🐑 Mishnah Zevachim 13

הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַחוּץ, חַיָּב עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְחַיָּב עַל הָעֲלִיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, שָׁחַט בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ, חַיָּב. שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ, פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ אֶלָּא דָבָר פָּסוּל. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּפְנִים וּמַעֲלֶה בַחוּץ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ, פְּסָלוֹ:

One who slaughters an offering outside the Temple courtyard and one who offers it up outside the Temple courtyard is liable for the slaughter and liable for the offering up, as each act involves an independent prohibition. If done intentionally, he is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for each act, and if done unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: If he slaughtered an offering inside the courtyard and then offered it up outside the courtyard, he is liable. But if he slaughtered it outside, thereby rendering it unfit, and then he offered it up outside, he is exempt for the offering up, as he offered up only an item that is unfit, and one is liable only for offering up an item that is fit to be offered up inside the Temple. The Rabbis said to him: According to your reasoning, even in a case where he slaughters it inside and offers it up outside, he should be exempt, since the moment that he took it outside the courtyard, he thereby rendered it unfit. Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for offering it up. So too, one who slaughters an offering outside and then offers it up outside is liable.

טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל, בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָמֵא וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ טָהוֹר, חַיָּב. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל טָהוֹר, חַיָּב. וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא, פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל אֶלָּא דָבָר טָמֵא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל טָהוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ, טִמְּאָהוּ. וְטָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא, פָּטוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל טֻמְאַת הַגּוּף:

One who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food, whether it was ritually impure sacrificial food or ritually pure sacrificial food, is liable to receive karet if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure person who ate pure sacrificial food is liable. But an impure person who ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as he merely ate an impure item, and the prohibition against eating sacrificial food while one is impure applies only to pure sacrificial food. The Rabbis said to him: According to your logic, this halakha would apply even in a case of an impure person who ate what had been pure sacrificial food, because once he touched it, he thereby rendered it ritually impure. Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure person who ate impure sacrificial food is liable. And a pure person who ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as one is liable for eating sacrificial food in impurity only due to the impurity of one’s body, but not due to the impurity of the food.

חֹמֶר בַּשְּׁחִיטָה מִבָּעֲלִיָּה, וּבָעֲלִיָּה מִבַּשְּׁחִיטָה. חֹמֶר בַּשְּׁחִיטָה, שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט לְהֶדְיוֹט, חַיָּב, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה לְהֶדְיוֹט, פָּטוּר. חֹמֶר בָּעֲלִיָּה, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ בְסַכִּין וְשָׁחֲטוּ, פְּטוּרִים. אָחֲזוּ בְאֵבָר וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ, חַיָּבִין. הֶעֱלָה, וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱלָה, וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱלָה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל עֲלִיָּה וַעֲלִיָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ הֶעֱלָה עַל הַסֶּלַע אוֹ עַל הָאֶבֶן, חַיָּב:

There is a greater stringency with regard to slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard than with regard to offering up outside, and there is a greater stringency with regard to offering up outside than with regard to slaughtering outside. The mishna elaborates: The greater stringency with regard to slaughtering outside is that one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple courtyard even for the sake of an ordinary purpose, not for the sake of God, is liable. But one who offers up an offering outside the courtyard for the sake of an ordinary purpose is exempt. The greater stringency with regard to offering up outside is that two people who grasped a knife and together slaughtered an offering outside the courtyard are exempt. But if two grasped a limb from an offering and together offered it up outside, they are liable. If one unwittingly offered up part of an offering outside the courtyard and then in a different lapse of awareness offered up other parts of that offering and then again, in another lapse of awareness, offered up yet other parts, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each act of offering up; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yosei says: He is liable to bring only one sin offering. Rabbi Yosei adds: And one is liable for offering up an offering outside the courtyard only once he offers it up at the top of an altar that was erected there. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he offered it up on a rock or on a stone, not an altar, he is liable.

אֶחָד קָדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהָיָה פְסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. הַמַּעֲלֶה כַזַּיִת מִן הָעוֹלָה וּמִן הָאֵמוּרִין בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. הַקֹּמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִין, שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַד מֵהֶן כַּזַיִת בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כֻּלּוֹ. וְכֻלָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בִּפְנִים וְשִׁיֵּר בָּהֶן כַּזַּיִת וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. וְכֻלָּם שֶׁחָסְרוּ כָל שֶׁהֵן, וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ, פָּטוּר:

With regard to both fit sacrificial animals, and unfit sacrificial animals whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, and one sacrificed them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. One who offers up outside the courtyard an olive-bulk made up of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions is liable. If there is a meal offering from which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest took a handful from it and then returned its handful into the remainder of the meal offering, and one sacrificed the entire mixture outside the courtyard, he is liable, as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder. With regard to the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, in a case where one sacrificed even an olive-bulk from any one of these, which should be sacrificed on the altar, outside the Temple, he is liable, as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. But Rabbi Eliezer concedes that with regard to any of them that one sacrificed inside the courtyard but left over an olive-bulk from them and then sacrificed that olive-bulk outside the courtyard, he is liable. And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt.

הַמַּקְרִיב קָדָשִׁים וְאֵמוּרֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. מִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בַּחוּץ, פָּטוּר. קְמָצָהּ, וְחָזַר קֻמְצָהּ לְתוֹכָהּ, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב:

One who sacrifices sacrificial meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions. But he is not liable for sacrificing the meat. If there is a meal offering from which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest took a handful from it and then returned its handful into the remainder of the meal offering, and one sacrificed the entire mixture outside the courtyard, he is liable, as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder.

הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. שְׁנֵי בְזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. הַזּוֹרֵק מִקְצָת דָּמִים בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמְנַסֵּךְ מֵי חָג בֶּחָג בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב:

The burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the consumption of the remainder of the meal offering by the priests. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he also sacrifices the second. Since the remainder of the meal offering becomes permitted only once both have been burned, he considers each one alone to be an incomplete offering, and he holds one is not liable for sacrificing only one of them. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed one inside the courtyard and one outside the courtyard, he is liable. The burning of two bowls of frankincense permits the consumption of the shewbread. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he also sacrifices the second, since the shewbread becomes permitted only once both bowls of frankincense are burned. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed one inside the courtyard and one outside the courtyard, he is liable. One who sprinkles part of the blood of an offering, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four, outside the Temple courtyard is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water consecrated for the libation of the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival, outside the courtyard, is liable. Rabbi Neḥemya says: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and that instead one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable.

הַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ, חַיָּב. מָלַק בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ, פָּטוּר. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ, פָּטוּר. שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַחוּץ, חַיָּב. נִמְצָא, דֶּרֶךְ הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ מִבִּפְנִים, פְּטוּרוֹ בַחוּץ. דֶּרֶךְ הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בַחוּץ, פְּטוּרוֹ בִפְנִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו בַחוּץ, חַיָּבִין עַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ בִפְנִים, שֶׁהֶעֱלָהוּ בַחוּץ, חוּץ מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּפְנִים וּמַעֲלֶה בַחוּץ:

One who pinches the nape of a bird offering inside the Temple courtyard and then offers it up outside the courtyard is liable. But if one pinched its nape outside the courtyard and then offered it up outside the courtyard he is exempt, as pinching the nape of a bird outside the courtyard is not considered valid pinching. One who slaughters, with a knife, a bird offering inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard is exempt, as slaughtering a bird offering in the Temple courtyard disqualifies it as an offering. But if one slaughtered a bird offering outside the courtyard and then offered it up outside, he is liable. Evidently, the manner of its preparation inside the courtyard, i.e., pinching, effects its exemption outside the courtyard, and the manner of its preparation outside the courtyard, i.e., slaughter, effects its exemption inside the courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

הַחַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָהּ בְּכוֹס אֶחָד, נָתַן בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים, בִּפְנִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב, שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בִפְנִים. קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי כוֹסוֹת, נָתַן שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּפְנִים, פָּטוּר. שְׁנֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ, פָּטוּר. אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְאֶחָד בִּפְנִים, חַיָּב עַל הַחִיצוֹן, וְהַפְּנִימִי מְכַפֵּר. לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְמַפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת. שָׁחַט שְׁתֵּיהֶן בִּפְנִים, פָּטוּר. שָׁחַט שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. אַחַת בִּפְנִים וְאַחַת בַּחוּץ, פָּטוּר. אַחַת בַּחוּץ וְאַחַת בִּפְנִים, חַיָּב עַל הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְהַפְּנִימִית מְכַפֶּרֶת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדָּמָהּ פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ, כָּךְ הוּא פוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶרְתָּהּ:

With regard to a sin offering where one collected its blood in one cup, if he first placed its blood on an altar outside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on the altar inside the courtyard, or if he first placed its blood on the altar inside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on an altar outside the courtyard, in both cases he is liable for placing the blood outside the courtyard, as the blood in its entirety is fit to be placed on the altar inside the courtyard. If one collected its blood in two cups and placed the blood from both of them on the altar inside the courtyard he is exempt as he acted appropriately. If he placed the blood from both of them on an altar outside the courtyard, he is liable, as both are fit to be placed inside. If he first placed the blood from one cup inside and then placed the blood from the other one outside, he is exempt. By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup unfit to be placed on the altar; therefore, there is no liability for placing it on an altar outside. If he first placed the blood from one cup outside and then placed the blood from the other one inside, he is liable for the external placement as that blood was fit to be placed inside, and the internal placement atones for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a case where one separated an animal for his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its place, and thereafter, the first animal was found. In that case, both of them stand before him and he must sacrifice one as his sin offering. If he slaughtered both of them inside the courtyard, he is exempt. If he slaughtered both of them outside the courtyard, he is liable, as each was fit to be slaughtered in the courtyard. If he first slaughtered one inside and then slaughtered the other one outside he is exempt from liability for slaughtering the second, as he has already fulfilled his obligation with the first, thereby rendering the second one unfit for sacrifice. If he first slaughtered one outside and then slaughtered the other one inside he is liable for slaughtering the external animal outside the courtyard, as it was fit to be slaughtered inside, and the internal animal atones for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought. The mishna adds: In a case where one slaughtered both inside the courtyard, just as placing the blood of the first animal exempts one who consumes its meat from liability for misuse of consecrated property, so too, it exempts one who consumes the meat of its counterpart, the second animal, from liability.