IS DIPPING THE FINGER LIKE HOLACHAH?
Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue about whether dipping the finger is like Holachah.
(Beraisa #1): In Chatas, dipping the finger is Mefagel.
(Beraisa #2): It does not make Pigul (if he dipped his finger with intent of Chutz li'Zmano), and it is not the object of Pigul (if he slaughtered with intent to dip his finger Chutz li'Zmano).
Rejection #1: No, all agree that dipping the finger is like Holachah;
Beraisa #1 is Chachamim (who say that Holachah is Mefagel). Beraisa #2 is R. Shimon (who says that Holachah is not Mefagel).
Objection: If it is R. Shimon, why does it mention dipping the finger? He says that Pigul applies only to Korbanos of the outer Mizbeach!
Rejection #2: Rather, both Beraisos are Chachamim. Beraisa #1 refers to inner Chata'os, and Beraisa #2 refers to outer Chata'os.
Question: Obviously, dipping the finger does not make Pigul in outer Chata'os. The Torah does not say to dip the finger!
Answer: Since it says "v'Lakach", and the Kohen must dip his finger (even if a monkey put the blood on the Kohen's finger), one might have thought that it is as if it says 'v'Taval';
The Torah did not write 'v'Taval', to teach that this is not an important Avodah, so it does not make Pigul.
R. SHIMON'S OPINION ABOUT HOLACHAH
(Mishnah - R. Shimon): (Improper intent in) Holachah does not disqualify.
(Reish Lakish): R. Shimon agrees that Holachah disqualifies in inner Chata'os, because it is essential. (The Korban cannot be slaughtered in the Heichal. The blood must be brought inside.)
Question: R. Shimon says that Pigul applies only to Korbanos of the outer Mizbeach!
Answer (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): He says that Pigul (with Kares) applies only to Korbanos of the outer Mizbeach, but a Kal va'Chomer teaches that even inner Chata'os can become Pasul;
Lo Lishmah does not disqualify Shelamim, but it disqualifies Chatas. Chutz li'Zmano disqualifies Shelamim, all the more so it disqualifies Chatas!
Question: This teaches Chutz li'Zmano. What is the source for Chutz li'Mkomo?
We cannot learn from Chutz li'Zmano, which causes (in other Korbanos Pigul, which has) liability for Kares!
We cannot learn from Lo Lishmah, which applies even to a Bamah (private Mizbeach, but Chutz li'Mkomo does not apply to a Bamah)!
Answer #1: We can learn from Lo Lishmah. This disqualifies only in Chatas and Pesach, which are not brought on Bamos!
Answer #2: The Torah equates Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo;
"Shelishi" refers to Chutz li'Zmano; "Pigul" refers to Chutz li'Mkomo.
(Rava): (The Ulam is the building in front of the Heichal. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds that between the Ulam and the Mizbeach is like the north half of the Azarah, i.e. one may slaughter Kodshei Kodoshim there.) If R. Shimon agrees with R. Elazar, he will say that (improper intent during) Holachah disqualifies inner Chata'os only from the opening of the Ulam and inside (for they could have been slaughtered right by the opening. It was not necessary to (slaughter them further away and) take the blood to the Ulam;
If he holds like R. Yehudah (who permits burning Eimurim on the floor of the Azarah, just like on the Mizbeach), he will say that Holachah of frankincense (that accompanies the Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan, and is burned on the Mizbeach) disqualifies only from the opening of the Heichal until the opening of the Ulam (because the Shulchan could have been placed right by the opening of the Heichal, and the frankincense could have been burned right outside the Ulam);
If he also holds that the Ulam has the Kedushah of the Heichal (so the Shulchan could be placed anywhere in the interior of the Ulam) he will say that Holachah disqualifies the frankincense only in the opening of the Ulam (the area corresponding to the thickness of the walls);
If he holds that even that area has Kedushas Heichal, Holachah disqualifies only for the distance to stretch one's hand from the (end of the) opening of the Ulam to the floor of the Azarah;
If he also holds that Holachah disqualifies only when walking (not when just moving his hand), Holachah cannot disqualify the frankincense at all.
IF A ZAR DID HOLACHAH
Question (Abaye): If a Zar did Holachah, what is the law?
Answer (Rav Chisda): It is Kosher - "va'Yishchatu ha'Pasach va'Yizreku ha'Kohanim mi'Yadam" (the Yisraelim did Holachah)!
Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): If a Zar, Onen (one who lost a relative that day), or an intoxicated or blemished Kohen did Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah, the Korban is Pasul. The same applies if the Avodah was done sitting or with the left hand.
This refutes Rav Chisda.
Question: A verse supports Rav Chisda!
Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: The Yisrael merely held the bucket of blood. The Kohen who would do Zerikah took it from him.
Version #2 (Aruch) Answer: The Kohanim passed the buckets in a line. The Yisraelim did not take it. (end of Version #2)
(Rabah and Rav Yosef): R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about whether Holachah of a Zar disqualifies.
R. Shimon says that a dispensable Avodah is not considered Avodah, therefore, a Zar may do it;
Version #1 (Rashi): Chachamim say that because it is essential, if a Zar does it the Korban is Pasul.
Version #2 (Tosfos): Chachamim say that even though it is dispensable, if a Zar does it the Korban is Pasul. (end of Version #2)
Question (Abaye): A Zar may do Shechitah, even though it is essential! (Rashi - according to Rabah and Rav Yosef, both Tana'im should require a Kohen; Tosfos - this challenges their explanation of R. Shimon).
Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef): Shechitah is not considered Avodah (Rashi - because anyone may do it; Tosfos - because it is required even for Chulin; alternatively - because the slaughterer may be anywhere (whereas one doing Avodah must be in the Azarah, and for Kodshei Kodoshim, he must be in the north half of the Azarah).
Question: R. Zeira taught that if a Zar slaughtered the Parah Adumah (red heifer), it is Pasul!
(Rav): We learn that a Kohen must slaughter from "Elazar". We learn that this is Me'akev from "Chukah".
Answer #1: (That is not because it is considered Avodah. Rather,) the Parah Adumah is different. It is Kodshim of Bedek ha'Bayis.
Question: Regular Kodshim (i.e. that go on the Mizbeach) are more Kodesh. All the more so a Kohen is required!
Answer #2 (Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Sometimes the Torah requires a Kohen for matters that are not Avodah, such as ruling about Tzara'as.
Question: Bringing limbs (of an Olah) up the ramp (of the Mizbeach, to burn them) is a dispensable Avodah, yet a Zar may not do it!
"V'Hikriv ha'Kohen (Es ha'Kol v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah)" refers to bringing the limbs up the ramp!
Answer: The Torah taught that a Kohen is needed for this. We do not learn to other places.
Question: Bringing limbs up the ramp (and even burning them) is not Me'akev Kaparah, yet a Kohen must do it. All the more so a Kohen must bring blood to the Mizbe'ach, which is Me'akev Kaparah! (This is left difficult.)
(Ula): If a Zar did Holachah, it is Pasul, even according to R. Shimon.
HOLACHAH WITHOUT WALKING
Question: Is Holachah without walking (i.e. extending with the hand) considered Holachah (if someone Pasul for Avodah did it, or if the Kohen had improper intent, does it disqualify the Korban? Also, according to Chachamim, does it fulfill the requirement for Holachah? (Rashi)
Answer #1 (Beraisa): ...If Holachah (or Kabalah or Zerikah) was done sitting or with the left hand (it is Pasul).
Inference: If it was done standing still, it is Kosher (i.e. it is considered Holachah)!
Rejection: Perhaps the Beraisa disqualifies shuffling along a bit while sitting, but if he was standing and moved his feet a bit, it is Kosher.
Answer #2 (Mishnah): The Yisrael would slaughter (his Pesach), a Kohen did Kabalah, and Kohanim passed the bucket of blood one to another until the Mizbeach...
Rejection: There also, perhaps each Kohen moved his feet a bit.
Question: If so, what is the Chidush?
Answer: It is better to involve many Kohanim - "b'Rav Am Hadras Melech".
Answer #3 (Mishnah): If a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul (Kohen, or a Zar) he returns it to the Kosher Kohen. (The partial Holachah of extending it to the Pasul without walking is invalid. Therefore, the Kohen stands in the place he was when he gave it, takes it back, and repeats the Holachah with his feet!)
Rejection: No, the Mishnah means that the Kosher Kohen takes it back (from the Pasul, closer to the Mizbe'ach than he was when he gave it to him, and continues the Holachah. The partial Holachah of extending it to the Pasul was valid.)