so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does his offering not require libations? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: In order that his offering will not be of superior quality, when the handful is removed by one of those unfit for performing the Temple service, the offering should also be valid, as it too is of inferior quality. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in a manner that emphasizes that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when the handful is removed by one who is unfit.

The Gemara asks: If so, then there as well, i.e., with regard to slaughtered offerings, let the mishna (Zevaḥim 15b) teach: Both the sin offering of forbidden fat and all the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest or a priest who is an acute mourner, are disqualified. And let us say that it was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, to emphasize that although the sin offering is not of superior quality, in that it does not require that libations be brought with it, nevertheless it is disqualified if its blood was collected by one unfit for Temple service. Why then does that mishna teach simply: All the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest are disqualified?

The Gemara concludes its question: Apparently, since the tanna teaches that mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, all offerings are indicated by the general disqualification, and there is no need to emphasize the halakha with regard to a sin offering, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Here too, with regard to meal offerings, since the tanna teaches the mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, this means that all of them are indicated, even the meal offering of a sinner. Why then does the mishna specifically mention the meal offering of a sinner?

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner as it might enter your mind to say: Since I have established that the first clause, i.e., the mishna on 2a, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to the last clause as well, i.e., the mishna here, it may be concluded that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in this manner, to emphasize that it is in accordance with his opinion.

§ Rav says: In the case of a non-priest who removed a handful, he should return the handful to the meal offering. The Gemara challenges: But we learned in the mishna that a non-priest disqualified the meal offering by removing a handful from it. The Gemara responds: What does the mishna mean when it says: Disqualified? It means that the non-priest has disqualified the meal offering until such time as he returns the handful to the meal offering, whereupon a priest fit for the Temple service should again remove a handful from the meal offering and sacrifice it.

The Gemara challenges: If so, then this is identical to the opinion of ben Beteira in the mishna, who says that if a priest removed a handful with his left hand it is returned to the meal offering whereupon the priest removes a handful from the offering with his right hand. What difference is there between the two opinions in the mishna? The Gemara explains: If the handful that was removed by one unfit for Temple service is in its unadulterated form, then the Rabbis do not disagree with the opinion of ben Beteira, and the handful is returned to the meal offering. They disagree when the handful is lacking. The Rabbis hold: One does not bring flour from within his house and refill the vessel containing the handful, whereas ben Beteira holds that one brings flour from within his house and refills it.

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mishna is referring to a handful that is lacking, then the statement of the mishna: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove a handful with his right hand, is imprecise, as the mishna should have taught: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and bring flour from within his house and refill the missing amount, and again remove a handful with his right hand.

The Gemara therefore suggests a different answer: When Rav said that the handful is returned to the meal offering, he said this only according to the opinion of ben Beteira. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it obvious that this is the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara responds: Rav’s statement is necessary lest you say that ben Beteira deems the meal offering fit only when the handful was removed with one’s left hand, but with regard to other disqualifications, he does not deem it fit. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to all of the disqualifications cited in the mishna, ben Beteira holds that the handful is returned to the meal offering whereupon a new handful is removed from it and sacrificed upon the altar.

The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of a handful removed with a priest’s left hand that one might have thought that ben Beteira’s opinion applies only in this case? Perhaps the reason is that we find that the Temple service performed with the priest’s left hand is fit on Yom Kippur, i.e., when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies holding the vessel containing the incense in his left hand. But with regard to a non-priest as well, we find that the Temple service is fit with regard to slaughter, as an offering may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Why then is it necessary for Rav to teach that the opinion of ben Beteira applies to the case of a non-priest as well?

The Gemara responds: Slaughter is not considered a sacrificial rite, and it is for that reason that a non-priest may slaughter an offering. Accordingly, without the statement of Rav one would not have concluded that ben Beteira holds that a handful removed by a non-priest may be returned, as the Temple service is never fit when performed by a non-priest.

The Gemara asks: And is slaughter really not considered a sacrificial rite? But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: The slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid? And Rav said with regard to this halakha: This is because both the term: “Elazar the priest” (Numbers 19:3), and the term: “Statute” (Numbers 19:2), are written in the Torah’s description of the slaughter of the red heifer. The term “statute” indicates that if one deviates from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses, the service is not valid. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of the red heifer are different, as the heifer is considered sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance, not for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, one cannot derive from the case of the red heifer that the slaughter of an offering is considered a sacrificial rite.

The Gemara asks: But is it not all the more so? If items sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance require that the performance of rites relevant to them be performed by a member of the priesthood, then with regard to items sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, shouldn’t they certainly require that their rites be performed by a member of the priesthood? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in response: The requirement that the red heifer be slaughtered by a priest is not proof that its slaughter is a sacrificial rite. Rather, that requirement is just as it is in the case of examination of the shades of leprous marks, which is obviously not considered a sacrificial rite, and yet the Torah requires that these marks be examined by a member of the priesthood.

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, why was it necessary for Rav to teach that the removal of a handful by a non-priest does not disqualify the meal offering according to ben Beteira? Let us derive it from the fact that there was a period of fitness for rites performed by a non-priest, as before the construction of the Temple it was permitted for non-priests to sacrifice offerings upon a private altar.

And if you would say that we do not derive halakhot of the rites performed in the Temple from those performed on a private altar, one can respond: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, that emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn the halakhot of offerings in the Temple from the halakhot of a private altar.

The Gemara rejects this: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely as a support for this ruling.

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason it is known that ben Beteira permits the return to the meal offering of a handful removed by a non-priest is that Rav taught us so. Were it not for this, I would say that with regard to other disqualifications, i.e., other than a handful removed with the left hand, ben Beteira invalidates the meal offering. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, both say: Ben Beteira would deem fit in the case of all the other disqualifications listed in the mishna?

The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), that this verse indicates that the removal of a handful from a meal offering may be performed from the place where the feet of the non-priest stand, i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.

The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: From where is it derived that if one removed a handful with his left hand, that he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? It is derived from that which the verse states: “And he shall remove from there,” indicating that the handful is removed from the place where he already removed it, i.e., the handful is returned to the meal offering and thereupon removed from the same meal offering with the right hand. This concludes the baraita.

The Gemara explains the difficulty from the baraita: And since the verse is written in an unspecified manner, i.e., it does not mention which handfuls are returned, what difference is it to me if the handful was removed with the left hand, and what difference is it to me if it was removed by means of one of the other disqualifications?

The Gemara therefore suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, this is what Rav teaches us: Ben Beteira holds that if one unfit for Temple service removed a handful it may be returned to the meal offering even if he sanctified the handful by placing it in a service vessel. And the statement of Rav serves to exclude the opinion of these tanna’im: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker said: In what case is this statement of ben Beteira said, i.e., in which case does he rule that the handful may be returned to the meal offering? It is in a case where the unfit individual removed a handful and did not sanctify it by placing it inside a service vessel. But if he sanctified it then he has disqualified it, even according to ben Beteira, and it may not be returned to the meal offering.

And there are those who say that Rav teaches the opposite, that if an unfit person merely removed a handful, yes, ben Beteira permits such a handful to be returned to the meal offering from which it was removed, but if he already sanctified the handful by placing it inside a service vessel, it may not be returned. In accordance with whose opinion is this explanation? It is in accordance with the opinion of these tanna’im, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker, and it is to exclude the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker and maintains that a handful may be returned even after it was sanctified by a service vessel.

Rav Naḥman objects to this: What do these tanna’im of the baraita hold? If they hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite to the extent that it disqualifies the offering, then the meal offering should be disqualified even though he did not perform the stage of the placement of the handful in a vessel. And if they hold that the removal of a handful by an unfit individual is not considered the performance of a rite, then when he performed the stage of its placement in a vessel, what significance was there to this action? He can still return the handful to the meal offering.

Rav Naḥman reconsidered and then said: Actually, those tanna’im hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite, but the rite of the handful is not complete until he performs the stage of its placement in a vessel. Consequently, the meal offering is disqualified only after a person unfit for Temple service places the handful inside a service vessel.

The Gemara challenges: If so, i.e., if the placement of the handful inside a service vessel completes the rite that begins with the handful’s removal, then even if the handful was removed by an unfit individual who has not yet sanctified it in the service vessel designated for the handful,