Yoma 63a — the Talmud in English

And from Rav Hisda’s words we learn that if

they slaughtered them outside before the doors of the Sanctuary had been opened

he is exempt.

Because at that time the peace-offerings are not fit to be brought to the Tent of Meeting. And even though the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary is not an act performed upon the substance of the peace-offerings.

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, with regard to the peace-offerings, the law of opening the doors of the Sanctuary was stated, it is therefore like an act performed upon their substance.

And now the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the substance of Rav Hisda’s words, that with regard to the goat of the Day of Atonement that one slaughtered outside before the drawing of the lots, he is liable, “since it is fit for the goat that is performed outside.”

And we challenge:

And does Rav Hisda accept the principle of “since”?

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

But Rav Hisda said:

An

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

if he slaughtered it

for its sake

for the sake of a Paschal-offering,

he is exempt.

Because a Paschal-offering is not fit to be offered inside for its sake except at its proper time [on the fourteenth of Nisan].

And if he slaughtered it

not for its sake,

but for the sake of a peace-offering,

he is liable,

because a Paschal-offering not at its proper time is fit to be offered inside for the sake of a peace-offering.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason—

the reason that one who slaughters the Paschal-offering not at its proper time outside is liable is only because

he

slaughtered it

not for its sake

[but for the sake of a peace-offering].

And it follows:

but

if he slaughtered it

without specification,

it is as though he slaughtered it

for its sake, 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 sake inside,

it is considered fit for the Tent of Meeting, and one who slaughters it outside should be liable! And we reject the difficulty:

Now!

Do you indeed think that the goat of the Day of Atonement should be compared with the Paschal-offering? There is a distinction between them:

There,

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

requires removal.

He must remove from it the designation of a Paschal-offering through his slaughter. And so long as he did not explicitly slaughter it for the sake of a peace-offering, it is still a Paschal-offering; therefore, one who slaughters it outside is exempt [for it is not fit to be accepted in the Temple courtyard].

But

this

goat of the Day of Atonement, although it was taken for the sake of the goat performed inside, nevertheless, if one slaughtered it without specification outside, he is liable, since it is fit for the goat performed outside, for it

does not require removal.

There is no need to remove from it the designation “goat performed inside,” since the two are equal in their designations. For both the goat performed outside and the goat performed inside are offered as sin-offerings.

Rabba bar Shimi taught them—

he taught 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 drawing of the lots is liable because “it is fit for the goat performed outside,” and that a Paschal-offering slaughtered outside during the rest of the days of the year is exempt when slaughtered for its sake and liable when slaughtered not for its sake]

in the name of Rabba.

In the name of Rabba [and not in the name of Rav Hisda].

And Rabba’s statement is difficult against Rabba’s statement.

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

And he answered—

as we answered.

And he answered as we answered above.

The Gemara brings amoraim who disagreed with Rav Hisda [and Rabba] concerning one who slaughters a Paschal-offering not at its proper time outside:

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yirmeya,

that so

Rabbi Yohanan said

[who lived in the Land of Israel]:

A Paschal-offering that one slaughtered outside during the rest of the days of the year, whether for its sake or not for its sake—

he is exempt.

And Rav Dimi explains the reason of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rav Dimi said: I stated the teaching before Rabbi Yirmeya,

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

It is understandable

that one who slaughters the Paschal-offering outside during the rest of the days of the year

for its sake

is exempt,

for it is not fit for him,

because it is not now fit to offer it inside for the sake of a Paschal-offering.

But

if he slaughtered it

not for its sake—

why

is he exempt? And

it is fit

to offer a Paschal-offering not at its proper time

not for its sake

[for the sake of a peace-offering]

inside!

And he said to me

[Rabbi Yirmeya answered me]: A Paschal-offering is valid to be offered throughout the year as a peace-offering only through removal from the status of a Paschal-offering, by slaughtering it inside for the sake of a peace-offering.

But

removal outside,

when he removes the designation of a Paschal-offering through slaughter performed outside the Temple courtyard,

is not called removal,

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

The Gemara brings another opinion that was stated in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

When Ravin came

[when Ravin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia]

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yirmeya,

that so

Rabbi Yohanan said

[who lived in the Land of Israel]:

A Paschal-offering that one slaughtered outside during the rest of the days of the year, whether for its sake or not for its sake, is subject to liability,

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

And we are astonished:

And

is it possible that

even

if he slaughtered it

for its sake

he is liable?!

But we learned

and surely we learned in the Mishna [Zevahim 112b]: One who slaughters

that which lacks time

outside is exempt,

whether

it is lacking time

in its substance,

for example, seven days have not yet passed since its birth, and

whether

it is

lacking time with regard to the owners.

And what is

an offering

lacking time with regard to the owners such that if one offered it outside he is exempt?

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

A man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman who has given birth, and a leper

[and a nazirite ], for the Torah assigned a time for bringing their offerings: all of them bring an offering at the end of counting seven days, except for the woman who has given birth, who brings her offerings when the days of her purification are completed.

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 sake of their obligation or as a voluntary offering: they cannot offer them for the sake of their obligation because the time of their offering has not yet arrived.

And they cannot offer them as a voluntary offering because a sin-offering and a guilt-offering do not come as voluntary offerings.

But when they offered

their burnt-offerings and their peace-offerings

outside

before their proper time, even though they cannot offer them for the sake of their obligation, they are

liable,

since they are fit to be offered as voluntary offerings.

And Rav Helkiah bar Tovi said: They taught only

that a leper who brought his guilt-offering outside while it lacked time is exempt

but

when he offered it

for its sake

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

But

if he offered it [outside]

not for its sake,

but for the sake of a burnt-offering or a peace-offering,

he is liable,

for it is fit to be offered inside not for its sake, since all the offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid, except that they have not fulfilled the owners’ obligation [apart from the Paschal-offering at its proper time, on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the sin-offering at every time].

And it is demonstrated from here that although a guilt-offering that one slaughtered not for its sake outside entails liability, nevertheless, if

he slaughtered it for its sake, at least

[in any event] he is

exempt.

And from here there is a difficulty against Ravin’s view in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, who said: A Paschal-offering that one slaughtered outside during the rest of the days of the year—even if he slaughtered it for its sake, he is exempt.

Why

is a guilt-offering that one slaughtered for its sake exempt?

Let us say

that one who slaughters a guilt-offering for its sake outside should be liable,

since they are fit

to offer it

not for its sake inside!

[Just as Ravin said concerning the Paschal-offering.]

And we reject the difficulty:

Now!

Do you indeed think that a Paschal-offering not at its proper time should be compared with a guilt-offering not at its proper time? There is a distinction between them:

There,

a guilt-offering that one slaughtered outside [not at its proper time] for its sake is exempt because a guilt-offering not at its proper time

requires removal.

He must remove from it the designation of a guilt-offering through his slaughter. And so long as he has not slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, the designation of a guilt-offering still remains upon it. [Therefore, one who slaughters it outside is exempt, for it is not fit to be accepted in the Temple courtyard before its proper time has arrived.]

But

here, a Paschal-offering during the rest of the days of the year is a peace-offering—

it is a peace-offering automatically, even without removal.

Rav Ashi taught

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

is liable,” as we said

[as we said in the Gemara above].

But

Rav Yirmeya of Difti taught

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

is exempt.”

He holds that a Paschal-offering during the rest of the days of the year requires removal,

that he must explicitly remove from it the designation of a Paschal-offering at the time of its slaughter; but so long as he has not explicitly slaughtered it for the sake of a peace-offering, the designation of a Paschal-offering still remains upon it.

And even if he slaughtered it outside not for its sake [but for the sake of a peace-offering], he is exempt, because

removal outside,

when he comes to remove the designation of a Paschal-offering through slaughter outside the Temple courtyard,

is not called removal,

for slaughter performed outside is invalid slaughter, and it does not have the power to remove from the offering the designation of a “Paschal-offering.”

And it disagrees

[and disagrees] with the statement

of Rav Helkiah bar Tovi,

who said: A guilt-offering that one slaughtered outside for its sake is exempt; not for its sake [but for the sake of a peace-offering] is liable, because removal outside is called removal.

The Gemara returns to discuss the earlier beraita concerning the two goats of the Day of Atonement that they slaughtered outside:

The Master said

at the end of the beraita: Two goats of the Day of Atonement that they slaughtered outside ...

after the lots were drawn for them, he is liable for the one of the Name, and exempt for the one of Azazel.

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

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 17:3–4]:

“Any man, 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 he has not brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer an offering to the Lord.”

The beraita asks [in the Sifra there]: “Perhaps [it may be said] that one who slaughters non-sacred animals inside [in the Temple courtyard, thereby transgressing a prohibition ] would be liable [for excision]”? [That is, just as one who slaughters sacrificial animals outside, who transgresses a prohibition, is liable for excision, so let us say concerning one who slaughters non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard, that he too transgresses a prohibition and should be liable for excision.] The verse states [for this it is stated in the verse: "to offer] an offering" [that is, specifically] he is liable for the offering [if he slaughtered it outside] and he is not liable for the non-sacred animals [if he slaughtered them inside]".