Zevachim 90
במזיד לא הורצה בד"א ביחיד אבל בציבור בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה ובעובדי כוכבי' בין בשוגג ובין במזיד לא הורצה
<br> if deliberately, it is not accepted. This was said only of a private sacrifice, but a public sacrifice, whether done unwittingly or deliberately, is accepted. But a heathen ['s sacrifice], whether it is done unwittingly or deliberately, is not accepted. Now, the Rabbis stated the following in R. Papa's presence: With whom does this agree? Not with R. Jose, for if [it agrees with] R. Jose, surely he said: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters? Said R. Papa to them: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Jose: there it is different, because Scripture says, [that it may be accepted] for them [before the Lord]: for them, but not for heathens. Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: If so, [when Scripture says,] [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel] which they hallow unto Me, does that also mean: They, but not heathens? - Rather said R. Ashi: Scripture says, 'that it may be accepted for them', whilst heathens are not subject to 'acceptance'.
אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב פפא כמאן דלא כרבי יוסי דאי רבי יוסי האמר בכולן אני רואה להחמיר
MISHNAH. THE THINGS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT EXCEPT BLOOD. R. SIMEON DECLARES ONE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF ANYTHING WHICH IS NORMALLY EATEN, BUT THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE AND THE INCENSE DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF DEFILEMENT.
אמר להו רב פפא אפי' תימא רבי יוסי שאני התם דאמר קרא להם להם ולא לעובדי כוכבים
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that liability on account of defilement is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar; and that is logical: If liability on account of piggul is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, though it is fixed [invariable], and [is incurred] in one state of awareness, and was never permitted contrary to its general prohibition; then surely it is logical that defilement involves liability only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, seeing that it requires a variable burnt-offering, two states of awareness, and is [sometimes] permitted in opposition to its general prohibition. Therefore Scripture wrote, [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,] which they hallow unto Me. You might think [that liability is involved] immediately; therefore Scripture teaches, [Whoever he be . . .] that approacheth [unto the holy things . . . having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me]. Now R. Eleazar said: Is then one who [merely] touches [the holy things] liable? Why does it say 'that approacheth'? [To teach that] the Writ speaks of flesh which was made fit to be offered. How so? If it has mattirin, [culpability is incurred] only when the mattirin have been offered; if it has no mattirin, [culpability is incurred] as soon as it is sanctified in a [sacred] vessel.
אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא אלא מעתה (ויקרא כב, ב) אשר הם מקדישים ה"נ הם ולא עובדי כוכבים
We have thus found [it of] defilement. How do we know [it of] nothar? Identity of law with defilement is learnt from the fact that 'profanation' is written in both. Yet let us learn identity of law from piggul, because 'iniquity' is written in connection with both? - Reason asserts that we should learn it from uncleanness, because [they are alike in respect of] Gezel, [this being a] mnemonic. On the contrary, one should learn it from piggul, because [it resembles it in the following points:] permissibility, the headplate, cleanness, time, that which is offered; and these are more numerous? - Rather, it [is derived] from Levi's teaching. For Levi taught: How do we know that the Writ speaks of time disqualification too? Because it says, That they profane not [My holy name]: