Bava Kamma 152

וריש לקיש אמר בשוחט בעלי מומין בחוץ

whereas Resh Lakish said that there will be liability also if the thief slaughtered blemished sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., an animal which became afflicted with a lasting blemish before it was dedicated (Rashi).] ');">¹</span>

תהי בה רבי אלעזר לר' יוחנן שחיטה מתרת והלא זריקה מתרת

outside the precincts of the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As these may be slaughtered outside the precincts of the Temple, even without being first redeemed. ');">²</span>

לריש לקיש שחיטה מתרת והלא פדייה מתרת

R. Eleazar was astonished at the statement of R. Johanan: Is it the slaughter that renders the sacrificed animal permissible for food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of unblemished sacrifices slaughtered in the precincts of the Temple. ');">³</span>

אישתמיטתיה הא דרבי שמעון כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי וכל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי

Is it not the sprinkling of the blood that renders it permissible to be partaken of?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It accordingly follows that the slaughter as such did not at that time render the animal ritually fit for food. ');">⁴</span>

כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי דתניא רבי שמעון אומר יש נותר שהוא מטמא טומאת אוכלין ויש נותר שאינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

So also he was astonished at the statement of Resh Lakish: Is it the slaughter that renders the sacrificed animal permissible for food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of blemished sacrifices slaughtered outside the precincts of the Temple. ');">⁵</span>

כיצד לן לפני זריקה אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין לאחר זריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

Is it not its redemption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subsequent to the slaughter thereof. Cf. Hul. 84a. ');">⁶</span>

וקיימא לן מאי לפני זריקה קודם שנראה לזריקה לאחר זריקה לאחר שנראה לזריקה

that renders it permissible for food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of blemished sacrifices slaughtered outside the precincts of the Temple. ');">⁵</span>

קודם שנראה לזריקה לן מאי היא דלא הויא שהות ביום למזרקיה דשחטיה סמוך לשקיעת החמה ואינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

— It, however, escaped his memory that R. Simeon has laid down that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it has already been sprinkled, and whatever is designated for being redeemed is considered as if it had already been redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the slaughter is considered fit; cf. Pes. 13b; Men. 79b and 102b. ');">⁷</span>

לאחר שנראה לזריקה לן דהויא שהות ביום למזרקיה מטמא טומאת אוכלין אלמא כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי

'Whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had already been sprinkled' — as taught: R. Simeon says: There is nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'That which remaineth'; cf. Ex. XII, 10 and Lev. XIX, 6. denoting portions of sacrifices that had not been eaten or sacrificed upon the altar within the prescribed time and could then no more be sacrificed upon the altar or partaken of or put to any use but had to be burnt in a special place. ');">⁸</span>

וכל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי דתניא רבי שמעון אומר

which may be subject to defilement in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XI, 34. ');">⁹</span> but there is also nothar which is not subject to defilement in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food. How is this so? If it remains over night before the sprinkling of the blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the portions have never been allowed to be partaken of. ');">¹⁰</span> it would not be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As according to Bek. 9b, food cannot become defiled unless it was permitted to be made use of as food. ');">¹¹</span> but if after the sprinkling of blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was left over, in which case there was a time when the portions were ritually fit as food. ');">¹²</span> it would be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. 'Uk. III, 7' in accordance with Lev. XI, 34. ');">¹³</span> Now, it is an accepted tradition that the meaning of 'before sprinkling' is 'without it first having become fit to be sprinkled' and of 'after sprinkling', 'after it became fit for sprinkling'. Hence, 'where it remained overnight without having first become fit for sprinkling' could only be where there was no time during the day to sprinkle it, such as where the sacrifice was slaughtered close upon sunset, in which case it would not be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food; and 'where it remained over night after it had already become fit for sprinkling,' [could only be] where there was time during the [previous] day to sprinkle it, in which case it would be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 439. n. 9. ');">¹⁴</span> This proves that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had already been sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And made the sacrifice as if ritually fit to be partaken of. ');">¹⁵</span> 'Whatever is designated for being redeemed is considered as if it had already been redeemed,' — as taught: 'R. Simeon says: