Receiving the Blood Belongs to a Fit Priest and a Sacred Vessel

"And they shall bring near" (Leviticus 1:5) refers to the receiving of the blood. One might think this is the sprinkling; but when it says "and they shall sprinkle," the sprinkling is already stated. So how do I maintain "and they shall bring near" here? It refers to the receiving of the blood, which may be done only by a fit priest and in a sacred vessel. Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we learn that the receiving of the blood may be done only by a fit priest and in a sacred vessel? The word "priesthood" is used here, and the word "priesthood" is used elsewhere; just as the priesthood mentioned elsewhere requires a fit priest and a sacred vessel, so too the priesthood mentioned here requires a fit priest and a sacred vessel. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Akiva, how long will you rake words together and heap them upon us? I would forfeit my son if I have not heard that there is a distinction between receiving and sprinkling, but I cannot explain it. Akiva said to him: Permit me to say before you what you taught me. He said to him: Speak. Akiva said: With receiving, intention is not treated as deed, but with sprinkling, intention is treated as deed. If one received the blood outside, he is exempt; if he sprinkled it outside, he is liable. If impure persons received it, they are not liable for it; if impure persons sprinkled it, they are liable for it. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: I would forfeit my son, you have not strayed right or left. I heard it and could not explain, while you expound and arrive at the law. Whoever parts from you is as one who parts from life itself. The sacrifice is disqualified by four acts: by slaughter, by receiving, by carrying, and by sprinkling. But can it be disqualified at the receiving? Has it not been taught "and they shall bring near"? Rava said: It is not difficult. Here it speaks of an intention of refuse-thought, there of an intention not for the offering's own sake. The precise wording supports this, for it teaches that the sacrifice is "disqualified" and does not teach that the sacrifice is "rendered refuse." Does an intention of refuse-thought not disqualify at the receiving? Has it not been taught: One might think that intention is effective only at the sprinkling; from where do we include slaughter and receiving? Scripture teaches, "and if any of it is at all eaten" (Leviticus 7:18), the verse speaks of matters that lead to eating. One might think I should include even the pouring out of the remnants and the burning of the fats; Scripture teaches, "it shall not be accepted," since the sprinkling was already within the general rule, and why did it come forth? To draw an analogy to itself: just as sprinkling is distinct in that it is a service that holds back atonement, so the pouring of remnants and burning of fats, which do not hold back atonement, are excluded. It is not difficult: this case speaks of one who said, "I am slaughtering in order to receive its blood tomorrow," and that case of one who said, "I am receiving in order to pour out the remnants tomorrow." One of the rabbis said to Rava: Do the pouring of remnants and the burning of fats not disqualify? Has it not been taught: One might think intention is effective only at the eating of the flesh; from where do we include the pouring of remnants and the burning of fats? Scripture teaches, "and if any of it is at all eaten," the verse speaks of two kinds of eating, one the eating of a person and one the eating of the altar. It is not difficult: this case speaks of one who said, "I am sprinkling in order to pour out the remnants tomorrow," and that case of one who said, "I am pouring out the remnants in order to burn the fats tomorrow."