Zevachim 112a (קיב.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning the beginning of the Mishna:

Granted,

if he gave some of the blood

outside, and then gave

some of it

inside,

he is liable for what he initially gave outside,

since

the blood

is all fit to be brought inside.

But

if he first gave

inside, and

only afterward

returned and gave

the remaining blood

outside,

why is he liable? But

they are the remnants,

and they do not prevent the offering from being valid?!

They say: Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who said

in the preceding Mishna,

“With regard to the remnants of the blood that one offered outside, he is liable.”

And we challenge this:

If

you have established our Mishna according to the opinion of

Rabbi Neḥemya, say the latter clause: “If he received its blood in two cups and gave both of them inside, he is exempt. If he gave both of them outside, he is liable. If he gave one inside and one outside, he is exempt.”

Why is he exempt in the latter clause for offering the remnants outside?

But didn’t Rabbi Neḥemya say: “With regard to the remnants of the blood that one offered outside, he is liable”?!

And we resolve this [according to Rashi’s version]:

They say: Who

is the

tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

earlier, in the chapter “All Those Rendered Unfit” [34b], and maintains that the

cup

from which the blood was first sprinkled

causes

its

fellow to become “rejected”

and thereby unfit?

It is Rabbi Neḥemya!

For we learned there: In the case of a sin-offering whose blood one received in four cups, and he performed all four applications from only one of them, the remainder in that cup is poured onto the base of the altar, because only it is considered “remnants,” whereas the other cups are poured into the channel, because they have been rejected.

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said there that all the cups are poured onto the base of the altar, because one cup causes its fellow to become remnants.

It follows that according to the first tanna there, who is Rabbi Neḥemya, one who sprinkles from the other cups outside is exempt, because they are rejected after the first cup has been sprinkled.

We learned in the Mishna:

“To what may this be compared? To one who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, and afterward the first was found.”

And we inquire [according to Rashi’s version]:

What is the meaning of “To what may this be compared?”

What law is derived from comparing two cups to two sin-offerings?

And we explain:

Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi’s opinion, who said

in tractate Temura [22b] that when the first sin-offering was

lost at the time the second was designated,

and afterward it was found, it is

put to death

like a sin-offering whose owners have achieved atonement.

But the Sages [there] said that the surplus sin-offering is left to graze, and when it develops a disqualifying blemish it is redeemed, and its proceeds are used for a voluntary burnt-offering. And we hold that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi, even if the first was found before he achieved atonement through the second: since it was lost at the time of designation, the surplus sin-offering is put to death.

And

it follows that in our Mishna

this is what it says: The reason

that one who offers one of them outside is exempt is

that it was lost,

and he designated another in its place. Therefore, it is destined to be put to death, and if he offers one of them inside, the second is like a “rejected cup,” and he is exempt for offering it outside.

But

if the first was not lost, but rather he

designated

from the outset

two sin-offerings for liability,

so that if one were lost he would achieve atonement through the other, then

one of them

that he chooses

is initially a burnt-offering.

When he offers the first, the second does not go to its death; rather, it grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, and its proceeds are allocated for a voluntary burnt-offering for the maintenance of the altar. Therefore, if he offers it outside, he is liable for offering it, because had he offered it inside, it would have been accepted as a burnt-offering.

And this is in accordance with what Rav Huna said in the name of Rav,

who stated this with regard to a guilt-offering.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

A

guilt-offering that was detached

by the court

for grazing

until it develops a disqualifying blemish—for example, its owner died or achieved atonement through another offering [as we hold: wherever the law in the case of a sin-offering is that it is put to death, in the case of a guilt-offering it grazes]—and the owner then

went and slaughtered it without specific intent,

it is

valid as a burnt-offering 170 .

And we challenge this:

Are

a sin-offering and Rav Huna’s guilt-offering comparable, such that we should render one liable for offering it outside? After all,

there,

in the case described by Rav Huna, the guilt-offering is valid as a burnt-offering because

a guilt-offering is male, and a burnt-offering

is also ma

le. But here, a sin-offering is female

and is not fit as a burnt-offering at all! And we resolve this:

Rav Ḥiyya of Yosefina said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of

a sin-offering of

a ruler’s goat,

which is male. It is speaking of a case in which two were designated for liability and one was lost. Since both are fit to be burnt-offerings, if he offers one, he becomes liable for the other if he offers it outside.

We have completed the chapter “One Who Slaughters and Offers.”

Chavruta - Zevachim — Chapter Fourteen - The Red Heifer" source: "https://www.toratemetfreeware.com/online/f02366.html#HtmpReportNum0013L5" chapteranchor: "HtmpReportNum0013L5" ---

Our Mishna deals with two matters. In its first section, it explains the sacrifices and sacrificial rites for which one is not liable on account of slaughtering offerings outside. In its second section, it explains the matters of the bamot—the periods when offering on them was prohibited or permitted, and the laws governing offering on them during the periods of permission.

The laws of "

slaughtering offerings outside"

Mishna:

1.

The red heifer,

the red cow, which is called a "sin offering" because it is written concerning it, "It is a sin offering,"

that one slaughtered

outside its pen,

outside the place where they prepared for its burning on the Mount of Olives, opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and which was made like a pit , and burned it there and gathered its ashes.

And likewise the scapegoat

on Yom Kippur, sent to Azazel,

which one offered outside

the Temple courtyard,

he is exempt

from the penalty of karet in both cases, even though he slaughtered them outside.

As it is stated, "

and they did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting."

This indicates that the liability applies only to slaughtering an offering that one is obligated to bring to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting , and that is designated for this purpose, but

with regard to anything that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for it.

The red heifer and the scapegoat were not destined to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since they are performed outside; therefore, one is not liable for them on account of slaughtering offerings outside.

2.

An animal that copulated with a person or was the subject of bestiality, an animal designated

for idolatrous worship,

and an animal worshipped

that was made into an object of idolatry,

and the "exchange"

of a dog,"

and the payment to a prostitute, a hybrid, a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section,

which was not born through the birth canal but by means of an incision in the animal's abdominal wall—all of these, if they had already been designated as offerings and it happened

that one offered them outside, he is exempt,

since they are unfit to be offered,

as it is stated, "

they did not bring it to offer an offering

before the Sanctuary of the Lord

"—this indicates that

with regard to anything that is not fit to come before the Sanctuary of the Lord, one is not liable for it 5 .

3. Offerings

with permanent blemishes, whether with permanent blemishes

that will never heal

or

with temporary blemishes

whose blemish is temporary and will heal after some time,

which one offered outside, he is exempt,

since they are not fit to be offered inside.