if he slaughtered and then cut off [the legs], it is unfit. (1) ‘If he cut off [the legs] and then slaughtered [it], it is fit’? Surely he offers a blemished animal! — Say rather: if he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood], it is fit; if he received [the blood] and then cut off [the legs] it is unfit. ‘If he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood] it is fit’? Surely R. Zera said: if one slits the ear of a firstling (2) and then receives its blood, it is unfit, because it says. ‘And he shall take of the blood of the bullock’, [implying,] the bullock as it was originally! — Said R. Hisda in Abimi's name: He cuts the limb as far as the bone. (3) ‘If he received [the blood] and then cut, it is unfit’: from this you may infer that the blood which is absorbed in the limbs is blood? (4) — [No:] perhaps [the unfitness is] on account of the fattiness. (5) Then you may infer from this that if the flesh of sacrifices of lower sanctity passes out [from the Temple court] before the sprinkling of the blood, it is unfit? (6) — [No:] perhaps [R. Ammi in R. Eleazar's name] referred to sacrifices of higher sanctity. Our Rabbis taught: Sacrifices of higher sanctity are slaughtered on the north [side of the Temple court], and their blood is received on the north in service vessels. If he stood in the south, stretched out his hand to the north and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he [thus] received [the blood], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body [into the north side]. (7) it is as though he had entered [the north] entirely. If [the animal] struggled and passed over into the south (8) and then returned, it is fit. (9) Sacrifices of lower sanctity are slaughtered [anywhere] within [the Temple court], and their blood is received in a service vessel within. If he stood without and stretched his hand within and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he received [the blood thus], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body within, he is not regarded as having entered. If it struggled (8) and went without and returned, it is unfit. This proves that sacrifices of lower sanctity whose flesh went without before the sprinkling of the blood are unfit! — [No:] perhaps this refers to the fattail, the lobe above the liver, and the two kidneys. (10) Samuel's father asked Samuel: What if it [the animal] is within, while its feet are without? (11) — It is written, Even that they may bring them unto the Lord, (12) he replied, [which intimates] that the whole of it must be within. What if one suspended (13) [the animal] and slaughtered it? It is valid, he replied. You have erred, he observed, for the slaughtering must be ‘on the side’ [of the altar], (14) which provision is unfulfilled. (15) What if [the slaughterer] was suspended and slaughtered [thus]? (16) — It is invalid, he replied. (17) You have erred, said he; the slaughtering must be ‘on the side’ but the slaughterer need not be ‘on the side’. What if he suspended himself and received [the blood]? It is valid, he replied. (18) You have erred, observed he, for such is not the way of service. (19) What if he suspended [the sacrifice] (20) and received [the blood]? — It is invalid, he answered. You have erred, he retorted: slaughtering must be ‘on the side’, but receiving need not be ‘on the side’. Abaye said: In the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity (21) they are all invalid, except where he suspended himself and slaughtered. (22) In the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity, they are all valid, except where he suspended himself and received [the blood]. (23) Said Raba: Why do you say that if he suspended [the animal] and received the blood it is valid in the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity? [Presumably] because the air-space of within is as within! Then in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity too, the air-space of the north is as the north? — Rather said Raba: In the case of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity they are [all] valid, except in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity, where he suspended [the animal] and slaughtered it, (24) and in the cases of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity, where he suspended himself and received [the blood]. R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if he [the priest] is within and his locks [of hair] are without? — Said he to him, Have you not said that ‘even that they may bring them unto the Lord’ intimates that the whole of it [the animal] must come within? So here too, when they go in unto the tent of meeting (25) intimates, that the whole of him must enter the tent of meeting. MISHNAH. IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT, (26) [OR ON THE ALTAR, BUT] NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; (27) IF HE APPLIED [THE BLOOD] WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW [THE SCARLET LINE] ABOVE [IT]. OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, BELOW; (28) OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN [HE APPLIED] WITHOUT, OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT [HE APPLIED] WITHIN, (29) IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. (30)

---

(1). ↑ Because immediately it is slaughtered the blood of the legs is unfit (v. preceding note). and this is naturally mingled with the rest of the blood.
(2). ↑ Which was offered as a sacrifice. On 25b the text has ‘bullock’ instead of ‘firstling’.
(3). ↑ This does not constitute a blemish, and at the same time the cut prevents the blood below it, which is without the Temple court, from ascending and mingling with the blood above, which is within.
(4). ↑ So that kareth (q.v. Glos.) is incurred for its consumption. For if it did not rank as blood whilst absorbed in the limb (cf. Hul. 113a), it could not disqualify the other blood which is received and sprinkled.
(5). ↑ Which is absorbed in the blood. This fattiness counts as flesh, and it ascends and mingles with the blood which pours out from the neck and thus disqualifies it.
(6). ↑ Though it would certainly be carried out after the sprinkling, since it may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
(7). ↑ He was standing almost in the middle of the court, on its south side, but so near to the line dividing north and south that he could easily stretch over to the other side.
(8). ↑ After being slaughtered.
(9). ↑ Because the disqualification of going out applies only to going out of the Temple.
(10). ↑ These were burnt on the altar, and therefore although part of sacrifices of lower sanctity they ranked as sacrifices of higher sanctity.
(11). ↑ May it be slaughtered thus at the outset?
(12). ↑ Lev. XVII, 5.
(13). ↑ In the air-space of the Temple court.
(14). ↑ Ibid. I, 11.
(15). ↑ ‘On the side’ implies on the ground.
(16). ↑ The animal being on the ground.
(17). ↑ Thinking that the two were analogous.
(18). ↑ Again thinking it analogous to the former.
(19). ↑ But slaughtering is not really part of the (priestly) service, since it may be performed by a zar.
(20). ↑ After having slaughtered it.
(21). ↑ In connection with which ‘on the side’ is stated.
(22). ↑ Because ‘on the side’ is written of the animal, but not of the slaughterer. Again, the blood must be received in the north, and he holds that the airspace of the north is not the north itself. Hence if he suspended himself and received the blood it is invalid.
(23). ↑ Here neither ‘north’ nor ‘on the side’ is mentioned. Therefore only the exception is invalid, because that is not the way of service.
(24). ↑ For the reason stated above.
(25). ↑ Ex. XXVIII, 43.
(26). ↑ Leading to the altar, instead of on the altar.
(27). ↑ The blood was to be sprinkled over against the base of the altar, which means on a side provided with a foundation. This excludes the south-east corner, which had no base (infra 53a).
(28). ↑ A scarlet line ran round the sides of the altar: some blood was to be applied above, and some below.
(29). ↑ ‘Within’ means on the inner altar; ‘without’, on the outer altar.
(30). ↑ For the eating of its flesh.