Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 77:2

ודמים הנשפכין לאמה אין טעונין כיבוס ואין מחשבה מועלת בהן והמעלה מהן בחוץ פטור

court] is liable. The blood, however, which is poured out into the duct does not necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is not effective, and one who presents thereof without is exempt [from punishment]. Now, whom do you know to rule that one who presents thereof without is liable? R. Nehemiah: and he [also] rules [that] it necessitates washing and [that] an [illegitimate] intention in connection with the same is effective. But it was taught: [The pouring out of] the residue and the burning of the limbs [on the altar], which are not indispensable for atonement, are excepted, in that an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is of no effect? - That was taught in reference to the [last] three applications of a sin-offering. If so, [why does it say] 'which requires the base?' [Surely] it is sprinkled on the horn [of the altar]? - Say, which is required for the base. But then, what of 'And an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective'? Surely you said, 'It does not permit [the flesh], it does not render [it] piggul, and does not enter within, as the last blood'? - Rather that [Baraitha] was taught in respect of the blood of the inner [sacrifices]. But in the case of the blood of outer [sacrifices] what [will you say]? he is exempt? Then instead of teaching [about] the blood which is poured out into the duct, let [the Tanna] teach a distinction in that very case. [Thus:] This is said only of the blood of inner [sacrifices], but in the case of the outer sacrifices, he is exempt? - This is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, who maintained [that] one who presents the residue of the blood without is liable, and so he [the Tanna] could not enumerate three instances of exemption corresponding to three instances of liability. <br>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 77:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.