Zevachim 29

אפשר לתקונה או לא אפשר לתקונה

[Now the question arises:] Can this be repaired or can it not be repaired?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do we regard the carriage as simply having been omitted, in which case the blood can be taken back and the carriage performed; or do we regard the carriage as having been performed improperly, thus disqualifying the blood permanently, so that it cannot be repaired, and the sacrifice is consequently invalid?');">¹</span> - Come and hear: If a fit person received [the blood] and handed it to an unfit one, the latter must return it to the fit one.

ת"ש קבל הכשר ונתן לפסול יחזיר לכשר

Now, granted that the fit person receives it back, yet if you think that it cannot be repaired, it has [already] been made invalid [This does not prove anything:] do you think that the lay-Israelite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The unfit person.');">²</span> stood within?

ונהי נמי דיחזור הכשר ויקבלנו אי סלקא דעתך לא אפשר לתקונה איפסלא לה

No: it means that the lay-Israelite stood without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Further away from the altar, not nearer to it. Hence the blood had been handed backward, and that certainly does not constitute carriage at all, and it can be repaired. The question under discussion, however, is whether a wrongly performed service can be repaired.');">³</span> It was stated: 'Ulla said in R'Johanan's name: Carriage without [moving] the foot is invalid.

מי סברת דקאי זר גואי לא דקאי זר בראי

This proves that it cannot be repaired. R'Nahman raised an objection to 'Ulla: If [the blood] was spilled from the vessel on to the pavement, and one [a priest] collected it, it is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it had been originally received in a vessel. Now, he assumed that the blood had run down toward the altar, so that we have a form of carriage without the foot, yet this can be repaired by collecting it.');">⁴</span>

איתמר אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן הולכה שלא ברגל פסולה אלמא לא אפשר לתקונה

- The circumstances here are that [the blood] had run outward.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Away from the altar.');">⁵</span> Would it run without [only] and not enter within?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nearer the altar. Surely the blood would run in all directions!');">⁶</span>

איתיביה רב נחמן לעולא נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר

- [It fell] on sloping ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sloping away from the altar,');">⁷</span> Alternatively, [it fell] in a depression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it could not run at all in any direction.');">⁸</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כשיצא לחוץ

Another alternative is that it [the blood] was thick.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Semi-solid, and so could not run.');">⁹</span> But does the Tanna trouble to teach us all these!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Would he state a law that holds good in such exceptional circumstances only?');">¹⁰</span>

לבראי נפיק לגואי לא עייל במקום מדרון איבעית אימא בגומא ואיבעית אימא בסמיכא

Moreover, instead of teaching in another chapter, 'If it was spilt on to the ground<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Directly from the animal's throat.');">¹¹</span> and [the priest] collected it, it is unfit'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a.');">¹²</span>

ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן כל הני ועוד אדתני באידך פירקין נשפך על הרצפה ואספו פסול ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לחוץ אבל נכנס לפנים פסול תיובתא

; let him [the Tanna] draw a distinction in that very case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where it was spilt from the vessel,');">¹³</span> thus: When does this hold good?

אתמר הולכה שלא ברגל מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן בהולכה רבתי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפסולה כי פליגי בהולכה זוטרתי

[Only] if [the blood] ran without; but if it entered within, it is unfit? This is indeed a refutation

מחכו עלה במערבא אלא חטאת העוף דפסולה בה מחשבה לר"ש היכי משכחת לה אי דחשיב עלה מקמי דליפוק דם לא כלום היא ואי בתר דנפק דם איתעבידא ליה מצותו

It was stated: Carriage without moving the foot is [the subject of] a controversy between R'Simeon and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon does not regard carriage as a service at all (v. Mishnah 13a) ; hence however it is done it cannot disqualify the sacrifice. The Rabbis, however, do regard it as a service, and therefore if done improperly the sacrifice is disqualified.');">¹⁴</span> In the case of a long carriage all agree that it is unfit; they disagree only in respect of a short carriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the animal is slaughtered so near the altar that the priest merely stretches out his' hand and sprinkles the blood without walking at all.');">¹⁵</span>

מאי קושיא דלמא מדפריש ועד דמטא למזבח

This was ridiculed in the West [Eretz Israel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 17b.');">¹⁶</span> : if so, as for [the law that] an [illegitimate] intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the sprinkling.');">¹⁷</span>

דהא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה עד שלא הגיע דם לאויר המזבח מהו וא"ל [פסולה מ"ט] והזה ונתן בעינן

disqualifies a sin-offering of a bird, how is this possible according to R'Simeon? if [the priest] expressed this intention before the blood issued,it is nothing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the bird is killed near the altar and its blood made to spurt against the altar direct from the bird. This act of making it spurt constitutes a short carriage, during which, on the present hypothesis, there can be no disqualification, according to R. Simeon,');">¹⁸</span>

כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא ובהולכה רבתי לא פליגי והא כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי פליגי

if after the blood has issued, then surely the precept has already been performed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This assumes that immediately the blood spurts from the neck, even before it reaches the altar, the precept has been performed.');">¹⁹</span> - What difficulty is this?

אלא בהולכה זוטרתי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פסלה כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי

perhaps [the priest expressed his intention] between the issuing [of the blood] and its reaching the altar? For surely R, Jeremiah asked R'Zera: What if one was sprinkling, and the sprinkler's hand was cut off before the blood reached the altar air-space?

הוליכו זר והחזירו כהן וחזר והוליכו פליגי בה בני רבי חייא ור' ינאי חד אמר כשר וחד אמר פסול מר סבר אפשר לתקונה ומר סבר לא אפשר לתקונה

And he answered him, It is invalid. What is the reason?

הוליכו כהן והחזירו וחזר והוליכו זר אמר רב שימי בר אשי לדברי המכשיר פסול לדברי הפוסל מכשיר

Because it is essential that 'he shall sprinkle' and 'he shall put' [of the blood upon the horns of the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. IV, 6-7. The priest must both 'sprinkle' the blood and 'put' it on the altar, i.e., see that it actually reaches the altar; consequently, until it actually reaches the altar the service is still being performed, and therefore if the priest's hand is cut off just then, we have a service performed by a priest with a physical blemish, which is invalid (v. Lev. XXI, 17 seq.) . By the same reasoning, an illegitimate intention during the passage of the blood to the altar may disqualify it. - This argument is unrefuted, and therefore the view that the controversy refers to a short passage may be correct.');">²⁰</span> When R'Papa and R'Huna the son of R'Joshua came from [the academy] they stated: This was the [point of their] derision: Do they not differ about a long passage?

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