Zevachim 15b — the Talmud in English

it is necessary

again

to bring it

to the altar, and it is found that the second conveyance is an act of conveyance as though it were the first conveyance; therefore the conveyance of a non-koen invalidates it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Thus said Rav Yirmeya of Difti: This

that

“it is necessary to bring it”

considers the second conveyance a complete conveyance, so that it is invalidated by a non-koen,

is the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis

.

For we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: One who walks in a place where he needs to walk, the thought

is invalid

invalidates

it. But if he walks in a

place where he does not need to walk, the thought does not invalidate!

And Rava said

in explaining the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar:

Everyone agrees

that if they

received

the blood

outside and brought it inside,

for the receiving of the blood was from the altar and onward, and afterward they conveyed it toward the altar,

this is a walking that one needs to walk,

and therefore, according to everyone, the thought invalidates it.

And likewise everyone agrees that if they

received it inside and took it outside,

for the receiving of the blood was toward the altar, and they conveyed it in the direction distant from the altar,

this is a walking that one does not need to walk,

and therefore, according to everyone, the thought does not invalidate it.

They disagreed only when they brought it in

initially toward the altar,

and brought it out again

and moved it away from the altar,

and brought it in again

toward the altar; and in that last conveyance they disagreed whether it is possible to conceive an invalidating thought during it—

As for the master,

the first tanna,

he holds

that the last conveyance as well has the status of conveyance, because

indeed, it is necessary to bring it

from the place to which he moved it away; therefore, even though the first conveyance had already been performed, it is possible to conceive a thought during the last one.

And as for the master,

Rabbi Elazar,

he holds

that since this walking is superfluous—for if he had not brought it back and moved it away, it would not have been necessary—therefore it is impossible to conceive a thought during it, because

it is not comparable to a walking necessary for the service.

Abaye raised an objection to Ravina

: We have learned:

Rabbi Elazar says: One who walks

in a

place where he needs to walk, the thought invalidates it. How so? He received it outside and brought it inside; this is a walking that one needs to walk.

He received it inside and took it outside; this is a walking that one does not need to walk.

He brought it in again—it is a walking that one needs to walk!

And how did you say that Rabbi Elazar disagrees and holds that the last walking is considered a walking that one does not need to walk!?

He said to him

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Indeed, from reasoning I said that according to Rabbi Elazar the thought does not invalidate during the second walking, because it is not considered a walking necessary for the service. However,

if it was taught

explicitly that Rabbi Elazar agrees concerning the last walking with the first tanna,

it was taught,

and there is no dispute between them. And Rabbi Elazar came only to disagree with his father, Rabbi Shimon, who said that conveyance is not a service and that the thought does not invalidate during it; and Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the thought invalidates during walking in a place where one needs to walk, even when he conveyed it, moved it away, and then conveyed it again!

We shall return to you, chapter “All the Offerings”

Mishna:

For all the sacrifices whose blood was received

by one of those disqualified for the service, such as

a non-priest,

or

an acute mourner

or

one who immersed that day

who immersed but still lacks sunset for his purification, or

one lacking atonement,

such as a zav or a leper who have already immersed and whose sun has set, except that they have still not brought their sacrifices of atonement,

And likewise one lacking garments, that is, a High Priest who served with fewer than eight garments, or an ordinary priest who served with fewer than four garments; and likewise a priest who had not washed his hands and feet from the basin when he came in the morning to serve. Or the priest was uncircumcised or impure , and likewise a priest who received the blood while sitting

and not standing, or while

standing upon vessels

and not upon the floor of the Temple,

from the basin when he came to perform the morning service.

Or if the priest was

uncircumcised

or

impure,

and likewise if a priest received the blood while

sitting

rather than standing, or while

standing on top of utensils

And likewise, if he served while standing

upon an animal or upon the feet of his fellow, so that there was an interposition between the priest’s foot and the floor of the Temple, — he invalidated the sacrifice! And likewise, if he received the blood while holding the vessel in the left hand— he invalidated the sacrifice!

Rabbi Shimon validates

if the blood was received with the left hand!

Gemara:

A non-priest—

from where

do we know that he invalidates through his service?

Levi taught:

A warning was stated in the section of Emor to the priests that they should not perform the service of the sacrifices while they are impure:

“

Speak to Aaron and to his sons, and they shall separate themselves from the holy things of the Children of Israel”,

and they shall not profane the name of My holiness. Every man who approaches from all your offspring to the holy things— that soul shall be cut off!”

And the Gemara analyzes the wording of the verse, the holy things of the “Children of Israel”: this

“

Children of Israel,”

what does it exclude?

If you say it excludes

“the daughters of Israel,” teaching that the impure priests were not warned against offering the sacrifices of

women,

that cannot be explained this way. For this is difficult: how can the sacrifice itself come in impurity? Even if offering it by a priest was not prohibited, it would still be difficult:

does a sacrifice of women come in impurity?

After all, a sacrifice of women does not have the power to override impurity?

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the verse, the sacred offerings of the “Children of Israel.” The expression

“Children of Israel”—

to exclude what?

If you say that it excludes

“daughters of Israel,”

Rather,

the verse “Children of Israel” comes only to exclude the sacrifice of

idolaters.

If an idolater sent an elevation-offering, one might have thought that even an impure priest could offer it.

And we raise an objection:

now, the forehead-plate, which the High Priest wears upon his forehead and which effects acceptance for Israelite sacrifices concerning blood that became impure and was sprinkled inadvertently, and likewise concerning fat that became impure, when it is possible to sprinkle the blood; nevertheless, it does not effect acceptance for the sacrifice of an idolater, for the Master said: Blood that became impure and he sprinkled it: if he sprinkled it inadvertently, it effects acceptance, and if he sprinkled it intentionally, it does not effect acceptance. But with idolaters, whose sacrificial blood became impure and the priest sprinkled it upon the altar,

whether he sprinkled it

inadvertently or intentionally, it does not effect acceptance.

If so, how could it enter your mind that it

is offered in impurity

of the priest?

After all, an impure priest cannot offer even an Israelite sacrifice, and all the more so he cannot offer a sacrifice of an idolater, which was excluded even from the acceptance of the forehead-plate?

And we answer:

Rather,

from here we learn it—

this is what the verse says: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying:

and they shall separate themselves,”

that they should distance themselves while impure

from My holy things,

from all the holy things! And even

the Children of Israel

shall separate themselves from the holy things, so that they should not serve with them.

And they shall not profane

them through their service with them.” From here we learn that the service of a non-priest profanes the sacrifice.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught

another source for the invalidation of the service of a non-priest:

It is derived by a kal va-chomer from one with a physical defect,

who invalidates the sacrifice through his service —

we derive the disqualification of a non-priest from here.

This is what the verse is saying: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying:

They shall separate themselves

from the sacred offerings”—

that priests should keep away while impure

from the sacred offerings,

from all sacred offerings. And even

the Children of Israel

shall keep away from the sacred offerings, not performing the service with them.

And they shall not profane

them through performing their service with them. From here we learn that the service of a non-priest profanes the offering.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught

another source for the disqualification of the service of a non-priest:

It is derived by an a-fortiori inference from one with a physical defect,

who disqualifies the offering through his service.

And what of one with a blemish

who is lenient,

who may eat

the most holy offerings; nevertheless,

if he performed [the service], he invalidated [it].