Zevachim 15B

לאמטוייה.

to bring it again. Therefore, the second conveying must also be performed by a priest.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרב אשי, הכי אמר רב ירמיה מדיפתי: ״הא צריך לאמטוייה״⁠ – מחלוקת רבי אליעזר ורבנן.

R' Yirmeya said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Yirmeya of Difti said when he stated that it is necessary to bring the blood to the altar again, and that therefore the second conveying is considered a sacrificial rite and must be performed by a priest: He meant that this principle is subject to a dispute between R' Eliezer and the Rabbis.

דתנן, רבי אליעזר אומר: המהלך במקום שצריך להלך ⁠– מחשבה פוסלת. מקום שאין צריך להלך ⁠– אין מחשבה פוסלת.

This is as we learned in the Mishnah (13a): R' Eliezer says: With regard to one who conveys the blood in a situation where he is required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it disqualifies the offering. If he conveys the blood in a situation where he is not required to convey it, prohibited intent while conveying it does not disqualify the offering.

ואמר רבא, הכל מודים: קבלו בחוץ והכניסו בפנים ⁠– זהו הילוך שצריך להלך. קבלו בפנים והוציאו לחוץ ⁠– זהו הילוך שאין צריך להלך.

And Rava says: All of the tanna’im concede that if one collected the blood outside, i.e., at a distance from the altar, and he brought it inside, close to the altar, that is considered necessary conveying. If one collected it inside and took it outside, that is considered unnecessary conveying.

לא נחלקו אלא כשהכניסו וחזר והוציאו; מר סבר: הא צריך לאמטוייה, ומר סבר: לאו כהילוך הצריך לעבודה דמי.

They disagree only with regard to a case where he brought it in and took it out again. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that since it is necessary to bring it back to the altar, it is considered necessary conveying, and prohibited intent while performing it disqualifies the offering. And one Sage, R' Eliezer, holds that since the rite of conveying to the altar was already performed, it is not considered conveying that is necessary for the sacrificial service, and prohibited intent while performing it does not disqualify the offering. Apparently, the same dispute applies to a case where a non-priest conveyed the blood the second time.