Bava Kamma 76b — the Talmud in English

And Reish Lakish says:

to reconcile matters, so that there should be no difficulty for Rabbi Shimon: But is this not an unfit slaughter? Here, with what are we dealing in our Mishna?

With one who slaughters blemished animals

that are unfit for the altar

outside;

and they are permitted for eating through redemption, and Rabbi Shimon indeed holds: “Whatever is destined to be redeemed is considered as redeemed,” as will be explained below in the matter.

Rabbi Elazar examined it

Rabbi Elazar

raised a difficulty about this, against the answers of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish:

According to Rabbi Yohanan—

who answered: “With one who slaughters unblemished animals inside”— the difficulty is: It is still an unfit slaughter, because they are sacred offerings; for is it the case that

slaughtering permits

the sacred offerings for eating?!

Is it not the sprinkling

that

permits

the sacred offerings for eating? It follows that at the time of slaughter, the slaughter is unfit, and this is not a slaughter for which one becomes liable.

According to Reish Lakish—

who answered that the case is one who slaughters animals with physical defects outside the Temple courtyard—the following difficulty arises: Is this not still an unfit slaughter, since they are sacred offerings? For is it really the case that

According to Reish Lakish—

who answered: “With one who slaughters blemished animals outside”—the difficulty is: But it is still an unfit slaughter, for they are sacred offerings; and is it the case that

slaughtering permits

them for eating?!

Is it not redemption that permits them, since until the sacred offerings are redeemed they are forbidden for eating?

Rabbi Elazar overlooked

the statement of

And the Gemara rejects Rabbi Elazar’s words, because

it escaped Rabbi Elazar

that which Rabbi Shimon himself said

[that in explaining his position we are engaged]: “

Whatever is destined to be sprinkled is considered as sprinkled,”

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

“And

whatever is destined to be redeemed is considered as redeemed,”

and if so, it is a fit slaughter, since a blemished animal is destined for redemption and for permission to be eaten.

And the Gemara explains:

Whatever is destined to be sprinkled is considered as sprinkled—according to Rabbi Shimon’s method; from where? From this

as it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Any food that is forbidden for benefit does not contract “food impurity

”;

but if the food was permitted for benefit and became forbidden, it does contract “food impurity”; and therefore:

There is notar

from the sacred offerings that is forbidden for benefit

yet nevertheless it contracts food impurity, since it had a time when it was fit, and he proceeds to explain it.

And there is notar that does not contract food impurity

since it is forbidden for benefit;

how so:

Meat of the most sacred offerings or of a thanksgiving offering—which are eaten only on the day of the slaughter and the following night—that

remained overnight

[the night following the slaughter passed over it],

before the sprinkling

of the blood, and it follows that they had never been permitted for benefit, since the sprinkling is what permits the sacred offerings for eating, and this notar was created before the sprinkling; this notar

does not contract food impurity,

since it did not have a time when it was fit.

But if this meat remained overnight

after the sprinkling,

and it had already been permitted for eating once its blood was sprinkled, but became forbidden after the night passed, this notar

contracts food impurity,

since it had already had a time when it was fit.

And we maintain

in tractate Menachot:

What

does “remained overnight”

before the sprinkling

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

before it became fit for sprinkling,

as he proceeds to explain; 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 sprinkled.

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

[That is: How does it not become fit for sprinkling?]

“There was no time during the day to sprinkle it”

[There was no possibility 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]],

and because he can sprinkle only during the day.

What does it mean that it remained overnight after it became fit for sprinkling

“It remained overnight after it became fit for sprinkling”

what is this?

There was time during the day to sprinkle it,

and since it was possible to sprinkle it during the day, it is 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.

Thus

it is proven: “

Whatever is destined to be sprinkled is considered as sprinkled”!

And whatever is destined to be redeemed is considered as redeemed—according to Rabbi Shimon; from where? From this

as it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Rabbi Shimon says: