Yoma 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

And from Rav Hisda’s statement we learn that if

they slaughtered them outside before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened

—he is exempt.

This is because at that time the shelamim were not fit to be brought to the Tent of Meeting. And although opening the doors of the Sanctuary is not an act performed upon the shelamim themselves,

What is the reason

what is the reason for this matter]?

Because

lacking the opening

of the doors of the Sanctuary

is considered like lacking an act.

Since the matter of the shelamim includes the requirement that the doors of the Sanctuary be opened, this is considered like an act performed upon the offering itself.

Now the Gemara challenges Rav Hisda’s statement itself, that one is liable for slaughtering the Yom Kippur goat outside before the lottery, “since it is fit to be the goat offered outside.”

And we raise an objection:

Does Rav Hisda accept the principle of “since”?

Does Rav Hisda really hold that when one designates a particular offering, and it is not fit to be offered for the purpose for which it was designated, nevertheless, if he slaughters it outside he is liable, because “it is fit for another offering”?

But Rav Hisda said:

An offering of

a Paschal offering that one slaughtered outside during the rest of the year,

if he slaughtered it

for its purpose

for the purpose of a Paschal offering],

he is exempt.

This is because a Paschal offering is fit to be offered inside for its purpose only at its proper time [on the fourteenth of Nisan].

But if he slaughtered it

not for its purpose,

but for the purpose of a shelamim,

he is liable,

because a Paschal offering slaughtered outside its proper time is fit to be offered inside as a shelamim.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason

the reason that one who slaughters the Paschal offering outside its proper time is liable is only because

he

slaughtered it

not for its purpose

but for the purpose of a shelamim].

And it follows that

but

if he slaughtered it

without specification,

it is as though he slaughtered it

for its purpose, and he is exempt.

And

the difficulty is:

Why

is he exempt?

Let us say [

let it be said]:

Since it is fit

to bring it

not for its purpose inside,

it should therefore be considered fit for the Tent of Meeting, and one who slaughters it outside should be liable! We reject the challenge:

Now!

Do you really think that the Yom Kippur goat should be compared to the Paschal offering? There is a distinction between them:

There,

a Paschal offering slaughtered outside its proper time, without specification, is not subject to liability because a Paschal offering

requires uprooting.

He must remove the designation of Paschal offering from it through his act of slaughter. So long as he has not explicitly slaughtered it for the purpose of a shelamim, it is still a Paschal offering; therefore, one who slaughters it outside is exempt [since it is not fit to be received in the Temple courtyard].

But

this

Yom Kippur goat, although it was taken for the purpose of the goat offered inside, nevertheless, if one slaughters it outside without specification, he is liable, since it is fit to be the goat offered outside, because it

does not require uprooting.

There is no need to remove from it the designation “goat offered inside,” since the two have the same designation. For both the goat offered outside and the goat offered inside are offered as a sin-offering.

Rabba bar Shimi taught them

the two statements that we learned above in the name of Rav Hisda [that one who slaughters the two sin-offering goats outside before the lottery is liable because “it is fit to be the goat offered outside,” and that a Paschal offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the year is exempt when slaughtered for its purpose and liable when slaughtered not for its purpose]

in the name of Rabba.

That is, in the name of Rabba [and not in the name of Rav Hisda].

And Rabba’s statements are difficult in light of Rabba’s statements.

He found a contradiction in Rabba’s words, as we challenged above [with regard to Rav Hisda].

And he answered—

as we answered.

He resolved it as we resolved the matter above.

The Gemara cites amoraim who dispute Rav Hisda [and Rabba] concerning one who slaughters a Paschal offering outside its proper time:

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yirmeya,

that this is what

Rabbi Yoḥanan said [

who lived in Eretz Yisrael]:

A Paschal offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the year, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose

—he is exempt.

And Rav Dimi explains Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reasoning:

Rav Dimi said: I presented this teaching before Rabbi Yirmeya,

when I studied this tradition before Rabbi Yirmeya, I asked him as follows:

Granted,

one who slaughters the Paschal offering outside during the rest of the year

for its purpose

is exempt,

for it is not fit for him,

since it is not presently fit to be offered inside as a Paschal offering.

But

if he slaughtered it

not for its purpose—

why

is he exempt? And

it is fit

to offer a Paschal offering outside its proper time

not for its purpose [

for the purpose of a shelamim]

inside!

And he said to me [

Rabbi Yirmeya answered me]: A Paschal offering is valid throughout the year as a shelamim only through uprooting its status as a Paschal offering, by slaughtering it inside for the purpose of a shelamim.

But

uprooting outside,

when one removes its designation as a Paschal offering through slaughter performed outside the Temple courtyard,

is not considered uprooting,

because slaughter performed outside is invalid slaughter, and it does not have the power to remove the designation “Paschal offering” from the offering. Consequently, so long as its designation as a Paschal offering has not been removed, it is not considered fit to be offered as it is inside, since it is now not a Paschal offering.

The Gemara cites another opinion stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

When Ravin came [

when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia]

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yirmeya,

that this is what

Rabbi Yoḥanan said [

who lived in Eretz Yisrael]:

A Paschal offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the year, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, is subject to liability,

since it is fit to be offered inside not for its purpose [and is considered fit for offering in the Tent of Meeting].

And we wonder:

And

is it possible that

even

if he slaughtered it

for its purpose

he is liable?!

But we learned

in the Mishna [Zevaḥim 112b]: One who slaughters

an offering lacking time

outside is exempt,

whether

the offering lacks time

intrinsically,

for example, fewer than seven days have passed since its birth, or

whether

it is

lacking time with regard to its owners.

And which

offering is

lacking time with regard to its owners, such that if one offers it outside he is exempt?

such that if one offers it outside, he is exempt?

A zav, a zava, a woman who has given birth, and a metzora [

and a nazir ], for the Torah designated a time for bringing their offerings: all of them bring an offering at the completion of counting seven days, except for a woman who has given birth, who brings her offerings upon completion of her days of purification.

And if it happened

that

they

offered their sin-offerings and guilt-offerings

outside

before their proper time, they are

exempt,

because at that time they cannot offer them inside either for the fulfillment of their obligation or as voluntary offerings: they cannot offer them for the fulfillment of their obligation because the time for offering them has not yet arrived,

and they cannot offer them as voluntary offerings because neither a sin-offering nor a guilt-offering can be brought as a voluntary offering.

But when they offered

their burnt-offerings and their shelamim

outside

before their proper time, although they cannot offer them for the fulfillment of their obligation, they are

liable,

since they are fit to be offered as voluntary offerings.

And Rav Ḥelkiya bar Tovi said: They taught

that a metzora who offered his guilt-offering outside while it was lacking time is exempt

only

when he offered it

for its purpose [

for then the offering is not fit to be offered inside as a guilt-offering].

But

if he offered it [outside]

not for its purpose,

but for the purpose of a burnt-offering or a shelamim,

he is liable,

because it is fit to be offered inside not for its purpose, since all offerings slaughtered not for their designated purpose are valid, although they do not count for their owners toward fulfillment of their obligation [except for the Paschal offering at its proper time, on the fourteenth of Nisan, and a sin-offering at any time].

It is evident from here that although a guilt-offering slaughtered outside not for its purpose entails liability, nevertheless, if

he slaughtered it for its purpose, at least [

in any event] he is

exempt.

This presents a difficulty for Ravin’s opinion in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: A Paschal offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the year is exempt even if he slaughtered it for its purpose.

Why

is one who slaughters a guilt-offering for its purpose exempt?

Let us say [

let it be said] that one who slaughters a guilt-offering for its purpose outside should be liable,

since it is fit

to offer it

not for its purpose inside! [

Just as Ravin said with regard to the Paschal offering.]

We reject the challenge:

Can this be compared?

Do you really think that a Paschal offering outside its proper time should be compared to a guilt-offering outside its proper time? There is a distinction between them:

There,

a guilt-offering slaughtered outside [its proper time] for its purpose is exempt because a guilt-offering outside its proper time

requires uprooting.

Its designation as a guilt-offering must be removed through its slaughter. So long as it has not been slaughtered for the purpose of a burnt-offering or a shelamim, it retains the designation of a guilt-offering. [Therefore, one who slaughters it outside is exempt, since it is not fit to be received in the Temple courtyard before its proper time arrives.]

But

here, a Paschal offering during the rest of the year is a shelamim—

it is automatically a shelamim, even without uprooting.

Rav Ashi taught

that Ravin’s statement [in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan] was: “A Paschal offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the year, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose,

is liable,” as we said [

as the Gemara stated above].

But

Rav Yirmeya of Difti taught

that Ravin’s statement [in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan] was: “A Paschal offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the year, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose,

is exempt.”

He holds that a Paschal offering during the rest of the year requires uprooting,

that its designation as a Paschal offering must be explicitly removed at the time of slaughter. But so long as he has not explicitly slaughtered it for the purpose of a shelamim, it retains the designation of a Paschal offering.

Even if he slaughtered it outside not for its purpose [but for the purpose of a shelamim], he is exempt, because

uprooting outside,

when one comes to remove its designation as a Paschal offering through slaughter outside the Temple courtyard,

is not considered uprooting,

because slaughter performed outside is invalid slaughter and does not have the power to remove the designation “Paschal offering” from the offering.

And it disputes [

and disagrees] with the statement of

Rav Ḥelkiya bar Tovi,

who said that a guilt-offering slaughtered outside for its purpose is exempt, while one slaughtered not for its purpose [but for the purpose of a shelamim] is liable, because uprooting outside is considered uprooting.

The Gemara returns to discuss the aforementioned beraita concerning the two Yom Kippur goats that one slaughtered outside:

The Master said

at the end of the beraita: Two Yom Kippur goats that one slaughtered outside ...

Once the lottery had been performed concerning them, he is liable for the one designated for the Name, and exempt for the one designated for Azazel.

The Gemara cites a beraita in the Sifra [after chapter 8, section 6] that explains from where they learned that one who slaughters the goat designated for Azazel outside is exempt:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 17:3–4]:

“Any man of the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a sheep or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer an offering to the Lord.”

The beraita asks [in the Sifra there]: “One might have thought [that perhaps] that one who slaughters non-sacred animals inside [in the Temple courtyard, thereby violating the prohibition ] would be liable [to karet].” [ That is, just as one who slaughters consecrated offerings outside violates a prohibition and is liable to karet, so too one might say that one who slaughters non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard violates a prohibition and should be liable to karet.] The verse states: “[for this reason it is stated in the verse: ‘to offer up] an offering” that is, specifically, he is liable for the offering [if he slaughtered it outside], but he is not liable for non-sacred animals [if he slaughtered them inside]”.