Zevachim 222

שחט בחוץ והעלה בחוץ חייב

IF ONE SLAUGHTERS [IT] WITHOUT AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both for slaughtering (supra 107a) and for offering up (infra 119b) .');">¹</span>

נמצא דרך הכשירו בפנים פטורו בחוץ דרך הכשירו מבחוץ פטורו בפנים

THUS ITS PRESCRIBED RITE WITHIN FREES HIM FROM LIABILITY [IF HE DOES IT] WITHOUT, WHILE ITS PRESCRIBED RITE WITHOUT FREES HIM FROM LIABILITY [IF HE DOES IT] WITHIN.

ר"ש אומר כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ חייבין על כיוצא בו בפנים שהעלה בחוץ חוץ מן השוחט בפנים ומעלה בחוץ:

R'SIMEON SAID: WHATEVER ENTAILS LIABILITY WITHOUT, ENTAILS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN WHEN ONE [SUBSEQUENTLY] OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT; EXCEPT WHEN ONE SLAUGHTERS [A BIRD] WITHIN AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara discusses the meaning of this.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> האי הכשירו חיובו הוא תני חיובו:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Is this ITS PRESCRIBED RITE?

ר"ש אומר [וכו']: אהיכא קאי

Surely it is its inculpating rite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There cannot be a prescribed rite of slaughtering a sacrifice without; rather, this slaughter is the act which inculpates one and makes him liable.');">³</span>

אילימא ארישא קאי המולק עוף בפנים והעלה בחוץ חייב מלק בחוץ והעלה בחוץ פטור וא"ל ר"ש כי היכי דפנים מיחייב בחוץ נמי מיחייב האי כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ כל שחייבין עליו בפנים מיבעי ליה

- Learn, its inculpating rite.

אלא כי היכי דבחוץ לא מיחייב בפנים נמי לא ליחייב האי כל שאין חייבין עליו בחוץ מיבעי ליה

R'SIMEON SAID etc. To what does he refer?

אלא אסיפא קאי השוחט עוף בפנים והעלה בחוץ פטור שחט בחוץ והעלה בחוץ חייב ואמר ליה ר"ש כי היכי דבפנים לא מיחייב בחוץ נמי לא מיחייב האי כל שאין חייבין מיבעי ליה

If we say, to the first clause, [viz.] IF ONE NIPS A BIRD [SACRIFICE] WITHIN AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE; IF ONE NIPS [IT] WITHOUT AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE; whereon R'Simeon observed [that] just as he is liable [when he nips it] within, so is he liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For offering it up without.');">⁴</span>

אלא כי היכי דבחוץ מיחייב בפנים נמי מיחייב הא קתני חוץ מן השוחט בפנים והמעלה בחוץ

[when he nips it] without, - then instead of [saying] WHATEVER ENTAILS LIABILITY WITHOUT, he should say, 'whatever entails liability within'?

אמר זעירי שחיטת בהמה בלילה איכא בינייהו והכי קאמר [וכן] השוחט בהמה בפנים בלילה והעלה בחוץ פטור שחט בחוץ בלילה והעלה בחוץ חייב

And if [he means:] just as one is not liable [when he nips it] without, so is he not liable [when he nips it] within, - then he should say.

ר"ש אומר כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ חייבין על כיוצא בו בפנים והעלה בחוץ חוץ מן השוחט עוף בפנים והעלה בחוץ

Whatever does not entail liability without does not entail liability within?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">⁵</span>

רבא אמר קבלה בכלי חול איכא בינייהו וה"ק [וכן] המקבל בכלי חול בפנים והעלה בחוץ פטור המקבל בכלי חול בחוץ והעלה בחוץ חייב

Again if he refers to the second clause: IF ONE SLAUGHTERS A BIRD WITHIN AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE; IF ONE SLAUGHTERS [IT] WITHOUT AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE; whereon R'Simeon observed: Just as one is not liable [when he slaughters it] within, so is he not liable [when he slaughters it] without, - then he should say, Whatever does not entail liability within does not entail liability without?

ר"ש אומר כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ חייבין על כיוצא בו בפנים והעלו בחוץ חוץ מן השוחט עוף בפנים והעלו בחוץ

Or again if [he means], just as he is liable [when he slaughters] without, so is he liable [when he slaughters it] within, - surely he teaches, EXCEPT WHEN ONE SLAUGHTERS [A BIRD] WITHIN AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which makes it obvious that he means something else, since this is stated as an exception.');">⁶</span>

השתא דתני אבוה דשמואל בר רב יצחק המולק עוף בפנים והעלו בחוץ חייב מלק בחוץ והעלה בחוץ פטור ור"ש מיחייב ר"ש התם קאי ותני כל שחייבין עליו בפנים והעלה בחוץ חייבין עליו בחוץ:

- Said Ze'iri: They disagree about the slaughtering of an animal at night, and this is what [the Mishnah] says: Likewise if one slaughters an animal at night, within, and offers it up without, he is not liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would agree with R. Judah supra 84a, q.v., that an animal sacrifice slaughtered at night must be removed from the altar even if placed thereon. Hence it was not fit for offering up within, and so does not entail liability when it is offered up without. - Ze'iri assumes a lacuna in the MISHNAH:');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חטאת שקבל דמה בכוס אחד נתן בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפנים בפנים וחזר ונתן בחוץ חייב שכולו ראוי בפנים

if one slaughtered [it] at night without and offered [it] up without, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in respect of slaughtering without night does not differ from day, since it was eligible to be brought the following day to the 'door of the tent of meeting'.');">⁸</span>

קבל דמה בשתי כוסות נתן שניהם בפנים פטור שניהם בחוץ חייב אחד בפנים ואחד בחוץ פטור אחד בחוץ ואחד בפנים חייב על החיצון והפנימי מכפר

R'SIMEON SAID: WHATEVER ENTAILS LIABILITY WITHOUT, ENTAILS LIABILITY IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN WHEN ONE [SUBSEQUENTLY] OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he holds that when it is slaughtered within at night it is not removed from the altar (ibid.) .');">⁹</span>

למה הדבר דומה למפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ואח"כ נמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות שחט שתיהן בפנים פטור שתיהן בחוץ חייב אחת בפנים ואחת בחוץ פטור אחת בחוץ ואחת בפנים חייב על החיצונה והפנימית מכפרת

EXCEPT WHEN ONE SLAUGHTERS [A BIRD] WITHIN AND OFFERS [IT] UP WITHOUT.

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>