Study Zevachim folio 45B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
במזיד – לא הורצה. במה דברים אמורים – ביחיד; אבל בציבור, בין בשוגג בין במזיד – הורצה. ובגוים, בין בשוגג ובין במזיד – לא הורצה.
But if he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to the offering of an individual. But with regard to the offering of the community, whether the priest sprinkled the blood unwittingly or he did so intentionally, the offering is accepted. And in the case of the offerings of non-Jews, whether he sprinkled the blood unwittingly or he did so intentionally, the offering is not accepted.
אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב פפא: כמאן? דלא כרבי יוסי; דאי רבי יוסי, האמר: בכולן אני רואה להחמיר!
The rabbis said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught? Apparently, it was taught not in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei, as if it reflects the opinion of R' Yosei, there is a difficulty: Doesn’t R' Yosei say: I see the logic of the opinion that in all of these cases it is correct to be stringent about the offerings of non-Jews? This indicates that R' Yosei equates the halakhot applying to the offerings of non-Jews with those governing the offerings of Jews.
אמר להו רב פפא: אפילו תימא רבי יוסי, שאני התם דאמר קרא: ״להם״ – להם ולא לגוים.
Rav Pappa said to them: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei, and it is different there, as the verse states with regard to the High Priest’s frontplate, which atones for ritual impurity contracted by offerings in the Temple without the knowledge of those offering them: “And it should be always upon his forehead that it may be accepted for them before YHWH” (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that it is accepted for them, i.e., for Jews, but not for non-Jews.