Commentary for Zevachim 29:18

רבא אמר אף לדברי הפוסל פסול מאי טעמא דהא צריך

Surely they differ precisely in respect of a long passage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Simeon states that it is possible without walking (12a) , he obviously refers to a case where walking is, in fact, done.');">²¹</span> Rather, all agree that it is not invalid in the case of a short passage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., that it is invalid (Bah) .');">²²</span> they differ in the case of a long passage. If a zar carried [the blood],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually walking in doing so.');">²³</span> whereupon a priest returned it and then carried it [himself], - the sons of R'Hiyya and R'Jannai disagree. One maintains that it is valid, while the other holds that it is invalid; the former holding that it can be repaired,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the invalidity of the star's action.');">²⁴</span> while the latter holds that it cannot be repaired. If a priest carrie [the blood] but returned it and then a zar carried it [to the altar] again, said R'Simi B'Ashi: He who declare it valid [in the previous case], holds [here] that it is invalid; while he who declares it invalid [there], hold [here] that it is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the former makes the status of the last person who carries it the determining factor, while the latter reverses it.');">²⁵</span> Raba said: Even he who declares it invalid [in the previous case], holds that it is invalid [here too]. What is the reason? -Because he is bound

Explore commentary for Zevachim 29:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.