(Mishnah): Shechitah, Kabalah, Holachah or Zerikah can disqualify a Korban (i.e. if it was done with improper intent);

R. Shimon says, Holachah cannot disqualify, for it is not always necessary (e.g. if the Shechitah was next to the Mizbeach);

R. Elazar says, Holachah where it is necessary can disqualify a Korban. Holachah where it is unnecessary cannot.

14b - Question: Is Holachah without walking considered Holachah?

Answer (Mishnah): If a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul (Kohen, or a Zar) he returns it to the Kosher Kohen.

Rejection: No, the Kosher Kohen takes it back.

15a (Mishnah): If a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul, he returns it to the Kosher Kohen. This shows that the Holachah can be fixed!

Rejection: Perhaps the Pasul was outside (further from the Mizbeach, so giving it to him was not Holachah at all)!

(Benei R. Chiya or R. Yanai): If a Zar did Holachah and a Kohen took it back and repeated the Holachah, it is Kosher;

(The other of Benei R. Chiya and R. Yanai): It is Pasul.

They argue about whether Holachah of a Zar can be fixed.

(Rav Simi bar Ashi): If a Kohen did Holachah and a Zar took it back and repeated the Holachah, the first opinion above disqualifies (the last Holachah is primary), and the latter opinion is Machshir (the first Holachah is primary).

(Rava): No, all agree that this is Pasul. Once the blood was taken back, now it is necessary to do Holachah.

(R. Yirmeyah): R. Eliezer and Chachamim argued about necessary Holachah.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Holachah where it is necessary disqualifies a Korban. Holachah where it is unnecessary does not.

(Rava): All agree that Holachah inside (towards the Mizbeach) is considered necessary, and Holachah outside is considered unnecessary. They argue about when it was brought inside, and then outside. Chachamim call bringing it close again necessary Holachah, and R. Eliezer calls it unnecessary.

Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Holachah where it is necessary disqualifies a Korban. Holachah towards the Mizbeach is considered necessary. Holachah away from the Mizbeach is considered unnecessary.

If it was brought towards the Mizbeach and taken away, this (bringing it close again) is considered necessary.

Rava: The Beraisa refutes me.

Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 13:9): Holachah without the feet is not Holachah. Therefore, (improper) intent during it does not disqualify. Holachah where this is not needed is Holachah, so it disqualifies. If one stood in one place and extended his hand to do Zerikah and while extending his hand he had improper intent, it does not disqualify. However, if he did Kabalah inside, and went outside, and had improper intent, e.g. Chutz li'Mkomo, while going outside, it is Pasul.

Rebuttal (Ra'avad): The entire Sugya is like R. Elazar, who says that Holachah where this is not needed is not Holachah.

Kesef Mishneh: The Rambam holds that even though Abaye and Rava argue about the argument of R. Elazar and Chachamim, this is because through this we understand Chachamim. He explains, unlike Rashi, that Rava retracted to say that Holachah disqualifies in every case, even when it is not needed.

Mishneh l'Melech: I say that there is a mistake in our texts of the Gemara. Really, Rava says that they argue about when it was distanced from the Mizbeach, and then brought close. Abaye says that all say that this is Holachah. Rather, they argue about intent when it was being distanced. R. Elazar says that it is not Holachah, and Chachamim say that it is. The Rambam rules like Chachamim, according to Abaye. The Ra'avad says that the Halachah follows R. Elazar, for Abaye and Rava argue about his opinion. This is astounding. On 15a, Rava said that even the opinion that disqualifies (when a Zar did Holachah and a Kohen took it back and repeated the Holachah) disqualifies when a Kohen did Holachah and a Zar took it back and repeated the Holachah, for now (after it was distanced) it must be brought close again. I.e., Rava holds like Chachamim! Rava's Perush of R. Elazar was rejected, but not his ruling that the Halachah follows Chachamim! Perhaps the Ra'avad holds that Rava's teaching on 15a was after he heard Abaye's Beraisa and retracted. I say that the Ra'avad does not rule like R. Elazar because Abaye and Rava argue about his opinion. Rather, he holds that if going outside (distancing from the Mizbe'ach) is called Holachah and intent disqualifies in it, also a Zar disqualifies if he goes outside, just like he disqualifies Holachah. Similarly, the one who holds that Holachah without the feet cannot be fixed, if he went outside without the feet, the Korban is Pasul. Since it is Holachah regarding intent, it is Holachah in every way. The Gemara challenged the opinion that Holachah without the feet cannot be fixed from the Mishnah of a Kohen who gave to a Zar and took it back. We answered that the Zar was further from the Mizbe'ach. This implies that distancing without the feet is not Holachah. If so, also regarding intent distancing is not Holachah. If so, the Sugya is like R. Elazar. The Gemara connotes that intent, a Zar, and Holachah without the feet have the same law. They depend on each other. At the beginning of the Sugya Rava and Rav Yosef said that R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about a Zar, and then it brings that R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about Holachah without the feet. The Rambam did not reveal whether he disqualifies when a Zar distanced with his feet. This requires investigation. Rashi holds that Abaye holds that R. Elazar and Chachamim do not argue. R. Elazar addresses R. Shimon's words, and argues with him.

R. Chayim ha'Levi Al ha'Rambam: The Gemara concluded that Holachah without the feet can be fixed. The Rambam rules Stam that if a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul, he returns it to the Kosher (1:27), i.e. even if the Pasul was closer to the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara refuted the opinion that it cannot be fixed, but it did not refute regarding a Zar (the opinion that Holachah of a Zar cannot be fixed). I.e. it is possible that even though Holachah without the feet can be fixed, Holachah of a Zar cannot be fixed. This is reasonable, for the latter is Avodah, but the former is not Avodah at all. We hold that a Zar is Mechalel Avodah, i.e. it cannot be fixed. The Yerushalmi explicitly says so. The Rambam holds that Holachah away from the Mizbe'ach is called Holachah. The Gemara answered 'perhaps the Pasul was further from the Mizbeach.' There it is not Holachah, for it was without the feet. The one who says that such Holachah cannot be fixed holds that since the blood came to the Mizbe'ach, the Avodah of Holachah is Batel. If it distanced from the Mizbe'ach, there is no Bitul Avodah. The Rambam discusses Holachah with the feet. Even if it distances from the Mizbe'ach, this is Avodah to enable improper intent to disqualify the Korban.

Ohr Some'ach: R. Elazar holds that distancing from the Mizbe'ach is not Holachah. Chachamim say that it is, and improper intent disqualifies. All the more so Holachah (outside) of a Zar disqualifies, for R. Shimon holds that intent does not disqualify necessary Holachah, but a Zar does. Amora'im argue about a Kohen who did Holachah, returned, and a Zar did the Holachah again, i.e. towards the Mizbe'ach. If the Zar distanced from the Mizbe'ach, all agree that it is Kosher. This is why the Ra'avad says that the Sugya is like R. Elazar. Chachamim say that Holachas Zar outside disqualifies only by foot. Even though it is unnecessary, it is Holachah. R. Yochanan says that Holachah without the feet cannot be fixed when it was inside, for Holachah was needed and now the blood reached near the Mizbe'ach without Holachah. Holachas Zar outside not by foot can surely be fixed. This is not Holachah b'Zar (unlike the Mishneh l'Melech). Above (14b) we said that if a Kosher Kohen did Kabalah and gave it to a Pasul, he returns it to the Kosher Kohen. To reject this, we said that the Kosher Kohen takes it back where the Pasul stands. (The Pasul did not move it at all.) We then challenged the opinion that it cannot be fixed, and answered that the Zar is outside. This Sugya is like Chachamim (it can be fixed because Holachah without the feet is not called Holachah. If it were Holachah, it would disqualify!) Therefore, the Rambam rules like Chachamim.