Zevachim 14

Recall that there are four steps to performing a sacrifice: (1) slaughtering the animal, (2) collecting its blood, (3) conveying its blood to the altar, (4) sprinkling the blood on the altar. The mishnah on yesterday’s daf recorded a dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon about the consequences of having improper intent while performing step three, conveying its blood to the altar. The rabbis hold that if one conveys the blood not for the sake of this particular sacrifice, it invalidates a paschal or sin offering. (In the case of other offerings, it merely renders them unfit to atone for its owners.) Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, believes that one’s intent while conveying the blood does not have an impact on the status of the offering. The mishnah clarifies that this is because the act of conveying is “dispensable.” While slaughtering, collecting the blood, and sprinkling it are all essential actions, if the animal were slaughtered right next to the altar, no conveyance would be necessary. Therefore, improper intent when performing this part of the rite does not impact the offering’s status.

On today’s daf, Abaye inquires about another rule regarding this “dispensible” third step of the sacrificial rite:

Abaye said to Rav Hisda’s interpreter: Ask Rav Hisda for me: What is the halakhah with regard to a non-priest conveying the blood? 

Rav Hisda said to him: The offering remains fit, and a verse supports my ruling: “And they slaughtered the paschal offering, and the priests sprinkled the blood, which they received of their hand, and the Levites flayed them.” (2 Chronicles 35:11)

The question here is not about intention during conveyance, but the person doing the conveying. Abaye asks his teacher Rav Hisda (albeit indirectly) if a non-priest can perform this step. Rav Hisda affirms that the offering would remain valid, citing a verse which states that “they” slaughtered the paschal offering while the priests sprinkled the blood. Rashi clarifies that it is non-priests who slaughtered the paschal lambs. This implies that just as the non-priests are fit to slaughter the sacrifices, so too are they fit to convey the blood to the altar.

However, Rav Hisda’s havruta, his study partner, has a stark objection:

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a beraita: If a non-priest, or an acute mourner, a drunk priest, or a blemished priest performs the rites of collection, conveying or sprinkling the blood, the offering is disqualified. And likewise, it is disqualified if a priest performs any of these rites while sitting. And this is likewise the halakhah if a priest performs any of these rites with his left hand. 

This is a conclusive refutation.

The beraita, which directly disqualifies non-priests from conveying blood, seems to definitively contradict Rav Hisda’s assertion. And despite the summary statement that this is a conclusive regulation, the Gemara follows up with this question:

But didn’t Rav Hisda state a verse?!

When it comes to cited texts, the Hebrew Bible will always be most authoritative. While Rav Sheshet quoted a beraita, Rav Hisda cited proof from Tanakh! So how could this beraita explicitly contradict the text? The Gemara resolves the problem with this explanation:

The verse described a case where the non-priests served as a bench.

Rashi explains this funny phrasing: Presumably to help workflow, the non-priests would stand next to the sacrifices and hold the blood between collection and conveyance, but they never actually moved the blood themselves. Read this way, the ritual described in Chronicles does not contradict the assertion that only priests can perform this rite.
Indeed, the Gemara ultimately concludes in favor of the beraita: Sacrificial blood can only be conveyed to the altar by priests.

Read all of Zevachim 14 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 28, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.