[Now the question arises:] Can this be repaired or can it not be repaired? (1) — 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. 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 (2) stood within? No: it means that the lay-Israelite stood without. (3) It was stated: ‘Ulla said in R. Johanan's name: Carriage without [moving] the foot is invalid. 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? (4) — The circumstances here are that [the blood] had run outward. (5) Would it run without [only] and not enter within? (6) — [It fell] on sloping ground. (7) Alternatively, [it fell] into a depression. (8) Another alternative is that it [the blood] was thick. (9) But does the Tanna trouble to teach us all these! (10) Moreover, instead of teaching in another chapter, ‘If it was spilt on to the ground (11) and [the priest] collected it, it is unfit’ (12) ; let him [the Tanna] draw a distinction in that very case, (13) thus: When does this hold good? [Only] if [the blood] ran without; but if it entered within, it is unfit? This is indeed a refutation. It was stated: Carriage without moving the foot is [the subject of] a controversy between R. Simeon and the Rabbis. (14) In the case of a long carriage all agree that it is unfit; they disagree only in respect of a short carriage. (15) This was ridiculed in the West [Eretz Israel] (16) : if so, as for [the law that] an [illegitimate] intention (17) 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; (18) if after the blood has issued, then surely the precept has already been performed? (19) — What difficulty is this? 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? And he answered him, It is invalid. What is the reason? Because it is essential that ‘he shall sprinkle’ and ‘he shall put’ [of the blood upon the horns of the altar]. (20) 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? Surely they differ precisely in respect of a long passage? (21) Rather, all agree that it is not invalid in the case of a short passage; (22) they differ in the case of a long passage. If a zar carried [the blood], (23) 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, (24) while the latter holds that it cannot be repaired. If a priest carried [the blood] but returned it and then a zar carried it [to the altar] again, said R. Simi b. Ashi: He who declares it valid [in the previous case], holds [here] that it is invalid; while he who declares it invalid [there], holds [here] that it is valid. (25) 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

---

(1). ↑ 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?
(2). ↑ The unfit person.
(3). ↑ 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.
(4). ↑ 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.
(5). ↑ Away from the altar.
(6). ↑ Nearer the altar. Surely the blood would run in all directions!
(7). ↑ Sloping away from the altar,
(8). ↑ Where it could not run at all in any direction.
(9). ↑ Semi-solid, and so could not run.
(10). ↑ Would he state a law that holds good in such exceptional circumstances only?
(11). ↑ Directly from the animal's throat.
(12). ↑ Infra 25a.
(13). ↑ I.e., where it was spilt from the vessel,
(14). ↑ 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.
(15). ↑ 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.
(16). ↑ V. Sanh. 17b.
(17). ↑ At the sprinkling.
(18). ↑ 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,
(19). ↑ This assumes that immediately the blood spurts from the neck, even before it reaches the altar, the precept has been performed.
(20). ↑ 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.
(21). ↑ Since R. Simeon states that it is possible without walking (12a), he obviously refers to a case where walking is, in fact, done.
(22). ↑ Var. lec., that it is invalid (Bah).
(23). ↑ Actually walking in doing so.
(24). ↑ Sc. the invalidity of the star's action.
(25). ↑ For the former makes the status of the last person who carries it the determining factor, while the latter reverses it.