Zevachim 30

Chapter 30

א לאמטוייה
1 to bring it up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in fact the blood was taken away from the altar, it must be brought back. This becomes a service, and is therefore disqualified by a zar.');"><sup>1</sup></span> R'Jeremiah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M. reads: Rabina.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר ליה רב ירמיה לרב אשי הכי אמר רב ירמיה מדיפתי הא צריך לאמטוייה מחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבנן
2 said to R'Ashi, This is what R'Jeremiah of Difti<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 197 conjectures that this is identical with Dibtha, in the neighbourhood of Wasit, north of Harpania.');"><sup>3</sup></span> said: [The validity of the argument,] 'Surely he is bound to bring it up', is disputed by R'Eliezer and the Rabbis.
ג דתנן ר"א אומר המהלך במקום שצריך להלך מחשבה פוסלת מקום שאין צריך להלך אין מחשבה פוסלת
3 For we learned: R'ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE GOES WHERE HE NEEDS TO GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DISQUALIFIES IT; [IF HE GOES] WHERE HE NEED NOT GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY IT. Whereon Raba commented: All agree that if [the priest] received [the blood] without and carried it within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he received it at some distance from the altar and brought it up to the altar.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד ואמר רבא הכל מודים קבלו בחוץ והכניסו בפנים זהו הילוך שצריך להלך קבלו בפנים והוציאו לחוץ זהו הילוך שאין צריך להלך
4 that is a necessary walk. If he received [it] within and carried it without, it is an unnecessary walk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the course of which an illegitimate intention does not disqualify the sacrifice, on all views.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה לא נחלקו אלא כשהכניסו וחזר והוציאו מר סבר הא צריך לאמטוייה ומ"ס לאו כהילוך הצריך לעבודה דמי
5 They disagree only where he brought it within and then carried it without again: One Master holds, But he must surely bring it up [to the altar;]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence an illegitimate intention even during this second passage to the altar disqualifies it.');"><sup>6</sup></span> while the other Master holds: This is not the same as a carriage required for the service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there was no need in the first place to take it away from the altar. Hence an illegitimate intention during that passage does not disqualify it.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו איתיביה אביי ר"א אומר המהלך מקום שצריך להלך מחשבה פוסלת כיצד קבלו בחוץ והכניסו לפנים זהו הילוך שצריך להלך קבלו בפנים והוציאו לחוץ זהו הילוך שאין צריך לילך והא חזר והכניסו הילוך שצריך להלך הוא
6 Abaye refuted him: R'Eliezer said: If one goes where he must go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies it. How so?
ז א"ל אי תניא תניא:
7 If he received it without and brought it within, it is a necessary walk. If he received it within and carried it without ' it is an unnecessary walk.
ח <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל הזבחים:</strong></big><br><br>
8 Whence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M. deletes.');"><sup>8</sup></span> if he carried it within again, it is a necessary walk? - Said he [Raba] to him: If it was taught, it was taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I must accept it.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ט מתני׳ <big><strong>כל</strong></big> הזבחים שקבלו דמן זר אונן טבול יום ומחוסר כפורים ומחוסר בגדים שלא רחץ ידים ורגלים ערל טמא יושב עומד על גבי כלים על גבי בהמה על גבי רגלי חברו פסל
9 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL SACRIFICES WHOSE BLOOD WAS CAUGHT BY A ZAR, AN ONEN, A TEBUL YOM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. for these terms.');"><sup>10</sup></span> ONE LACKING SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest who became unclean through the dead was sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer mixed with water; then he took a ritual bath; and on the eighth day of his uncleanness he offered a sacrifice, which made atonement for him. Similarly, a leper and a zab (q.v. Glos.) took a ritual bath on becoming clean, and offered a sacrifice the following day. in all these cases they are regarded as 'lacking atonement' after their ritual bath and before they offer their sacrifice.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
י קבל בשמאל פסל ר"ש מכשיר:
10 ONE LACKING [PRIESTLY] VESTMENTS, ONE WHO HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS AND FEET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the laver; v. Ex. XXX, 18 seq.');"><sup>12</sup></span> AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST].
יא <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> זר מנלן דתני לוי (ויקרא כב, ב) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל וגו' בני ישראל למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי נשים קרבן נשים בטומאה קרב
11 AN UNCLEAN [PRIEST]. ONE WHO WAS SITTING, ONE STANDING ON UTENSILS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not directly on the pavement.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יב אלא למעוטי עובדי כוכבים השתא ציץ לא מרצה דאמר מר ובעובדי כוכבים בין בשוגג בין במזיד לא הורצה בטומאה קרב
12 OR ON AN ANIMAL OR ON HIS FELLOW'S FEET, ARE DISQUALIFIED. IF [THE PRIEST] CAUGHT [THE BLOOD] WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS DISQUALIFIED.
יג אלא הכי קאמר וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל ולא יחללו
13 R'SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the law concerning the last case.');"><sup>14</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>How do we know [that] a zar [disqualifies the sacrifice if he receives the blood]? - Because Levi taught: [Scripture says,] Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 2. This prohibits the priest from officiating whilst unclean (see following verses) . Hence the phrase 'the children' (or, 'sons', uhbc which may be the meaning of the Heb.) apparently implies a limitation: only from the sacrifices of 'the children of Israel' must they hold aloof when they are unclean, but not from other sacrifices.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יד דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אתיא בק"ו מבעל מום מה בעל מום שאוכל אם עבד חילל
14 What does 'the children [sons] of Israel' exclude? Shall we say that it excludes [the sacrifice of] women? Can women's sacrifice be offered in uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');"><sup>16</sup></span> Again, is it to exclude [the sacrifices of] heathens? seeing that [even] the headplate does not propitiate, for a Master said: But in th case of [the sacrifices of] heathens, whether [done]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., offered in an unclean state.');"><sup>17</sup></span> in ignorance or deliberately, propitiation is not effected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 45b.');"><sup>18</sup></span> can these [actually] be offered in uncleanness! Hence this is what [Scripture] means: that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they [the children of Israel] profane not [My holy name].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'the children of Israel' cannot be a limitation, it is interpreted as an additional subject of 'separate': the children of Israel (i.e., zarim) t must separate themselves from the sacrifices, as otherwise they profane God's name, by disqualifying the sacrifice.');"><sup>19</sup></span> The School of R'Ishmael taught: [That a zar disqualifies the sacrifice] is inferred a minori from [a priest with a blemish: if [a priest] with a blemish, who may eat [of the sacrifice], profanes [it] when he officiates,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXI, 22f.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter