Pesachim 145
(במדבר יח, ז) עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם והזר הקרב יומת עשו אכילת תרומה בגבולין כעבודת ביהמ"ק:
<br> I give you the priesthood as a service of ['abodath] gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death: [thus] they made the eating of terumah in the borders as [equivalent to] the 'abodah in the Temple.
שחטו שלא לאוכליו: פשיטא כיון דהתם פסול הכא חייב משום דתנא סיפא פטור תנא רישא חייב
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS [etc,]. That is obvious: since it is [taught] there [that it is] unfit, he is liable here? - Because the second clause teaches, HE IS NOT LIABLE, the first clause teaches, HE IS LIABLE. But that too is obvious: Since [the sacrifice] is fit there, he is not liable here?- Rather, because he teaches, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ON THE SABBATH, he also teaches [about] THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS. And what is the purpose of that itself? - [He states it] because he wishes to teach the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. <br>
והא נמי פשיטא משום דהתם כשר הכא פטור אלא איידי דתנא שחטו שלא לשמו בשבת תנא נמי שלא לאוכליו והיא גופא למה לי משום דקבעי לאיפלוגי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע
R. Huna b. Hinena said to his son, 'When you go before R. Zerika, ask him: On the view that he who causes damage through a wound is not liable, [when we learned] IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, HE IS LIABLE, what [of positive value] has he effected? - He effected [this, viz.,] that if they [the emurim] ascended [the top of the altar], they do not descend. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE: what [of positive value] has he effected? - He effected [something positive] in the case of cataracts in the eye, this being in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: If they [the emurim] ascended, they do not descend, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH INTERNALLY, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. Hence if it is in an exposed part, he is culpable; [yet] what has he effected? - He effected its withdrawal from the scope of nebelah. Rabina demurred: As to what was taught: He who slaughters a sin-offering on the Sabbath without [the Temple] to an idol, is liable on account thereof to three sin-offerings: -what has he effected? -Said R. 'Awira: Because he withdraws it from [the interdict of] a limb [cut] from a live animal. <br>
א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא לבריה כי אזלת לקמיה דרבי זריקא בעי מיניה לדברי האומר מקלקל בחבורה פטור שחטו שלא לאוכליו חייב מה תיקן
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN etc. R. Huna said in Rab's name: A guilt-offering which was transferred to pasture and [then] slaughtered without a specified purpose is fit for a burnt-offering. This proves that he holds that it does not require [express] abrogation. If so, [even] if it was not transferred too? [When it is sacrificed thus immediately] after atonement it is preventively forbidden on account of [when it is sacrificed thus even] before atonement. And whence do you rule [thus]? For we learned: A guilt-offering whose owner died or whose owner [otherwise] obtained atonement must graze until it becomes unfit; then it is sold, and its money falls [is utilized] for a voluntary offering. R. Eliezer said: It is left to die. R. Joshua said: he can sell it and bring a burnt-offering for its money. Thus, only for its money, but not that itself, because he preventively forbids [it when sacrificed] after atonement on account of [when it is sacrificed] before atonement. This proves it.