to bring it up. (1) R. Jeremiah (2) said to R. Ashi, This is what R. Jeremiah of Difti (3) said: [The validity of the argument,] ‘Surely he is bound to bring it up’, is disputed by R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. 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, (4) that is a necessary walk. If he received [it] within and carried it without, it is an unnecessary walk. (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;] (6) while the other Master holds: This is not the same as a carriage required for the service. (7) Abaye refuted him: R. Eliezer said: If one goes where he must go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies it. How so? 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. Whence, (8) if he carried it within again, it is a necessary walk? — Said he [Raba] to him: If it was taught, it was taught. (9) MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHOSE BLOOD WAS CAUGHT BY A ZAR, AN ONEN, A TEBUL YOM, (10) ONE LACKING SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT, (11) ONE LACKING [PRIESTLY] VESTMENTS, ONE WHO HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS AND FEET, (12) AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]. AN UNCLEAN [PRIEST]. ONE WHO WAS SITTING, ONE STANDING ON UTENSILS (13) 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. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID. (14) GEMARA. 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. (15) 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? (16) Again, is it to exclude [the sacrifices of] heathens? seeing that [even] the head-plate does not propitiate, for a Master said: But in the case of [the sacrifices of] heathens, whether [done] (17) in ignorance or deliberately, propitiation is not effected, (18) 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]. (19) 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, (20)

---

(1). ↑ 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.
(2). ↑ Sh. M. reads: Rabina.
(3). ↑ Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 197 conjectures that this is identical with Dibtha, in the neighborhood of Wasit, north of Harpania.
(4). ↑ I.e., he received it at some distance from the altar and brought it up to the altar.
(5). ↑ During the course of which an illegitimate intention does not disqualify the sacrifice, on all views.
(6). ↑ Hence an illegitimate intention even during this second passage to the altar disqualifies it.
(7). ↑ 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.
(8). ↑ Sh. M. deletes.
(9). ↑ I must accept it.
(10). ↑ V. Glos. for these terms.
(11). ↑ 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.
(12). ↑ At the laver; v. Ex. XXX, 18 seq.
(13). ↑ I.e., not directly on the pavement.
(14). ↑ In the law concerning the last case.
(15). ↑ Lev. XXII, 2. This prohibits the priest from officiating whilst unclean (see following verses). Hence the phrase ‘the children’ (or, ‘sons’, which may be the meaning of the Heb. בניו (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.
(16). ↑ Surely not.
(17). ↑ I.e., offered in an unclean state.
(18). ↑ V. infra 45b.
(19). ↑ 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) too must separate themselves from the sacrifices, as otherwise they profane God's name, by disqualifying the sacrifice.
(20). ↑ V. Lev. XXI, 22f.