Zevachim 32a — the Talmud in English

In the second section,

the Mishna explains several ways in which it is possible to validate the disqualification that occurred in the service of

receiving:

a.

And all of them,

all those disqualified for service,

who received the blood,

even if they received it with a disqualifying thought, receiving it with the thought of eating the flesh of the sacrifice or burning its sacrificial portions

outside its time and outside its place—

the sacrifice did not become pigul on account of their thought, for they are not fit for the service of receiving the blood, and the sacrifice can be established as pigul only if it is performed with a pigul thought by people fit for its service. And for this reason,

if there is the blood of the soul,

blood that continues to emerge from the body of the animal,

a priest

who is

fit

for the service

shall return and receive

the remaining blood emerging from the neck of the animal, and the fit priest shall continue afterward with the other services of the sacrifice. But if a fit priest thinks a pigul thought while receiving the blood, the sacrifice becomes pigul through his thought, and it is not effective to return and receive the rest of the blood with a valid thought, because the sacrifice has already been disqualified.

b.

The priest

who is

fit

for the service received the blood,

and gave

the blood

to

one who is

disqualified

for the service [and this giving is considered the conveying of the blood], the blood and the sacrifice were not disqualified through the conveying by the disqualified person, but there is a possibility of rectifying the conveying:

the disqualified person shall return

the blood

to

the

fit priest, and the fit priest shall continue with his services.

priest, and the qualified priest should continue with the services.

In the third section

the Mishna explains the possibilities for validating a disqualification that occurred in the service of

conveying:

a.

The priest

who was fit received the blood

in his right hand,

in his right hand [as we learned above, 15b, that receiving with the left is disqualified],

and gave

the blood

to his left,

to his left hand—

he shall return it to his right,

and continue with his services.

b.

He received

the blood

in a sacred vessel, and gave

the blood

to an ordinary vessel—

he shall return it to a sacred vessel.

And the blood is valid, and he shall continue with his services.

c.

The blood was spilled

after it had been received in a sacred vessel

from the vessel onto the floor, and he collected it, it is valid

the blood for conveying and sprinkling upon the altar, because the blood had already been sanctified, and the floor disqualifies it only if the blood was spilled directly from the neck of the animal onto the floor, before receiving.

And the Mishna concludes

with the fourth section,

with the manner in which it is possible to validate a disqualified service performed

in the service of sprinkling.

They gave [

the person disqualified for the service] the blood of the sacrifice

upon the ramp,

which is not the place for giving blood, or the person disqualified for the service gave the blood

not opposite the base,

or

he gave the

bloods

that are given below

the scarlet line

above, [

or]

and those that are given above

the scarlet line he gave

below. [ [A0157]or]

and

and those that are given inside

the Sanctuary he gave

outside,

upon the outer altar, [or]

and those that are given outside

he gave

inside.

In all these cases the sprinkling did not count for him. But the sacrifice was not disqualified through this. Therefore,

if there is the blood of the soul

still in the animal,

the fit person shall return and receive

the remaining blood, and continue with his services.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, in the first section: All the disqualified who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid.

And the Gemara deduces: From what it said

“who slaughtered”

and did not say, “all the disqualified slaughter,” it is implied that only

after the fact, yes.

But

initially, no,

the disqualified should not slaughter.

And he raises a contradiction

from what we learned in tractate Yoma [27a], and in the Torat Kohanim:

For it was taught in a beraita: Since the Torah said concerning the service of slaughtering

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull,” and it did not say, “and the priest shall slaughter,” it is implied that the service of

slaughtering by a non-priest is valid.

And from here we also learned

that slaughtering is valid by non-priests, by women, by slaves, and by impure persons.

And

not only with lesser sanctity, but

even with most holy offerings.

Perhaps you will say,

or is it not

valid to slaughter

except by priests?

Your answer is:

You have said: And from where did you come

to say that the slaughtering must specifically be performed by a priest? For “priest” was not mentioned concerning slaughtering, and therefore even a non-priest is fit for it! Perhaps you will say further that one should reason

from what is stated: “And you and your sons with you shall safeguard your priesthood for every matter of the altar,”

that is, “every matter of the altar” requires priesthood; it would be possible to say,

perhaps, even for slaughtering

a priest specifically is required?

Your answer is:

The verse says: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before Hashem, and the priests, the sons of Aaron, shall present

the blood to Him.” From the fact that “priest” was stated concerning receiving and not concerning slaughtering, we learn that only

from receiving onward

is there

a mitzva of priesthood,

and not before that. And through this the verse

taught

us

concerning slaughtering that it is valid by every person.

This is the language of the beraita up to here.

And it is implied from this beraita that the verse taught that slaughtering is valid initially by every person, even by a non-priest. Whereas from the wording of our Mishna we deduced that the disqualified, including the non-priest, are fit only after the fact!?

And we answer: The tanna of the Mishna also maintains that

the same law applies: even initially as well

the non-priest is permitted to slaughter. Rather,

because he wanted

the tanna

to teach

in the Mishna also the law of

impure persons,

that their slaughtering is valid,

initially

their law is that they

should not

slaughter, because of

a decree lest they touch the flesh

of the sacrifice and render it impure. Therefore

the tanna

used the wording

“who slaughtered,”

in the wording of after the fact.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

is it so that a

impure person who slaughtered

after the fact

is it fine?

And is his slaughtering valid?!

And he raises a contradiction

from that which was taught: It is stated in the section concerning the elevation-offering [Leviticus 1]:

“And he shall lean

his hand upon the head of the elevation-offering,” and it is stated immediately afterward,

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull before Hashem.” Through this the verse compared leaning to slaughtering, to teach you:

Just as leaning

is performed only

by pure persons [

as will be explained below],

so, slaughtering

is valid only

by pure persons!?

And we answer: This is not a hekesh, for this law—that semikha is not performed by those who are impure—is not because those who are impure were excluded from semikha, but because they are unable to enter the Temple and perform semikha. Therefore, this hekesh, which comes to prohibit those who are impure from slaughtering, is necessarily only an asmakhta

of rabbinic origin,

because the Sages enacted a decree that one who is impure should not slaughter, lest he touch the flesh of the offering and render it unfit.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about semikha,

that you said that even without the Sages’ decree, lest they touch the flesh, only those who are pure perform semikha, and not those who are impure, because you learned this from what

is written

with regard to slaughtering

“before the Lord,”

namely, inside the Temple courtyard, and since the law is to slaughter immediately after semikha, therefore one may not perform semikha outside and slaughter inside; rather, the law of semikha too is that it must be performed inside, “before the Lord'”. And since those who are impure are forbidden to enter inside, they are unable to perform semikha.

Slaughtering too,

after all,

the verse writes

in regard to it itself

“before the Lord”!

And since those who are impure are not permitted to enter to slaughter and fulfill the Torah’s mitzva of slaughtering the offering before the Lord, they were excluded from slaughtering by Torah law; so why did the Sages need to prohibit their slaughtering by virtue of a decree?

And we answer: Those who are impure were not entirely excluded from slaughtering by Torah law, because

it is possible

for one who is impure to stand outside the Temple and slaughter the offering that is standing inside, by means of

making a long knife and slaughtering

with it, the impure person from outside. And this slaughtering is considered to be “before the Lord,” even though the slaughterer is standing outside, since the offering being slaughtered is standing inside; and therefore the Sages needed to enact a decree that he should not do this.

And we raise an objection:

Semikha too,

why do those who are impure not perform semikha? After all,

it is possible

for them to perform semikha from outside by means of

bringing

the impure person

his hands

—that he brings only his hands into the Temple courtyard—

and leaning

upon the offering standing inside!?

And we answer:

He holds

that this

entry

into the Temple

by part

of the body

is considered entry.

Therefore, a person who is impure is forbidden to bring even only his hands inside, because of the prohibition of entering the Temple in a state of impurity.

Rav Hisda taught it inversely;

he would teach this hekesh of semikha to slaughtering in the opposite manner, as follows: It is stated,

“and he shall lay his hand

before the Lord,'” and it is stated,

“and he shall slaughter

before the Lord.” And the verse teaches:

Just as slaughtering is performed by those who are pure,

for one who is impure cannot enter the Temple to slaughter,

so too semikha is performed only by those who are pure,

and we do not take the offering outside the Temple courtyard so that those who are impure may perform semikha from outside.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about slaughtering

that it is performed only by those who are pure, because

it is written

in regard to it “

before the Lord”,