— and it [the sacrifice] is invalid. This refutation of Resh Lakish is indeed a refutation. AND IF ANY OF THESE RECEIVED, etc. Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Does an unfit person render [the blood in the throat] a residue? (1) — Said he to him: There is no case of sprinkling rendering [the remaining blood] a residue, (2) save [where it is done with the illegal intention of] after time or without bounds, since it counts3 in respect of piggul. (4) R. Zebid recited it thus: Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Does an unfit goblet [of blood] render [the remainder] a residue? (5) — Said he to him: What is your opinion about an unfit person himself? If an unfit person renders [the blood] a residue, then an unfit goblet too renders [the blood] a residue; if an unfit person does not render a residue, an unfit goblet too does not render a residue. R. Jeremiah of Difti recited it thus: Abaye asked Rabbah: Does one goblet render another rejected or a residue? (6) — Said he to him: It is the subject of a controversy between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For it was taught: Above it is stated, And the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]; while below it is stated, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]: (7) How do we know that, if [the priest] received the blood of the sin-offering in four goblets and made one application [of blood] from each, (8) all [the rest] are poured out at the base [of the altar]? From the text, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]. You might think that, if he made the four applications from one goblet, all [the rest] are to be poured out at the base: therefore the text states, And the [remaining] blood thereof [etc]. (9) How is this to be understood? [The remaining blood of] that [goblet] is poured out at the base, (10) but they [the other goblets] are poured out into the duct. (11) R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that, if [the priest] received the blood of the sin-offering in four goblets and made the four applications from one goblet, all are poured out at the base? From the text, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]. Yet surely it is written, ‘And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out, etc.’? — Said R. Ashi: That is to exclude the residue [of the blood left] in the throat of the animal. IF THE FIT PERSON RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] AND GAVE [IT] TO AN UNFIT ONE, etc. Now, all these are necessary: (12) For if we were informed about an unfit person, I would say, what is an unfit person? An unclean [priest] who is eligible for public service; (13) but the left [hand] is not so. (14) And if we were informed about the left hand, that is because it is fit on the Day of Atonement, (15) but a secular [non-sacred] vessel is not so. While if we were informed about secular vessels, that is because they are eligible for sanctification; but as for the others, I would say that it is not so. Thus they are all necessary. Now, let it be regarded as rejection? (16) — Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Thus said R. Jeremiah of Difti in Raba's name: This is in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian, who does not accept the law of rejection. (17) For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if the blood is in the cup he brings its companion and pairs it. (18) R. Ashi answered: When it lies in one's power [to rectify] the matter, it does not constitute rejection. (19) R. Shaya observed: Reason supports R. Ashi. [For] whom do you know to accept the law of rejection? R. Judah, as we learnt: Even more did R. Judah say: If the blood [of the he-goat to be sacrificed] was spilt, the [he-goat] which was to be sent away must perish; (20) if the [hegoat] which was to be sent away perished, the blood [of the other] must be poured out. (21) Yet we know him to rule that where it lies in one's power [to rectify the matter] there is no rejection. For it was taught, R. Judah said: He [the priest] used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood (22) and sprinkled it once against the base [of the altar]. (23) This proves that where it lies in one's own hands, there is no rejection. This proves it. [To turn to] the main text: ‘It was taught, R. Judah said: He [the priest] used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood, so that should the blood of one of them be spilt, the result is that this renders it valid. Said they to R. Judah: But surely it [the mingled blood] had not been received in a vessel?’ How do they know? (24) — Rather [they said to him]: perhaps it was not caught in a vessel? (25) I too, he answered them,

---

(1). ↑ If he sprinkles the blood, can a fit person make the sacrifice valid by catching more blood from the animal's throat and sprinkling it? Or do we say, Once the unfit person has sprinkled the blood, what still remains in the throat is regarded as the residue of the blood, which cannot be used for sprinkling, and therefore the sacrifice is invalid? (The Mishnah speaks only of receiving the blood, not of sprinkling.)
(2). ↑ Emended text (Bah).
(3). ↑ Lit., ‘propitiates’.
(4). ↑ Since such sprinkling counts as sprinkling to render the sacrifice Piggul, it also counts to render the rest of the blood a residue. But no other illegal sprinkling renders the remainder of the blood a residue.
(5). ↑ If the goblet containing the blood to be sprinkled was taken outside the Temple court, whereby it becomes unfit, and it was then sprinkled, does it render the remainder in the throat a residue?
(6). ↑ E.g., if the blood of a sin-offering was received in two goblets, and all the sprinklings were performed out of one, is the blood in the other regarded as the residue, which must be poured out at the foot of the altar (cf. Lev. IV, 7: and all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar)? Or do we say that by not using it he intentionally, as it were, rejected it, and therefore it is simply poured out into the duct or sewer in the Temple court which discharged its contents into the stream of Kidron?
(7). ↑ Lev. IV, 25. 30.
(8). ↑ Four applications of blood were made on the horns of the altar.
(9). ↑ But not all, which apparently contradicts the other text.
(10). ↑ Since it is the residue of what was actually sprinkled.
(11). ↑ Because one goblet renders another rejected.
(12). ↑ V. Mishnah.
(13). ↑ When the whole community is unclean, including the priests, they sacrifice the Passoveroffering in that state.
(14). ↑ Therefore, if the priest transferred the blood into his left hand, it should be permanently invalid.
(15). ↑ The High Priest took the censer in his right hand and the spoon in his left.
(16). ↑ The blood was fit in the first place, but by taking it in the wrong hand or in a secular vessel it was rejected, and therefore should no more be fit.
(17). ↑ Viz., that once rejected it remains permanently so.
(18). ↑ Two he-goats were taken on the day of Atonement, one of which was sacrificed as a sinoffering, and the other was sent away-into the wilderness (the ‘scapegoat’), the function of each being decided by lot. The blood of the former was received in a cup or basin and sprinkled on the altar. Now, if the scapegoat died before the blood of the other was sprinkled, Hanan rules that we do not say that the blood is thereby rejected, and two other goats must be brought, but only one more is brought and paired up with the one already slaughtered. For other views that the blood is thereby rejected permanently (the two goats being interdependent) v. Mishnah Yoma 62a.
(19). ↑ Here it lies in his power to rectify the matter by transferring the blood.
(20). ↑ But not sent to Azazel, because the two are interdependent, and since a new animal must be brought for the first, as its blood was spilt before sprinkling, a new pair must be brought.
(21). ↑ And likewise two fresh animals brought. Thus in each case one is rejected because of the other, and remains so permanently.
(22). ↑ Of many Passover-offerings. Lit., ‘the blood of those which were mixed’.
(23). ↑ In case the blood of one of them would be spilt, this would make it valid.
(24). ↑ This is an interjection: how do the Rabbis, who raise this objection, know that it was not caught in a vessel?
(25). ↑ But poured straight from the animal's throat on to the ground. Rashi (in Pes. 65a): in that case sprinkling is of no avail. Tosaf.: sprinkling, if already performed, is efficacious, but such blood must not be taken up to the altar in the first place.