Zevachim 15a — the Talmud in English

And according to the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that transport without walking is not considered transport, the Gemara discusses what the law is regarding transport performed without walking by a priest, or even by a non-priest who is disqualified for transport: whether

it is possible to rectify it

by returning the blood to its previous place and transporting it anew by a priest who walks,

or it is not possible to rectify it,

because the sacrificial service of transport has already been performed in disqualification.

Come and hear: A qualified person received

the blood,

and gave

it

to a disqualified person,

the blood did not become disqualified when the qualified person handed it to the disqualified person, even though that handing is transport without walking; rather, it has a remedy:

the disqualified person shall return

it

to a qualified person,

and the qualified person shall transport it to the altar.

And the Gemara infers:

And even if you say that the qualified person should return and receive it

from the disqualified person,

if it enters your mind

that transport without walking

cannot be rectified,

then

it has become disqualified

the transport at the moment when the qualified person handed it to the disqualified person, because that handing is considered transport without walking, and there is no longer a remedy for it. Necessarily, it is possible to return and rectify it.

And we reject this:

Do you think that the

same

non-priest

to whom they handed the blood

was inside,

on the side of the altar, so that the handing to him was invalid transport?

No,

this is not what is being discussed; rather, it is a case

where the non-priest was

standing beside

the outside,

on the side opposite the altar and outside it. It follows that that handing is not transport at all, for he is distancing the blood from the altar, whereas the sacrificial service of transport applies only when he brings the blood toward the altar through his transport. And since there was no transport here at all, it is possible to rectify it by taking the blood from the disqualified person and transporting it anew to the altar by a qualified priest.

Another version

It was stated: Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Transport without walking is disqualified!

According to this version, there is no room to discuss whether it is possible to rectify it, for Rabbi Yohanan holds that the transport is “disqualified,” [instead of “it is not considered transport”

; evidently, it cannot be rectified!

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla:

We learned below [32a]:

If

the blood [after it had been received in a vessel

spilled

from the vessel onto the floor, and they gathered it—

valid! And Rav Naḥman assumed that this applies even in a case where, when the blood spilled onto the ground, it spread in the direction of the altar, thereby performing transport without walking; nevertheless, we learned that it is valid through returning it to a vessel and transporting it anew from the place where it initially spilled onto the ground. And this is difficult for Ulla’s other version.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? When it went out

the blood

outward,

so that when it spilled from the vessel onto the ground, the blood spread farther from the altar. Since it became distanced from it, this is not considered as though transport had been performed with the blood.

And we raise a difficulty: Is it so that blood spilling onto the ground

outward

alone

goes out,

whereas

it does not enter inward? Is it possible that clear blood spilled onto the ground would not spread both outward and inward?

And we answer: It is referring to a case in which it spilled in a

sloping place,

and therefore it spread only outward.

And if you wish, say that it spilled

in a hollow,

and it did not spread either outward or inward; therefore, it was not disqualified on account of transport without walking.

And if you wish, say: With thick blood,

with thick blood that is about to coagulate and does not spread outward or inward in the Temple courtyard.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

why

did the tan###nai trouble himself to teach us all these

cases, until he taught you that it is valid only in these situations—that the blood spilled outward, or that it spilled into a hollow, or that the blood was thick—and not when it spilled inward?

And furthermore,

it is difficult: If the tan###nai’s intention was that it spilled specifically in these situations,

since he taught in the other chapter

[below 25a],

if

the blood

spilled

from the animal’s neck

onto the floor, and they gathered it—

disqualified,

because it was not initially received in a vessel,

let him distinguish in that case,

in what we learned in the third chapter [in the Mishna cited by Rav Naḥman], and say that when the blood was initially received in a vessel and afterward spilled from the vessel onto the floor, the blood is valid, and say as follows: When are these words applicable,

that it can be gathered and will be valid?

When it went out

the blood and spread

outward, but

if it spread and

entered inward,

then it is

disqualified

on account of transport without walking.

And since this distinction was not taught, it is proven that whether the blood spread inward or whether it spread outward, it is possible to gather it, and it has a remedy even though transport without walking was performed with it. It follows that this Mishna presents

a refutation

against Ulla, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that transport without walking is disqualified.

of Ulla, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that carrying without walking is disqualified.

It was stated: transport not on foot –

the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis

is it. For their dispute in the Mishna, whether a thought disqualifies at the time of transport, is not a dispute as to whether transport is considered a service, for

in extensive transport,

when he transports from a place distant from the altar,

everyone agrees

that the transport is considered a service, and therefore all maintain that if he formulated a disqualifying thought during it,

it is disqualified,

that transport, like any disqualified service.

When they disagree is in limited transport,

when he slaughters close to the altar and extends the blood in his hand to the altar, without walking with his feet.

The Rabbis maintain that transport not on foot is a service, and therefore a thought disqualifies in it. Whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that transport not on foot is not transport, and therefore he validates it even when he formulates a disqualifying thought during it .

They mocked this in the West [

in the Land of Israel they disputed this statement], for if limited transport not on foot, when he is standing close to the altar, is not considered transport according to Rabbi Shimon, even though it cannot be dispensed with, this will be difficult for you:

Rather, the bird sin-offering,

whose blood is sprinkled on the altar by the priest holding its body and spraying its blood from its neck, which was pinched, onto the altar, and we hold

that a thought disqualifies in it

during that sprinkling [even though he does not transport the blood on foot, but stands close to the altar and sprinkles from its body],

according to Rabbi Shimon, how can you find it?

For it is possible to disqualify its sprinkling only because it is limited transport, and it follows that he formulates a thought during transport.

For either way you consider it,

if he formulated a thought concerning it before the blood emerges,

when he shakes the body of the bird sin-offering so that its blood will be sprayed, and this shaking has the status of transport, have you not said that limited transport

is nothing at all

according to Rabbi Shimon?

And if

he formulated a thought concerning it

after the blood emerged,

at the time it is sprayed from the neck toward the altar,

its mitzva has already been performed for him [

the questioner understood that the sprinkling ends at the moment the blood is sprayed from the bird’s neck], and again a thought does not disqualify in it?

And

we raise an objection:

what difficulty

is this!?

Perhaps

it refers to a case where he formulated a thought

from when he separated

the sin-offering’s blood from the bird’s neck

until it reached the altar,

and from the moment the blood emerged from the bird’s neck, the service of transport ended and the service of sprinkling began, continuing until the blood reaches the altar. Therefore, one who formulates a disqualifying thought at that time is thinking during the service of sprinkling, and not during transport, and Rabbi Shimon admits that one who formulates a thought during sprinkling disqualifies.

And the proof that the sprinkling of the blood is considered a continuing sprinkling, from its being sprinkled until it reaches the wall of the altar, is:

for Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If he was sprinkling

from the blood of the bird sin-offering on the outer altar, or if he was sprinkling from the bull’s blood in the Sanctuary opposite the curtain,

and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before the blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is [the law]?

Is the sprinkling of the blood considered a service until the blood reaches the altar, with the result that the service was performed when the priest was blemished and it is disqualified; or had the service of sprinkling already ended when the priest sprinkled, with the result that he became blemished only after the service had ended?

And he said to him,

Rabbi Zeira: It is

disqualified.

What is the reason?

Because it is stated regarding the bird sin-offering,

“And he shall sprinkle

from the blood,” and nearby it is stated,

“And he shall place

the priest from the blood,” and we derive:

“And he shall sprinkle”

in the likeness of

“and he shall place,”

we require,

that as long as the blood has not been placed on the altar, the service of sprinkling is still continuing. It follows that even according to Rabbi Shimon there is a case where one formulates a thought during sprinkling in the bird sin-offering, for example, when he formulates a thought between the spraying and the blood’s reaching the altar!

When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the house of their teacher, they said: This was the mockery

“that they mocked in the West”:

and

if

in extensive transport,

far from the altar,

they do not dispute

Rabbi Shimon and the Sages,

but when they dispute, they dispute in extensive transport!

For Rabbi Shimon’s reason that walking does not disqualify is that “it is possible without walking,” and it is evident that his intention is even with extensive transport, but he validates because it is possible to perform it through limited transport!

Rather,

necessarily, one must say that

in limited transport everyone agrees that it disqualifies,

because it cannot be dispensed with.

When they disagree is in extensive transport,

for the Rabbis disqualify, while Rabbi Shimon validates because it can be dispensed with .

And in Zevah Todah he maintained that Maimonides intended a case where he was standing far from the altar, and since the usual way is to transport from a distance on foot, it is considered a service, and if he performed it not on foot, it is disqualified [as explained in chapter 1, section 23], and therefore a thought of piggul does not take effect in it. But when he is standing close, his thought while extending his hand disqualifies, because it is limited transport. Maimonides’ view is that according to everyone it disqualifies, because this is its usual manner and it cannot be dispensed with; therefore it is considered transport and not casting, unlike the explanation of the commentators on his works. He explained that Maimonides considered it forced to explain like Rashi, that they did not dispute limited transport, which is not on foot, and that their entire dispute is in extensive transport, which is on foot, for it is not reasonable that the Gemara would completely retract its assumption that their dispute is regarding transport not on foot. Therefore he maintained that extensive transport is transport not on foot from a distant place, and since the usual way is to transport on foot, if he performed it not on foot, it is disqualified. [And see note 10, a third explanation from the Mishna le-Melekh, and above, 14b, notes 10–11.] And in Keren Ora he maintained that according to the conclusion limited transport, by extending his hand, is considered according to everyone casting and not transport, while one who transports from his hand to his fellow’s hand is considered extensive transport, but it can be dispensed with according to Rabbi Shimon. And in the initial assumption the Gemara held that they disputed regarding limited transport, whether it is transport or casting, while in extensive transport everyone disqualified, because it cannot be dispensed with. And in Even Ha-Ezel he rejected his words, for if so, according to the conclusion the Rabbis maintain that one who transports from his hand to his fellow’s hand is considered transport, and it follows that this is not according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said that transport not on foot is disqualified. They led it

a non-koen [the blood] on foot,

and a koen returned it

to the place of slaughter,

and he again led it

the koen to the altar,

the sons of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagreed about it [and what they said above—that the leading of a non-koen is invalid—speaks of a case where they did not have a koen return it]:

and the earlier statement that a non-priest’s carrying is invalid refers to a case in which a priest did not return it]:

one said it is valid, and one said it is invalid.

And the Gemara explains in what they disagreed:

one master holds that it can be rectified

the leading performed in disqualification. And the reason that it is impossible to return and rectify slaughter, receiving, or sprinkling performed by one who is disqualified is that it is impossible to return and slaughter or to return and sprinkle, because there is no blood. But if the blood of the soul remains, indeed it is possible to return and receive through a fit person, and to sprinkle the blood.

And one master holds that it cannot be rectified!

Since the service was performed in disqualification, the offering became invalid, and it is no longer fit for rectification.

A koen led it

first to the blood,

and returned it

to its place without sprinkling its blood on the altar,

and a non-koen again led it

to the altar—

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: according to the view of the one who declares valid

where a non-koen led it first, and the koen returned it, and the koen again led it,

he invalidates

here, because according to his words the second leading is the essential one, for through it he made it valid, as in the case where the koen again led it. Therefore, in a case where the koen led it first, returned it, and a non-koen performed the final leading, he will invalidate it.

But

according to the view of the one who invalidates

where a non-koen led it first, because the first leading is essential, necessarily here he

declares valid,

for according to his view the first leading determines the law of the leading, and here, since it was performed by a koen, we are not concerned that it was returned to its original place and in the end a non-koen led it.

Rava said: even according to the view of the one who invalidates

when a non-koen leads it first,

it is invalid

here, even though the koen led it first.

What is the reason? —

For indeed

after he returned the blood to its original place,