Zevachim 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

In the second part,

the Mishna explains several ways in which a disqualifying act performed in the rite of

receiving

the blood can be rendered valid:

And all of them,

all those disqualified from the service,

who received the blood,

even if they received it with a disqualifying thought, intending to eat the flesh of the offering or burn its sacrificial portions

beyond its proper time or outside its designated place—

the offering does not become pigul on account of their thought, since they are not fit for the service of receiving the blood, and an offering can acquire the status of pigul only when this is done with a thought of pigul by people fit for its service. Therefore,

if there is blood of the life,

blood that continues to flow from the animal’s body,

he shall return,

a priest

fit

for the service,

and receive

the remaining blood emerging from the animal’s neck, and the fit priest shall continue with the remaining rites of the offering. But if a fit priest entertains a thought of pigul while receiving the blood, the offering 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 offering has already been disqualified.

b.

The fit

priest

received

the blood,

and gave

the blood

to

one who is

disqualified

from the service [and this giving is considered the carrying of the blood]: the blood and the offering are not disqualified by the carrying performed by the disqualified person, but the carrying can be rectified:

the disqualified person shall return

the blood

to

the

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

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

In the third part

the Mishna explains the possibilities for rendering valid a disqualifying act performed in the rite of

carrying:

a.

The fit

priest received the blood

in his right hand,

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

and gave

the blood

to his left hand,

to his left hand—

he shall return it to his right hand,

and continue with his rites.

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.

The blood is valid, and he shall continue with his rites.

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

for carrying 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 animal’s neck onto the floor, before it was received.

And the Mishna concludes

with the fourth part,

concerning a case in which it is possible to render valid a disqualifying rite performed

in the rite of sprinkling.

They gave [

the person disqualified from the service] the blood of the offering

upon the ramp,

which is not the place for applying blood; or the person disqualified from the service gave the blood

not opposite the base,

or

he gave

the blood

that is to be given below

the sikra line

above, [

or]

the blood that is to be given above

the sikra line he gave

below. [

Or]

the blood that is to be given inside

the Sanctuary he gave

outside,

upon the outer altar, [or]

the blood that is to be given outside

he gave

inside.

In all these cases, the sprinkling does not fulfill its requirement for him. But the offering is not thereby disqualified. Therefore,

if there is blood of the life

still in the animal,

the fit priest shall return and receive

the remaining blood, and continue with his rites.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, in the first part: All those disqualified who slaughtered—their slaughter is valid.

The Gemara infers: From the fact that it says

“who slaughtered”

and does not say, “All those disqualified may slaughter,” it follows that only

after the fact, yes.

But

ab initio, no:

those disqualified may not slaughter.

And it contradicts this

with what we learned in tractate Yoma [27a] and in the Sifra:

As it is taught in a beraita: Since the Torah said concerning the rite of slaughter

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull,” and did not say, “And the priest shall slaughter,” it follows that the rite of

slaughter by a non-priest is valid.

And from this we also learn

that slaughter is valid when performed by non-priests, by women, by slaves, and by impure persons.

And

not only with lesser sanctity-offerings, but

even with most holy offerings.

You might say:

Or perhaps

only a priest is fit to slaughter

?

The answer is:

You have said: And from where did you derive

the notion that slaughter must specifically be performed by a priest? “Priest” was not mentioned with regard to slaughter, and therefore even a non-priest is fit for it. You might further say that it should be derived

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

meaning that “everything concerning the altar” requires priesthood; it would then be possible to say:

perhaps even slaughter

requires specifically a priest?

The answer is:

The verse states: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and the priests, the sons of Aaron, shall offer

the blood to Him.” From the fact that “priest” is stated with regard to receiving but not with regard to slaughter, we learn that only

from receiving onward

is it

the mitzva of priesthood,

and not before that. By this,

the verse teaches

that

slaughter is valid when performed by anyone.

This is the wording of the beraita.

It follows from this beraita that the verse teaches that slaughter is valid ab initio by anyone, even by a non-priest. Yet from the wording of our Mishna we inferred that those disqualified—including a non-priest—are fit only after the fact!?

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

the same law applies: even ab initio as well

the non-priest is permitted to slaughter. Rather,

because the tanna wanted

the tannaitic authority

to teach

in the Mishna also the law of the

impure persons,

that their slaughter is valid,

ab initio

their law is that they

may not

slaughter, because of

a decree, lest they touch the flesh

of the offering and render it impure. Therefore,

the tanna

used the wording

“who slaughtered,”

which indicates a post facto situation.

And we challenge this:

And

is it true that

an impure person

who slaughtered

after the fact—is it acceptable?

Is his slaughter indeed valid!?

And it contradicts this

with that which is taught in a beraita: It is stated in the passage concerning the ola [Leviticus 1]

“And he shall place

his hand upon the head of the ola,” and immediately afterward it says

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull before the Lord.” Through this juxtaposition, the verse equated semikha with slaughter, teaching you:

Just as semikha

is performed only

by pure persons

[as will be explained below],

so too slaughter

is valid only

by pure persons!?

And we answer: This is not a hekesh, for the reason that laying of hands is not performed by those who are impure is not that those who are impure were excluded from laying of hands, but that they are unable to enter the Courtyard and perform the laying of hands. Therefore, this hekesh, which comes to prohibit those who are impure from slaughtering, must necessarily be merely an asmakhta

by rabbinic decree,

because the Sages decreed that one who is impure may not slaughter, lest he touch the flesh of the offering and render it unfit.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about laying of hands,

such that you said that even without the Sages’ decree, lest they touch the flesh, laying of hands is performed only by those who are pure and not by those who are impure, because you derived this from what

is written

with regard to slaughtering,

“before Hashem,”

namely, inside the Courtyard; and since the law is that slaughtering must take place immediately after laying of hands, laying of hands may not be performed outside and slaughtering inside, but laying of hands, too, must be performed inside, “before Hashem.” And since those who are impure are prohibited from entering inside, they cannot perform the laying of hands.

Slaughtering as well,

after all,

the verse writes

about it itself

“before Hashem”!

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

And we answer: Those who are impure were not completely 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

making a long knife and slaughtering

with it from outside. This slaughtering is considered to be “before Hashem,” even though the slaughterer is standing outside, since the offering being slaughtered is standing inside. Therefore, the Sages had to decree that this may not be done.

And we raise an objection:

Laying of hands as well,

why do those who are impure not perform the laying of hands? After all,

it is possible

for them to perform the laying of hands from outside by

inserting

the impure person’s

hands,

inserting only his hands into the Courtyard,

and laying them

upon the offering standing inside!?

And we answer:

He holds

that this tanna considers

entry

into the Temple

in part

of the body

to constitute entry. Therefore, it is prohibited for a person who is impure to insert even only his hands, because of the prohibition against entering the Temple while impure.

Therefore, an impure person is forbidden to bring in even only his hands, because of the prohibition against entering the Temple while impure.

Rav Ḥisda taught the opposite,

he taught this hekesh of laying of hands to slaughtering in the reverse manner, as follows: It is stated,

“and he shall lay”

“before Hashem,” and it is stated,

“and he shall slaughter”

“before Hashem.” And the verse teaches:

Just as slaughtering is performed by those who are pure,

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

so too, laying of hands is performed only by those who are pure,

and the offering is not taken outside the Courtyard so that those who are impure can perform the laying of hands from outside.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about slaughtering

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

it is written

with regard to it

“before Hashem,”