Reference for Zevachim 70:21

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שחטו על מנת להניח את דמו או אימוריו למחר או להוציאן לחוץ רבי יהודה פוסל וחכמים מכשירין ע"מ ליתנן על גבי הכבש שלא כנגד היסוד וליתן את הניתנים למעלן למטה ואת הניתנים למטה למעלן ואת הניתנים

Hence [it follows that] one is culpable on account of the fetus and the after-birth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which apparently contradicts the first clause.');">¹³</span> Hence you must surely infer from this that in the one case it means through the sacrifice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They can be rendered piggul through the rest of the sacrifice.');">¹⁴</span> in the other, through themselves. This proves it. We learnt elsewhere: And blemished animals;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a blemished animal is taken up on to the altar, it must be taken down again; v. infra 84a.');">¹⁵</span> R'Akiba declares blemished animals fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If taken up on to the altar, they are not taken down again.');">¹⁶</span> R'Hiyya B'Abba declared in R'Johanan's name: R'Akiba declares [them] fit only in the case of cataracts in the eye, since such are fit in the case of birds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This blemish does not disqualify a bird at all, which is unfit only when it lacks a limb.');">¹⁷</span> and provided that their consecration [for a sacrifice] preceded their blemish; and R'Akiba admits that a female burnt-offering must be [taken down], because that is tantamount to the blemish preceding its consecration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal burnt-offering must be a male (Lev. I, 3) . If a female is offered, it must be taken down, although a bird burnt-offering may be of any gender, because there can be no greater blemish than the forbidden sex.');">¹⁸</span> R'Zera objected: 'One who offers them up without is not liable;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Baraitha supra; 'them' includes the fetus.');">¹⁹</span> but [if one offers up the flesh] of the mother, one is liable; and how is that possible? In the case of a female burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one who offers up the flesh of a peace-offering without is not liable (v. infra 112b) . - A female must be meant since the fetus is discussed.');">²⁰</span> Now,it is well if you say that R'Akiba holds that if a female burnt-offering goes up, it does not come down: then this is in accordance with R'Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it does not come down within, it involves liability without, the two being interdependent (v. infra 112a) .');">²¹</span> But if you say that [even] if it went up, it goes down, in accordance with whom is this? - Say: He who offers up [the flesh] of them without is exempt, hence [he who offers up] of the emurim of the mother, is liable. But he teaches, 'of them', and the mother is analogous to them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of them' means of course of their flesh, and so the deduction in respect of the mother must also refer to the mother's flesh.');">²²</span> - Rather say: He who offers up of their emurim without is exempt; hence [he who offers up] of their mother's emurim is liable. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT WITH THE INTENTION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on condition'.');">²³</span> OF LEAVING ITS BLOOD OR ITS EMURIM FOR THE MORROW, OR OF CARRYING THEM WITHOUT, R'JUDAH DISQUALIFIES [IT], BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT FIT. [IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT] WITH THE INTENTION OF SPRINKLING [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT, [OR ON THE ALTAR] BUT NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; OR OF APPLYING BELOW [THE LINE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Running along the middle of the altar.');">²⁴</span> ] WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, OR ABOVE WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW, OR WITHOUT WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN,

Jastrow

Jastrow