(Ula): Holachah without walking is not considered Holachah.

Question: (According to Chachamim,) if a Kosher Kohen redoes the Holachah while walking, is the Korban Kosher?

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

Even if this means (like we said above) that the Kosher Kohen takes it back (closer to the Mizbe'ach than he initially was), it shows that the Holachah can be fixed!

Rejection: If the Pasul were closer to the Mizbeach (than the Kohen who gave it to him), this would indeed be a proof;

However, perhaps the Pasul was further from the Mizbeach (so giving it to him was not Holachah at all)!

(Ula): Holachah without walking is Pasul.

(Since he already taught that is not considered Holachah,) this must mean that it cannot be fixed.

Question (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): If blood fell from the Keli on the floor and it was gathered, it is Kosher (even though when it spills, some if it spreads out towards the Mizbeach, i.e. Holachah without walking! The Griz asked that R. Yehudah (34b) says that on Erev Pesach we gather blood from the floor and throw it. If the blood of a Korban spilled, this is Machshir it, even though it is mixed with (Pasul) Dam Tamtzis (blood that exudes before or after the animal dies). Chidushei Basra (220) says that Rashi there explains that this is because R. Yehudah holds that blood is not Mevatel blood. Indeed, R. Yehudah would hold that also here, the blood that spilled away from the Mizbe'ach is Kosher, even though it is mixed with (Pasul) blood that spilled towards the Mizbe'ach. We ask from Chachamim.)

Answer: No. The case is, none of the blood spread towards the Mizbeach.

Question: Surely, it spreads in all directions!

Answer #1: No, it fell on an incline.

Answer #2: It fell in a crevice.

Answer #3: The blood was very thick, and almost congealed. It did not spread at all.

Objection #1: It is unreasonable to say that the Tana taught about such unusual cases!

Objection #2 (Mishnah): If blood fell (straight from the animal) onto the floor and it was gathered, it is Pasul.

If in a normal case (when blood spilled from the Keli and some spread towards the Mizbeach) it is Pasul, the Tana should have taught this case instead (to show that sometimes it is Pasul even when it spilled from the Keli, which is a bigger Chidush)!

Ula is refuted.

R. Shimon and Chachamim (explicitly argued about whether improper intent in Holachah disqualifies. They also) argue about whether Holachah without walking is considered Holachah.

All agree that improper intent disqualifies in major Holachah (the Kabalah was far from the Mizbeach. Holachah through walking is needed);

They argue about minor Holachah (the Kabalah was right by the Mizbeach. No walking is needed. Chachamim say that improper intent disqualifies, and R. Shimon says that it does not.)

Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael laughed at this. If so, according to R. Shimon, how does improper intent disqualify Haza'ah of Chatas ha'Of (shaking the bird to fling the blood towards the Mizbeach? We know that all agree that it disqualifies!)

If the intent was before the blood left the neck, this has no effect!

If the intent was after the blood left the neck, the Mitzvah was finished (surely, it has no effect)!

Suggestion: He had improper intent while it was in the air. Really, the Mitzvah is not finished until the blood reaches the Mizbeach;

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a Kohen was Mazeh and he his hand was cut off (so now he is blemished) before the blood reached the airspace of the Mizbeach, what is the law?

Answer (R. Zeira): It is Pasul.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: We require "v'Hizah... v'Nasan." (The Haza'ah is completed when the blood reaches the Mizbeach.)

(Rav Papa): (There is no difficulty from Chatas ha'Of. Rather,) they laughed because R. Shimon and Chachamim argued about major Holachah (R. Shimon is Machshir because one could have avoided it)!

Version #1: Rather, all agree that minor Holachah disqualifies (because it is essential);

Version #2: Rather, all agree that minor Holachah does not disqualify (because it is not considered Holachah) (end of Version #2);

They argue about major Holachah.

(Bnei 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 Bnei 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 opinion that was Machshir (above) will disqualify here (for he considers the final Holachah to be primary). The opinion that disqualified above will be Machshir here (for he considers the first Holachah to be primary).

(Rava): No, all agree that this is Pasul.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: 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 (if done with improper intent) disqualifies a Korban. Holachah where it is unnecessary does not.

(Rava): All agree that Holachah towards the Mizbeach is considered necessary, and Holachah away from the Mizbeach is considered unnecessary;

They argue about when it was brought towards the Mizbeach, then distanced from it (and it must be brought close again). Chachamim consider (bringing it close again) necessary Holachah, and R. Eliezer considers 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.

(Mishnah): If any of the following did Kabalah, it is Pasul:

A Zar, an Onen, a Tevul Yom (one who immersed today; he will be fully Tahor at nightfall);

A Mechusar Kipurim (one whose Taharah is not complete until he brings a Korban), Mechusar Begadim (he is not wearing all the required garments), one who did not wash his hands and feet, an Arel (one who is uncircumcised);

One who is Tamei, sitting down, or standing on top of Kelim or an animal or another person's feet.

If he was Mekbael with his left hand, it is Pasul;

R. Shimon says, it is Kosher.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that a Zar is Mechalel Avodah (i.e. if he did Avodah, it is Pasul)?

Answer #1 (Levi): "...Aharon v'El Banav va'Yinazru mi'Kodshei Bnei Yisrael (v'Lo Yechalelu... when the Kohanim are Tamei)";

Question: What does 'Bnei Yisrael' come to exclude?

Suggestion: It excludes Korbanos of Benos Yisrael.

Rejection: We cannot say that Korbanos of women may be offered in Tum'ah!

Answer #1: It excludes Korbanos of Nochrim.

Rejection: If a Nochri's Korban is Tamei, the Tzitz never makes it acceptable (even though it sometimes does for Korbanos of Yisrael). All the more so Korbanos of Nochrim may not be offered in Tum'ah!

If a Nochri's Korban became Tamei, whether or not this happened intentionally, it is unacceptable.

Answer #2: Rather, we expound as follows. "Aharon v'El Banav va'Yinazru mi'Kodshei" - the Kohanim (when they are Tamei) must keep away from Kodshim;

Also, "Bnei Yisrael v'Lo Yechalelu" - Bnei Yisrael (even Tehorim) must not (do Avodah, for they) are Mechalel Avodah.