כא מתיב רב ששת זר ואונן
21 Raba said: If you will say that R'Simeon agrees with his son, who maintained, Between the ulam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'porch', 'entrance', 'hall'. The hall leading to the interior of the Temple.');"><sup>18</sup></span> and the altar is north, [R'Simeon will then hold that] an [illegitimate] intention is effective in the case of the carrying [of the blood] of inner sin-offerings only from within the entrance of the ulam.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering must be slaughtered in the north (infra Ch. V.) . Now it is possible for R. Simeon to agree with his son (infra 20a) that the northern part of the Temple court ('azarah) between the ulam and the altar, though actually to the west of the altar, and therefore one cannot apply to it the Scriptural injunction, And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord (Lev. 1, 11) , is nevertheless 'north' in respect of sacrifices of the higher sanctity. The reason for his view in the Mishnah on ');"><sup>19</sup></span> And if you will say that [R'Simeon] agrees with R'Judah who maintained: The [whole of the] inner part of the Temple court is sanctified; [he will then hold that] an [illegitimate] intention is effective during the passage of the removal the incense dishes only from the entrance of the hekal and without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hekal is the 'Holy', the hall containing the golden altar etc., contrad. to the Holy of Holies (Jast.) . The reference is to the burning of the shew-bread incense, in virtue of which the shewbread was permitted to be eaten, in the same way as the sprinkling of the blood permits the flesh of the sacrifice; consequently it is on a par therewith and the same law applies to both, Now, if R. Simeon holds that the whole of the inner part of the Temple court is sanctified, so that the incense can be burnt there and not necessarily at the altar only, it follows that its carriage to the altar is not an essential act, and therefore an illegitimate intention does not render the shewbread piggul.');"><sup>20</sup></span> Again, if you will say that he holds that the sanctity of the hekal and that of the ulam is one, [then] an [illegitimate] intention is effective only from the entrance of the ulam and without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e,, only at the five cubits of the thickness of the wall of the ulam. For the intention is not effective within the ulam itself, Since that is as the inner part, nor is it effective without the entrance, since the shewbread incense can be burnt there.');"><sup>21</sup></span> And if you will say that within the entrance is as within [the hekal]; then an [illegitimate] intention is not effective even for one step save within the stretching out of hi [one's] hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He stands at the entrance of the ulam and stretches out his hand to the pavement; an illegitimate intention during that action is effective,');"><sup>22</sup></span> But if you will say that he holds that carrying without [using] the foot is not called carrying, then an [illegitimate] intention is not effective at all. Abaye said to R'Hisda's amora:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>23</sup></span> Ask R'Hisda, what of carrying by a lay-Israelite [zar]? - It is valid, h replied, and a Scriptural text supports me: And they killed the Passover lamb, and the priests dashed [the blood, which they received] of their hand, and the Levites flayed them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XXXV, 11. Thus the priests were only required for the sprinkling, but the blood was brought to them (which is the carrying) by those who slaughtered the sacrifice, these being zarim.');"><sup>24</sup></span> R'Shesheth objected: A zar, an onen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>25</sup></span>