Zevachim 223

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפנים שכולו ראוי להיות בפנים אבל בפנים והעלן בחוץ שיריים נינהו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>As for [sprinkling the blood] without and then sprinkling [it] within, it is well, because the whole of it was eligible within.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he sprinkled it without, Hence he is liable.');">¹</span>

הא מני רבי נחמיה היא דאמר שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ חייב

But [if he first sprinkled] within and then offered [it] up without, it is [but] the residue?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which should not entail liability.');">²</span>

אי רבי נחמיה אימא סיפא קבל דמה בשני כוסות נתן שניהם בפנים פטור שניהם בחוץ חייב אחד בפנים ואחד בחוץ פטור והאמר רבי נחמיה שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ חייב

- This agrees with R'Nehemiah, who ruled: If one offers the residue of the blood without, he is liable.

סיפא אתאן לתנא קמא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דאמר כוס עושה דחוי לחבירו:

If it agrees with R'Nehemiah, consider the sequel: IF THE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS: IF ONE SPRINKLED BOTH WITHIN, HE IS NOT LIABLE; BOTH WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE.

למה הדבר דומה למפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ואחר כך נמצאת הראשונה:

[IF HE SPRINKLED] ONE WITHIN AND ONE WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.

למה הדבר דומה למה לי הא מני רבי היא דאמר אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה

Surely R'Nehemiah maintained [that] if one offers the residue of the blood without, he is liable? - I will answer you: Which Tanna disagrees with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon [and maintains that] one goblet renders the other rejected?

והכי קאמר טעמא דאבדה הא הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות חדא מינייהו מעיקרא עולה היא

It is R'Nehemiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) . For the allusion v. supra 34b. Hence the blood in the second goblet, according to R. Nehemiah, is not even a residue, and therefore he is not liable.');">³</span>

וכדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו סתם כשר לעולה

TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED?

מי דמי התם אשם זכר ועולה זכר אבל חטאת נקבה היא א"ר חייא מיוסתיניא בשעיר נשיא:

TO ONE WHO SETS ASIDE [AN ANIMAL FOR] HIS SIN-OFFERING, THEN IT WAS LOST, AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER IN ITS PLACE; THEN THE FIRST WAS FOUND [etc.] What is the purpose of [adding].

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך השוחט והמעלה</strong></big><br><br>

TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What does this analogy teach, for apparently the point is quite clear without it?');">⁴</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>פרת</strong></big> חטאת ששרפה חוץ מגתה וכן שעיר המשתלח שהקריב בחוץ פטור

- The author of this is Rabbi, who maintained: If [the first animal] was lost when [the second] was set aside, it must perish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it had been found by the time that the second was sacrificed. (The Rabbis hold that in the latter case it does not perish, but must be left to graze until it receives a blemish, when it is redeemed, and a burnt-offering is brought for the redemption money. If they did not wait for it to become blemished, but sacrificed it as a burnt-offering, it is valid. Therefore if one sacrificed it without he is liable, in the view of the Rabbis.)');">⁵</span>

שנאמר (ויקרא יז, ד) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו כל שאין ראוי לבא אל פתח אהל מועד אין חייבין עליו

And this is what it means: This is only if [the first] was lost.

הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והמחיר [והאתנן] והכלאים והטריפה ויוצא דופן שהקריבן בחוץ פטור

If, however, one set aside two [animal for] sin-offerings as surety,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,in case one is lost, the other should be available,');">⁶</span>

שנאמר (ויקרא יז, ד) לפני משכן ה' כל שאין ראוי לבא לפני משכן ה' אין חייבין עליו

one of these was a burnt-offering from the very outset, in accordance with R'Huna's dictum in Rab's name, viz. : If a guilt-offering was transferred to pasture.

בעלי מומין בין בעלי מומין קבועין בין

and one then slaughtered it without a specified purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b. The same applies here, and so if one offers it without, he is liable (cf. the view of the Rabbis in n. 6, p. 550) .');">⁷</span> How compare: there, a guilt-offering is a male and a burnt-offering is a male; but a sin-offering was a female?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it was not fit for a burnt-offering.');">⁸</span> - Said R'Hiyya of Vastania:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, Astunia (in cur. edd, Justinia) , near Pumbeditha, v. Obermeyer, Landschaft, p. 229.');">⁹</span> It refers to a ruler's goat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brought as a sin-offering (v. Lev. IV, 22 seq.) . This was a male. If he set aside two, and the second is offered without, it entails liability.');">¹⁰</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE COW OF LUSTRATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the red heifer, v. Num. XIX.');">¹¹</span> OUTSIDE ITS APPOINTED PLACE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'vat', 'pit'.');">¹²</span> AND LIKEWISE IF ONE OFFERED WITHOUT THE SCAPEGOAT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XVI, 21.');">¹³</span> HE IS NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE IT SAYS, AND HATH NOT BROUGHT IT UNTO THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4.');">¹⁴</span> [WHICH INTIMATES THAT FOR] WHATEVER IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO COME TO THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING, ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ITS ACCOUNT. [AS FOR] A ROBA', A NIRBA', AN ANIMAL SET ASIDE [FOR AN IDOLATROUS SACRIFICE], AN ANIMAL WORSHIPPED [AS AN IDOL]. A [DOG'S] EXCHANGE, [A HARLOT'S] HIRE, KIL'AYIM, A TEREFAH, AN ANIMAL CALVED THROUGH THE CAESAREAN SECTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹⁵</span> IF ONE OFFERED THESE WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE IT SAYS, 'BEFORE THE TABERNACLE OF THE LORD: FOR WHATEVER IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO COME BEFORE THE TABERNACLE OF THE LORD, ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ITS ACCOUNT. [AS FOR] BLEMISHED ANIMALS, WHETHER WITH PERMANENT BLEMISHES OR