Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 222:18

כשם שדמה פוטר את בשרה כך היא פוטרת את בשר חבירתה:

Raba said: They disagree about receiving [the blood] in a non-sacred vessel, and this is what it says: Likewise, if one receives [the blood] in a non-sacred vessel within, and offers it up without, he is not liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 2. The same applies here.');">¹⁰</span> if one receives [the blood] in a non-sacred vessel without and offers [it] up without, he is liable. R'SIMEON SAID: WHATEVER ENTAILS LIABILITY WITHOUT, ENTAILS LIABILITY IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN WHEN ONE [SUBSEQUENTLY] OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT, EXCEPT WHEN ONE SLAUGHTERS [A BIRD] WITHIN AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT. And now that the father of Samuel son of R'Isaac recited: If one nips a bird within and offers [it] up without, he is liable; if he nips [it] without and offers [it] up without, he is liable; but R'Simeon rules that he is liable: [you can say that] R'Simeon refers to that case, but read: Whatever entails liability [when it is sacrificed] within and offered up without, entails liability [when it is sacrificed] without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exception will then refer to an inference that follows from R. Simeon's statement. For one might infer that whatever does not entail liability when it is sacrificed within and offered up without, e.g., if one sacrifices an unfit animal which was disqualified before it came to the Temple - e.g. one with which an unnatural crime had been committed - does not entail liability when sacrificed without and offered up without. An exception to this is the case of a bird; though it does not entail liability when slaughtered within and offered up without, it does entail liability when slaughtered without and offered up without.');">¹¹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>AS FOR A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED IN ONE GOBLET, IF ONE [FIRST] SPRINKLED [THE BLOOD] WITHOUT AND THEN SPRINKLED [IT] WITHIN; [OR] WITHIN AND THEN WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE, BECAUSE THE WHOLE OF IT WAS ELIGIBLE WITHIN. IF THE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS AND ONE SPRINKLED BOTH WITHIN, HE IS NOT LIABLE; BOTH WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. [IF HE SPRINKLED] ONE WITHIN AND ONE WITHOUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that order.');">¹²</span> HE IS NOT LIABLE; ONE WITHOUT AND ONE WITHIN, HE IS LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ONE WITHOUT, WHILE THE ONE WITHIN MAKES ATONEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., makes the sacrifice valid.');">¹³</span> TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED? TO A MAN WHO SET ASIDE [AN ANIMAL FOR] HIS SIN-OFFERING, THEN IT WAS LOST, AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER IN ITS PLACE; THEN THE FIRST WAS FOUND, AND [SO] BOTH ARE PRESENT. IF HE SLAUGHTERED BOTH OF THEM WITHIN, HE IS NOT LIABLE; BOTH OF THEM WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. [IF HE SLAUGHTERED] ONE WITHIN AND ONE WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For atonement was made with the first, and so the second was not eligible for slaughtering within. For a sin-offering can be brought only when one is liable; after the first was offered, the second was in the position of a sin-offering whose owner dies before it is sacrificed, and is henceforth unfit for sacrificing.');">¹⁴</span> ONE WITHOUT AND ONE WITHIN, HE IS LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ONE WITHOUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was eligible then.');">¹⁵</span> WHILE THE ONE WITHIN MAKES ATONEMENT. JUST AS THE BLOOD RELIEVES ITS OWN FLESH, SO DOES IT RELIEVE THE FLESH OF ITS COMPANION [THE OTHER ANIMAL].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to where he slaughtered both within. The sprinkling of the blood of the first relieves its flesh from liability to trespass (v. p. 405, n. 8.) ; it also relieves the flesh of the second from the same liability, though the second was unfit.');">¹⁶</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 222:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.