A Meal Offering Still Valid Without Its Lesser Rites

If he did not pour the oil, did not blend, did not break into pieces, did not salt, did not wave, did not bring it close, or broke it into too many pieces, or did not anoint the wafers, it is valid. This teaching of the Mishnah does not accord with Rabbi Shimon. For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says, any priest who does not acknowledge the service has no portion in the priesthood, as it is said, "he who offers the blood of the peace offerings... to him shall belong the right thigh as a portion" — one who acknowledges the service has a portion in the priesthood; one who does not acknowledge it has no portion. And I have only this; from where do I include the pourings, the blendings, the breakings, the saltings, the wavings, the bringings-close, the takings of the handful, the burnings, the pinchings of the bird's neck, the receivings of blood, the sprinklings, the giving of drink to the suspected wife, the breaking of the heifer's neck, the purification of the leper, and the lifting of the hands in priestly blessing, whether inside or outside? The verse says "of the sons of Aaron" — a service entrusted to the sons of Aaron: any priest who does not acknowledge it has no portion in the priesthood. What is the reasoning of the Sages? The verse says, "And he shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense upon it, and bring it to the sons of Aaron the priests, and he shall take a handful": from the taking of the handful onward it is a commandment of the priesthood, which teaches that the pouring and blending are valid even when done by a non-priest. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the "and" of "and bring it" adds to the earlier matter. But then consider what is written, "And he shall slaughter the bullock, and the sons of Aaron the priests shall offer and shall dash the blood" (Leviticus 1:5): from the receiving of the blood onward it is a commandment of the priesthood, which teaches that the slaughter is valid by a non-priest. So too, according to Rabbi Shimon, would the "and" add to the earlier matter and render slaughter by a non-priest invalid? There it is different, for the verse says "and he shall lay his hand, and he shall slaughter": just as laying on of hands is done by non-priests, so slaughter is done by non-priests. And if you would say, just as laying on of hands is done by the owners, so too slaughter, that you cannot say, by an argument from the lesser to the greater: if for sprinkling, the essence of atonement, we do not require the owners, then for slaughter, which is not the essence of atonement, all the more so. And lest you say one does not reason from the possible to the impossible, the Merciful One revealed concerning the Day of Atonement, "and he shall slaughter the bull of the sin offering that is his," implying that ordinary slaughter does not require the owners.