שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לֵילֵךְ. וְהָא חָזַר וְהִכְנִיסוֹ – הִילּוּךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַלֵּךְ הוּא!

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s interpretation from a baraita : Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who conveys the blood in a situation where he is required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it disqualifies the offering. How so? If one collected the blood outside, at a distance from the altar, and he brought it inside, close to the altar, that is considered necessary conveying. If one collected it inside and took it outside, that is considered unnecessary conveying. And consequently, one infers that if he brought it in again, it is considered necessary conveying even according to Rabbi Eliezer.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא, תַּנְיָא.

Rava said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot disagree with it.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים

MISHNA: With regard to all slaughtered offerings, if the one who collected their blood was a non-priest; or a priest who was an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative has died and has not yet been buried; or one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed; or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, e.g., a zav or leper after the seventh day of the purification process; or a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments; or one who did not wash his hands and feet from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service; or an uncircumcised priest; or a ritually impure priest; or if the one who collected the blood was sitting; or if he was standing not on the floor of the Temple but upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another, he has disqualified the offering.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ דָּמָן זָר, אוֹנֵן, טְבוּל יוֹם, וּמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּמְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, שֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, עָרֵל, טָמֵא, יוֹשֵׁב, עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי כֵּלִים, עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלֵי חֲבֵרוֹ – פָּסַל.

If he collected the blood with his left hand, he disqualified the blood for offering. In this last case, Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.

קִבֵּל בִּשְׂמֹאל – פָּסַל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.

GEMARA: From where do we derive that a non-priest who performs sacrificial rites disqualifies an offering? As Levi teaches: The verse states: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel [ benei Yisrael ]” (Leviticus 22:2). Levi continues: “The children of Israel” serves to exclude what from the prohibition against sacrificing an offering in a state of impurity? If we say that it serves to exclude the offerings of women, and the verse states “ benei ” in the masculine to indicate sons but not daughters, is it conceivable that an offering of women is sacrificed in a state of impurity?

גְּמָ׳ זָר מְנָלַן? דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר, וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקׇּדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״ – ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נָשִׁים – קׇרְבַּן נָשִׁים בְּטוּמְאָה קָרֵב?!

Rather, perhaps it serves to exclude offerings of gentiles. Now, if the frontplate of the High Priest, which normally effects acceptance for offerings of Jews sacrificed in a state of impurity, does not effect acceptance for the offerings of gentiles, as the Master said: And with regard to an offering of gentiles, whether it was offered in a state of impurity unintentionally or intentionally, it was not accepted; can it be, then, that such an offering is sacrificed in a state of impurity ab initio ?

אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי גּוֹיִם? הַשְׁתָּא צִיץ לָא מְרַצֵּה, דְּאָמַר מָר: וּבַגּוֹיִם – בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד לֹא הוּרְצָה; בְּטוּמְאָה קָרֵב?!

Rather, this is what the verse is saying, i.e., it should be read in the following manner: That they separate themselves from the sacred items; the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name. That is, the verse states that they, the priests, must separate themselves from the sacred items when they are ritually impure, and that the children of Israel must separate themselves from performing the sacrificial rites, so that they will not profane, i.e., disqualify, the offerings.

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקׇּדְשֵׁי, בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ״.

A tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The halakha of a non-priest who performs the sacrificial rites is derived via an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished priest: Just as with regard to a blemished priest, who may partake of the meat of offerings, if he performed sacrificial rites he has nevertheless desecrated the service,

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא, אָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִבַּעַל מוּם: מָה בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁאוֹכֵל – אִם עָבַד חִילֵּל;