## Zevachim Daf 15a

###### Zevachim 15a:1
[Zevachim 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:1)

אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנַהּ אוֹ לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the blood was conveyed by hand, is it **possible to correct it** by conveying it again properly, **or** is it **not possible to correct it,** and the offering is disqualified permanently?


###### Zevachim 15a:2
[Zevachim 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: קִבֵּל הַכָּשֵׁר וְנָתַן לַפָּסוּל – יַחְזִיר לַכָּשֵׁר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from the aforementioned mishna: If a priest **fit** for Temple service **collected** the blood in a vessel **and gave** the vessel **to an unfit** person standing next to the altar, the latter **should return** it **to the fit** priest. Apparently, even after the blood is conveyed in an inappropriate manner, it can be corrected.


###### Zevachim 15a:3
[Zevachim 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:3)

וּנְהִי נָמֵי דְּיַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבְּלֶנּוּ, אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנַהּ – אִיפְּסַלָא לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And though** one can **indeed** explain **that the fit** priest **should then receive it** from him, as posited above, **if it enters your mind** that if the blood is conveyed incorrectly it is **not possible to correct it,** the offering **was** already **disqualified** when the priest gave the blood to the unfit person. Taking it back is of no consequence.


###### Zevachim 15a:4
[Zevachim 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:4)

מִי סָבְרַתְּ דְּקָאֵי זָר גַּוַּאי?! לָא; דְּקָאֵי זָר בָּרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: **Do you maintain that** this is referring to a case where the **non-priest is standing inside,** between the fit priest and the altar? **No,** it is a case **where** the **non-priest is standing outside,** farther away from the altar than the priest. Therefore, when the priest gave him the blood, he was not conveying it toward the altar at all; he was moving it farther away from the altar.


###### Zevachim 15a:5
[Zevachim 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:5)

אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹלָכָה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרֶגֶל – פְּסוּלָה. אַלְמָא לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated: Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Conveying** the blood **not by foot** renders the offering **unfit. Apparently, it is not possible to correct it,** as otherwise Rabbi Yoḥanan would have merely stated that it is not considered conveying, as in his earlier statement (14b).


###### Zevachim 15a:6
[Zevachim 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla** from a mishna (32a): If the blood **spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one collected it** from the floor, it is **fit** for sacrifice. Apparently, although spilling the blood on the floor constitutes a not valid conveying toward the altar, it can still be corrected after the fact.


###### Zevachim 15a:7
[Zevachim 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:7)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁיָּצָא לַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the blood that spilled **went outward,** i.e., away from the altar, so it did not constitute conveying at all.


###### Zevachim 15a:8
[Zevachim 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:8)

לְבָרַאי נָפֵיק לְגַוַּאי לָא עָיֵיל?! בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּגוּמָּא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּסְמִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Can spilled blood **go outward** and **not come inward?** Clearly, spilled blood spreads to all sides. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the blood spilled **on an inclined plane,** and it therefore spilled only outward, away from the altar. And **if you wish, say** instead that it spilled **into a hole** in the ground, so it did not spread in any direction. **And if you wish, say** instead that it is a case **where** the blood is **thick,** so it did not spread in all directions.


###### Zevachim 15a:9
[Zevachim 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:9)

וְאִיכְּפַל תַּנָּא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן כֹּל הָנֵי?! וְעוֹד, אַדְּתָנֵי בְּאִידַּךְ פִּירְקִין: נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ – פָּסוּל; לִיפְלוֹג בְּדִידֵיהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁיָּצָא לַחוּץ, אֲבָל נִכְנַס לִפְנִים – פָּסוּל! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But did the *tanna* go to all that trouble [*ikhpal***] just **to teach us all these** unlikely cases? **And furthermore, rather than teaching in another chapter** (see 25a) that if the blood **spilled** from the animal’s neck **onto the floor and one collected it** in a vessel from the floor it is **unfit, let** the mishna **teach a distinction within** the case where the blood spilled from the vessel **itself: In what** case **is this statement,** that the blood is fit, **said?** In a case **where** the spilled blood **went outward,** away from the altar, **but** if it **came inward** it is **unfit.** The Gemara concludes: This is **a conclusive refutation;** if the blood is conveyed in a not valid manner, it can be corrected.


###### Zevachim 15a:10
[Zevachim 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:10)

אִתְּמַר: הוֹלָכָה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרֶגֶל – מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. בְּהוֹלָכָה רַבָּתִי – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּפְסוּלָה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהוֹלָכָה זוּטַרְתִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** The **dispute** in the mishna (13a) between **Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis** as to whether improper intent while conveying the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to **conveying** the blood **not by foot. With regard to greater conveying,** i.e., conveying the blood by moving the feet, **everyone agrees that** if one performs it with prohibited intent, the offering is **unfit. When they disagree,** it is **with regard to lesser conveying,** i.e., conveying the blood by hand without moving the feet, in a case where the offering was slaughtered next to the altar.


###### Zevachim 15a:11
[Zevachim 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:11)

מַחֲכוּ עֲלַהּ בְּמַעְרְבָא: אֶלָּא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, דִּפְסוּלָה בָּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה – לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אִי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלַהּ מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפּוֹק דָּם – לָא כְּלוּם הִיא; וְאִי בָּתַר דִּנְפַק דָּם – אִיתְעֲבִידָא לֵיהּ מִצְוָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They laughed at** this statement **in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, saying: **But** if so, one encounters difficulty with regard to **a bird sin offering, which** is killed through pinching its nape on the altar and whose blood is sprinkled directly from its neck. It is known that if one sprinkled its blood with prohibited **intent,** the offering is **unfit.** And **according to Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that prohibited intent while conveying the blood by hand does not disqualify the offering, **how can you find these** circumstances? **If** the priest **has** prohibited **intent with regard to** the offering **before** the **blood comes out** of the bird, this intent **is nothing,** since his waving it is like conveying by hand. **And if** he has such intent **after the blood came out, its mitzva was** already **performed,** as the blood already reached the altar.


###### Zevachim 15a:12
[Zevachim 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:12)

מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מִדְּפָרֵישׁ וְעַד דִּמְטָא לְמִזְבֵּחַ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the difficulty? Perhaps** the offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent **from** the moment the blood **leaves** the bird **until** the moment **it reaches the altar.**


###### Zevachim 15a:13
[Zevachim 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:13)

דְּהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: הָיָה מַזֶּה, וְנִקְטְעָה יָדוֹ שֶׁל מַזֶּה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ דָּם לַאֲוִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַהוּ? וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״וְהִזָּה... וְנָתַן״ בָּעֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira:** If the priest **was sprinkling** the blood, **and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before** the **blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is** the *halakha*? Is the sprinkling not valid since it was performed by a blemished priest, or is it valid because the blood left the bird before he was blemished? **And** Rabbi Zeira **said to him:** It is **not valid. What is the reason? We require** that the verse: **“And sprinkle** of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), be fulfilled in the same manner as the verse that follows it: **“And** the priest shall **place** of the blood upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), namely, that the blood reach the altar. Therefore, the blood can be disqualified anytime until it reaches the altar, whether through the priest becoming blemished or through prohibited intent.


###### Zevachim 15a:14
[Zevachim 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:14)

כִּי אֲתוֹ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִבֵּי רַב, אָמְרִי, הַיְינוּ חוּכָא: וּבְהוֹלָכָה רַבָּתִי לָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהוֹלָכָה רַבָּתִי פְּלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall, they said: This is** the reason for **the laughter** of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: **With regard to greater conveying,** i.e., conveying by foot, can one say Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis **do not disagree?** Clearly, **when they disagree** in the mishna, **they disagree with regard to greater conveying,** as Rabbi Shimon reasons that conveying is a dispensable rite. Only conveying by foot is dispensable, since even if the offering is slaughtered next to the altar, the priest will need to move its blood somewhat with his hand.


###### Zevachim 15a:15
[Zevachim 15a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:15)

אֶלָּא בְּהוֹלָכָה זוּטַרְתִּי – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא פָּסְלָה; כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהוֹלָכָה רַבָּתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the statement under discussion should be emended to say: **With regard to lesser conveying,** i.e., conveying the blood by hand, **everyone agrees that it does not disqualify** the offering due to prohibited intent. **When they disagree,** it is **with regard to greater conveying,** i.e., conveying the blood for a distance by foot. Rabbi Shimon holds that improper intent even then does not disqualify the offering, as the rite is dispensable, and the Rabbis maintain that it does disqualify it.


###### Zevachim 15a:16
[Zevachim 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:16)

הוֹלִיכוֹ זָר, וְהֶחְזִירוֹ כֹּהֵן וְחָזַר וְהוֹלִיכוֹ – פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי; חַד אָמַר כָּשֵׁר, וְחַד אָמַר פָּסוּל. מָר סָבַר: אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנַהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקּוֹנַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ If **a non-priest conveyed** the blood to the altar, **and a priest returned it** to its original location, **and** a priest then **conveyed it again** to the altar, **the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagree with regard to** the *halakha*. **One says** that the offering is **fit, and one says** it is **unfit.** This is because one **Sage holds** that if the blood is conveyed improperly, it is **possible to correct it, and** one **Sage holds** that it is **not possible to correct it.**


###### Zevachim 15a:17
[Zevachim 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:17)

הוֹלִיכוֹ כֹּהֵן וְהֶחְזִירוֹ, וְחָזַר וְהוֹלִיכוֹ זָר – אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּכְשִׁיר – פָּסוּל, לְדִבְרֵי הַפּוֹסֵל – מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **a priest conveyed it** to the altar, **and** then **returned it, and a non-priest** then **conveyed it again, Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: According to the statement of the one who deems** the offering **fit** in the previous case, where a non-priest conveyed it the first time and a priest conveyed it the second time, in this case the offering is **unfit,** as a non-priest conveyed it the second time. **According to the statement of the one who deems** the offering **unfit** in the previous case, as a non-priest conveyed it the first time, in this case, where a priest conveyed it the first time, **he deems** the offering **fit.**


###### Zevachim 15a:18
[Zevachim 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/15a:18)

רָבָא אָמַר: אַף לְדִבְרֵי הַפּוֹסֵל פָּסוּל; מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא צָרִיךְ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems** the offering **unfit** in a case where a non-priest conveyed it the first time, it is **unfit** in this case as well, where a priest conveyed it the first time and a non-priest conveyed it the second time. **What is the reason? Because** after the blood is returned to its original location, **it is necessary**