## Zevachim Daf 26b

###### Zevachim 26b:1
[Zevachim 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פָּסוּל בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּעָלִים נִתְכַּפְּרוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר״ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ דָּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, נִתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says:** When the mishna states that the offering is **disqualified,** it means that the **meat** is unfit for consumption. **But** the **owner** of the offering has **achieved atonement** through it. **What is the reason** for this? It is **as the verse states** with regard to the blood: **“And I have given it to you upon the altar to atone** for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11), from which it is derived that **once the blood reaches** any location on **the altar,** the **owner** of the offering has **achieved atonement.**


###### Zevachim 26b:2
[Zevachim 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:2)

אִי הָכִי, בָּשָׂר נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ – לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** the **meat** should be fit for consumption **as well.** The Gemara responds: **The verse states “to atone,”** emphasizing that **I have given it** to you **for atonement and for nothing else,** e.g., consumption of the meat.


###### Zevachim 26b:3
[Zevachim 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:3)

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – כִּמְקוֹמוֹ דָּמֵי. תְּנַן בְּאִידַּךְ פִּירְקִין: נְתָנוֹ עַל הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד; נָתַן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין בִּפְנִים בַּחוּץ; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ בִּפְנִים – אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **Apparently,** Shmuel **holds** that blood sprinkled **not in its** proper **place is considered as** though it were sprinkled in **its** proper **place.** But **we learned** in a mishna **in another chapter** (32a): If an unfit person **placed** the blood **upon the ramp,** or on the wall of the altar **that** is **not opposite the base** of the altar; or if **he placed** the blood **that is** to be **placed below** the red line **above** the red line, **or** if he placed the blood **that is** to be **placed above** the red line **below** the red line; **or** if he placed the blood **that is** to be **placed inside** the Sanctuary **outside** the Sanctuary **or** the blood **that is** to be **placed outside** the Sanctuary **inside** the Sanctuary, then **if there is blood of the soul** that remains in the animal, **the** priest **fit** for Temple service **should collect** the blood **again** and sprinkle it on the altar.


###### Zevachim 26b:4
[Zevachim 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:4)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כִּמְקוֹמוֹ, לְמָה לִי יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל? וְכִי תֵּימָא לְהַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה – מִי אִיכָּא זְרִיקָה דְּלָא מְכַפְּרָא, וְשָׁרְיָא בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And if** it would **enter your mind** to say **that** blood sprinkled **not in its** proper **place** is considered **as** though it were sprinkled in **its** proper **place, why do I** need **the fit** priest to **collect** the blood **again** and sprinkle it? **And if you would say** that although the first sprinkling already effected atonement, the second sprinkling is necessary **to permit the meat** of the offering **for consumption, is there** such a concept as **a sprinkling that does not** itself **effect atonement and** yet **permits** the **meat for consumption?** Rather, one must conclude that the first sprinkling did not effect atonement at all, since it was not sprinkled in its proper place.


###### Zevachim 26b:5
[Zevachim 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:5)

אִי דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ כָּשֵׁר – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **If a fit** priest **had** initially **placed** the blood improperly, the sprinkling would **indeed** have effected atonement after the fact and there would not be another sprinkling. But **here we are dealing with** a case **where an unfit** person **placed** the blood, so that it did not effect atonement at all.


###### Zevachim 26b:6
[Zevachim 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:6)

וְלִיהְוֵי דָּחוּי! דִּתְנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, יַחְזוֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל. קִיבְּלוּ אִין, זָרְקוּ לָא; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי דָּחוּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the mishna is dealing with a case where an unfit person placed the blood initially, then the offering **should be rejected** permanently, **as we learned** in the same mishna: **And** with regard to **all** unfit people **who collected** the blood with the intent to offer it **beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area, if there is blood of the soul** that remains in the animal, **the** priest **fit** for Temple service **should collect** the blood **again** and sprinkle it on the altar. Since the mishna states this *halakha* only with regard to collection of the blood, one can infer that specifically if an unfit person **collected** the blood with improper intent, a fit priest can **indeed** collect the blood again, but if they **sprinkled** the blood with improper intent he **cannot. What is the reason** for this? Is it **not because** the offering **is rejected** permanently when an unfit person sprinkles its blood?


###### Zevachim 26b:7
[Zevachim 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:7)

לָא; מִשּׁוּם דִּפְסִיל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** the offering is rejected **because it is disqualified by** the improper **intent** of the person sprinkling the blood, not because that person is unfit.


###### Zevachim 26b:8
[Zevachim 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:8)

אִי הָכִי, קַבָּלָה נָמֵי! וְעוֹד, מִי פָּסְלָה מַחְשָׁבָה?! וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה, וּבְדָבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה, וּבְמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** then improper intent with regard to **collection** of the blood should disqualify the offering **as well. And furthermore, does intent disqualify** offerings in such cases? **But doesn’t Rava say: Intent is effective** to disqualify an offering **only** when it is expressed **by one who is fit for the** Temple **service, and with regard to an item that is fit for the** Temple **service, and in a place that is fit for the** Temple **service?** Here, the one collecting the blood is unfit.


###### Zevachim 26b:9
[Zevachim 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:9)

לָא תֵּימָא: זָרְקוּ לָא, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שָׁחֲטוּ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Do not say** that one infers from the mishna that if an unfit person **sprinkled** the blood with improper intent a fit priest **cannot** collect it again. **Rather, say** that one infers that if an unfit person **slaughtered** the offering with improper intent the mistake **cannot** be rectified. Slaughter is valid if performed by one unfit for the Temple service, and therefore an unfit person’s improper intent is effective to disqualify the offering. By contrast, collection and sprinkling of the blood must be performed by a fit priest. Consequently, an unfit person’s intent with regard to those rites does not disqualify the offering.


###### Zevachim 26b:10
[Zevachim 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:10)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּפָסְלָה מַחְשָׁבָה? תְּנֵינָא: לְפִיכָךְ הֵן פּוֹסְלִין בְּמַחְשָׁבָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, **what is** the mishna **teaching us?** Can it mean to teach only **that** improper **intent** by an unfit person during slaughter **disqualifies** the offering? **We** already **learn** this in the same mishna (31b), which states: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, and **therefore, these** unfit people **disqualify** the offering **with** improper **intent.**


###### Zevachim 26b:11
[Zevachim 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:11)

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּמִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ לָא פָּסְלָה מַחְשָׁבָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּדְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **This** is what the mishna **teaches us: That** one who is unfit can disqualify the offering only during its slaughter, but **from** the rite of **collection** of the blood **onward** the **intent** of an unfit person **does not disqualify** the offering. **What is the reason** for this? It is **like that which Rava** says: Intent is effective to disqualify an offering only when expressed by one who is fit for the service in question.


###### Zevachim 26b:12
[Zevachim 26b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/26b:12)

מֵיתִיבִי: חִישֵּׁב לִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה; לְמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה – לְאַלְתַּר כָּשֵׁר (לְמָחָר פָּסוּל). חָזַר וְחִישֵּׁב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If one slaughtered an offering and **had intent to place** the blood **that is** to be **placed above** the red line **below** the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed **below** the red line **above** the red line, and he had intent to do so **immediately,** i.e., on the same day, the offering remains **fit.** Therefore, if **he subsequently had intent** when performing the other rites