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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 offer-ing 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.

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.

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.

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.

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