Zevachim 52

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר שמואל פסול בשר אבל בעלים נתכפרו מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יא) ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר כיון שהגיע דם למזבח נתכפרו בעלים

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Samuel said: It is the flesh that is unfit, but its owners are forgiven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They have fulfilled their obligation, and do not bring another offering.');">¹</span> What is the reason? - Because Scripture saith, And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 11.');">²</span>

אי הכי בשר נמי אמר קרא לכפר לכפרה נתתיו ולא לדבר אחר

once the blood has reached the altar, the owners are forgiven. If so, the flesh too [should be fit]? - Scripture saith, 'to make atonement': I have given it for atonement, but not for any other purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only in respect of atonement does Scripture intimate that the application of the blood on any part of the altar (since 'altar' is not further localised) is efficacious. But the fitness of the flesh is governed by its own peculiar laws.');">³</span>

אלמא קסבר שלא במקומו כמקומו דמי תנן באידך פירקין נתנו על הכבש שלא כנגד היסוד נתן את הניתנין למטה למעלה ואת הניתנין למעלה למטה ואת הניתנין בפנים בחוץ ואת הניתנין בחוץ בפנים אם יש דם הנפש יחזור הכשר ויקבל

Now this proves that he holds that [when blood is] not [applied] In its [proper] place, it is as [though applied] in its [proper] place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As far as the fitness of the flesh for consumption is concerned.');">⁴</span> Now we learned in another chapter: If [the priest] applied it [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar, but] not over against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it], or that which should be applied above, below; or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or what should be applied without [he applied] within: then if lifeblood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first blood which gushes out as the animal is slaughtered.');">⁵</span>

ואי ס"ד שלא במקומו כמקומו למה לי יחזור הכשר ויקבל וכי תימא להתיר בשר באכילה מי איכא זריקה דלא מכפרת ושריא בשר באכילה

is still available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For re-sprinkling. v. infra 32a.');">⁶</span> Now if you maintain that [when blood is] not [applied] in its [proper place], it is as though [applied] in its [proper] place, why must a fit [priest] receive [it] again?

אי דיהביה כשר ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן דיהביה פסול

And should you answer, In order to permit the flesh for consumption; is there a sprinkling which makes no atonement yet permits the consumption of the flesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this second sprinkling does not make atonement, since that was already effected by the first.');">⁷</span> - Had a fit [priest] applied it [in the first place], that would indeed be so;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No further application would be necessary.');">⁸</span>

וליהוי דחוי דתנן וכולן שקיבלו חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו אם יש דם הנפש יחזור הכשר ויקבל קיבלו אין זרקו לא מ"ט לאו משום דהוי דחוי

the circumstances here are that an unfit [priest] applied it [in the first place].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the second application is needed even for making atonement.');">⁹</span> But let it constitute [complete] rejection.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since blood not applied in its proper place is as though applied in its proper place, then if an unfit priest does this it is as though he applied it in the proper place, which it is now assumed definitely invalidates the sacrifice, and it cannot be repaired.');">¹⁰</span>

לא משום דפסיל במחשבה

For we learnt: But if any of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. all who are unfit for any reason.');">¹¹</span> received [the blood, intending to consume the flesh] after time or without bounds, and the life blood is [still] available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 32a.');">¹²</span>

אי הכי קבלה נמי ועוד מי פסלה מחשבה והאמר רבא אין מחשבה מועלת אלא במי שראוי לעבודה ובדבר הראוי לעבודה ובמקום הראוי לעבודה

Thus, only if they received [the blood with that intention], but not if they sprinkled [it thus];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there would be no remedy.');">¹³</span> what is the reason?

לא תימא זרקו לא אלא אימא שחטו לא

is it not because this effects [complete] rejection? - No: the reason is because it became unfit through an [illegitimate] intention. If so [the same should apply to] receiving?

מאי קמ"ל דפסלה מחשבה תנינא לפיכך הן פוסלין במחשבה

Moreover, does an [illegitimate] intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of an unfit priest.');">¹⁴</span> disqualify it?

הא קמ"ל דמקבלה ואילך לא פסלה מחשבה מ"ט כדרבא

Surely Raba said: An [illegitimate] intention is without effect save [when purposed] by one who is fit for the service and in connection with that which is fit for the service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a meal-offering of wheat. This excludes the meal-offering of barley brought in connection with the 'omer (q.v. Glos.) , since barley was unfit for other meal-offerings.');">¹⁵</span> and in a place fit for the service!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This excludes the case where the altar itself was mutilated.');">¹⁶</span>

מיתיבי חישב ליתן את הניתנין למעלה למטה למטה למעלה לאלתר כשר (למחר פסול) חזר וחישב

- Do not say, but not if they sprinkled it [thus]; 'say rather, but not if they slaughtered it [thus]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because since even unfit priests are fit to slaughter (as are lay-Israelites too) , their illegitimate intention disqualifies.');">¹⁷</span> What does he inform us? that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies? But we have learnt it: Therefore they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Persons unfit to slaughter.');">¹⁸</span> invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention [purposed at slaughtering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 31b.');">¹⁹</span> - This is what we are informed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By stating 'if any of these received the blood etc.'');">²⁰</span> viz. , that from receiving and onwards intention [on the part of an unfit priest] does not invalidate. What is the reason? As [that stated] by Raba. An objection is raised: If [the priest] intends applying [the blood] which should be applied above [the line] below [it], [or what should be applied] below, above, immediately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He intended applying it thus in the wrong place on the day of slaughtering, which is the proper time.');">²¹</span> it is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he eventually sprinkled the blood in the right place, for this illegitimate intention does not disqualify, v. Mishnah infra 36a.');">²²</span> If he subsequently intended