GEMARA. Samuel said: It is the flesh that is unfit, but its owners are forgiven. (1) What is the reason? — Because Scripture saith, And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement: (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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 (5) is still available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time. (6) 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? 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? (7) — Had a fit [priest] applied it [in the first place], that would indeed be so; (8) the circumstances here are that an unfit [priest] applied it [in the first place]. (9) But let it constitute [complete] rejection. (10) For we learnt: But if any of these (11) 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. (12) Thus, only if they received [the blood with that intention], but not if they sprinkled [it thus]; (13) what is the reason? 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? Moreover, does an [illegitimate] intention (14) disqualify it? 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, (15) and in a place fit for the service! (16) — Do not say, but not if they sprinkled it [thus]; ‘say rather, but not if they slaughtered it [thus]? (17) What does he inform us? that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies? But we have learnt it: Therefore they (18) invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention [purposed at slaughtering]? (19) — This is what we are informed, (20) 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. (21) it is valid. (22) If he subsequently intended

---

(1). ↑ They have fulfilled their obligation, and do not bring another offering.
(2). ↑ Lev. XVII, 11.
(3). ↑ 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 localized) is efficacious. But the fitness of the flesh is governed by its own peculiar laws.
(4). ↑ As far as the fitness of the flesh for consumption is concerned.
(5). ↑ The first blood which gushes out as the animal is slaughtered.
(6). ↑ For re-sprinkling. v. infra 32a.
(7). ↑ For this second sprinkling does not make atonement, since that was already effected by the first.
(8). ↑ No further application would be necessary.
(9). ↑ Hence the second application is needed even for making atonement.
(10). ↑ 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.
(11). ↑ Sc. all who are unfit for any reason.
(12). ↑ Infra 32a.
(13). ↑ In which case there would be no remedy.
(14). ↑ On the part of an unfit priest.
(15). ↑ 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.
(16). ↑ This excludes the case where the altar itself was mutilated.
(17). ↑ Because since even unfit priests are fit to slaughter (as are lay-Israelites too), their illegitimate intention disqualifies.
(18). ↑ Persons unfit to slaughter.
(19). ↑ Infra 31b.
(20). ↑ By stating ‘if any of these received the blood, etc.’
(21). ↑ He intended applying it thus in the wrong place on the day of slaughtering, which is the proper time.
(22). ↑ If he eventually sprinkled the blood in the right place, for this illegitimate intention does not disqualify, v. Mishnah infra 36a.