Bava Kamma 76b (עו:) — the Talmud in English

And Reish Lakish says:

to resolve the difficulty, so that you will not raise an objection against Rabbi Shimon: But this is an invalid slaughter, one that does not render the animal fit— here, with what are we dealing in our Mishna?

With one who slaughters animals with physical defects

that are unfit for the altar

outside the Temple,

and they are permitted for consumption through redemption. And Rabbi Shimon indeed maintains: “Anything destined to be redeemed is considered as though it has already been redeemed,” as will be explained further in the discussion.

Rabbi Elazar raised a difficulty

Rabbi Elazar

raised this objection to the answers of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish:

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan—

who answered: “With one who slaughters unblemished animals inside”— raise the following difficulty: It is still an invalid slaughter, because they are consecrated animals. For is it so that

slaughtering permits

consecrated animals to be eaten?!

Is it not the sprinkling

that

permits

consecrated animals to be eaten? Consequently, at the time of the slaughter, the slaughter is invalid, and this is not considered slaughter for which one becomes liable.

According to Reish Lakish—

who answered: “With one who slaughters animals with physical defects outside”—raise the following difficulty: It is still an invalid slaughter, since they are consecrated animals. For is it so that

slaughtering permits

them to be eaten?!

Is it not redemption that permits

them? For before consecrated animals are redeemed, they are forbidden for consumption.

The Gemara rejects Rabbi Elazar’s statement, because

it escaped Rabbi Elazar’s notice

that

Rabbi Shimon himself said

[that we are discussing the explanation of his position]: “

Anything destined to have its blood sprinkled is considered as though its blood has already been sprinkled,”

and since immediately after the slaughter its blood is destined to be sprinkled, it is as though its blood has already been sprinkled, so that the slaughter is considered “valid slaughter.”

And

anything destined to be redeemed is considered as though it has already been redeemed,”

and therefore this is valid slaughter, since an animal with a physical defect is destined to be redeemed and thereby permitted for consumption.

And the Gemara explains:

The principle that anything destined to have its blood sprinkled is considered as though its blood has already been sprinkled

according to Rabbi Shimon—what is its source? It is derived from that

which was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Any food that is forbidden for benefit cannot contract “food impurity,” but if the food had been permitted for benefit and then became forbidden, it can contract “food impurity.” Therefore: That is, it is not subject to the law of contracting impurity as food. Rabbi Shimon’s reason is that it is stated [Leviticus 11:34]: “Of all the food that may be eaten, upon which water comes, it shall become impure.” Rabbi Shimon expounds: “Of all the food that may be eaten”—food that you can feed to others, whether a gentile or a Jew, is called food and can contract impurity ; but food that you cannot feed even to a gentile, because it is forbidden for you to benefit from it, cannot contract impurity.

There is notar

among the consecrated offerings that is forbidden for benefit,

which

nevertheless

contracts food impurity,

since it had a period during which it was fit, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And there is notar that does not contract food impurity

because it is forbidden for benefit;

how so?

The flesh of offerings of the highest sanctity or of a thanksgiving-offering—which may be eaten only on the day of the slaughter and the following night—

that remained overnight [

that is, the night following the slaughter passed over it]

before the sprinkling

of the blood, so that they were never permitted for benefit, since the sprinkling is what permits consecrated offerings to be eaten, and this became notar before the sprinkling—this notar

does not contract food impurity,

since it never had a period during which it was fit.

But if this meat remained overnight

after the sprinkling,

when it had already become permitted for eating once its blood was sprinkled, but then became forbidden after the night passed over it, this notar

contracts food impurity,

since it had already had a period during which it was fit.

And we have established

in tractate Menaḥot:

What

does “remained overnight”

before the sprinkling

mean, that it does not contract food impurity? It specifically means that it remained overnight

before it became fit for sprinkling,

and what does “remained overnight”

after the sprinkling

mean, that it contracts food impurity? It means that it remained overnight

after it became fit for sprinkling,

even if its blood was not actually sprinkled.

It remained overnight before it became fit for sprinkling—what is this? [

That is, how did it not become fit for sprinkling?]

It was not possible to sprinkle it during the day [

there was no opportunity during the day to sprinkle the blood], because

he slaughtered it close to sunset, and

in this manner alone

it does not contract food impurity,

since it is possible to sprinkle the blood only during the day.

It remained overnight after it became fit for sprinkling

what is this?

It was possible to sprinkle it during the day,

and since it was possible to sprinkle it during the day, it is considered as though its blood had already been sprinkled and it had become permitted for benefit,

and

in this manner it

contracts

food

impurity,

even though it had never actually been permitted for benefit.

Evidently,

it is proven: “

Anything destined to have its blood sprinkled is considered as though its blood has already been sprinkled”!

And anything destined to be redeemed is considered as though it has already been redeemed

according to Rabbi Shimon—what is its source? It is derived from that

which was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says: