Bava Kamma — Daf 76b

וריש לקיש אמר בשוחט בעלי מומין בחוץ

תהי בה רבי אלעזר לר' יוחנן שחיטה מתרת והלא זריקה מתרת

לריש לקיש שחיטה מתרת והלא פדייה מתרת

אישתמיטתיה הא דרבי שמעון כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי וכל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי

כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי דתניא רבי שמעון אומר יש נותר שהוא מטמא טומאת אוכלין ויש נותר שאינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

כיצד לן לפני זריקה אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין לאחר זריקה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

וקיימא לן מאי לפני זריקה קודם שנראה לזריקה לאחר זריקה לאחר שנראה לזריקה

קודם שנראה לזריקה לן מאי היא דלא הויא שהות ביום למזרקיה דשחטיה סמוך לשקיעת החמה ואינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

לאחר שנראה לזריקה לן דהויא שהות ביום למזרקיה מטמא טומאת אוכלין אלמא כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי

וכל העומד לפדות כפדוי דמי דתניא רבי שמעון אומר

whereas Resh Lakish said that there will be liability also if the thief slaughtered blemished sacrifices  outside the precincts of the Temple.  R. Eleazar was astonished at the statement of R. Johanan: Is it the slaughter that renders the sacrificed animal permissible for food?  Is it not the sprinkling of the blood that renders it permissible to be partaken of?  So also he was astonished at the statement of Resh Lakish: Is it the slaughter that renders the sacrificed animal permissible for food?  Is it not its redemption  that renders it permissible for food?  — It, however, escaped his memory that R. Simeon has laid down that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it has already been sprinkled, and whatever is designated for being redeemed is considered as if it had already been redeemed.  'Whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had already been sprinkled' — as taught: R. Simeon says: There is nothar  which may be subject to defilement in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food,  but there is also nothar which is not subject to defilement in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food. How is this so? If it remains over night before the sprinkling of the blood,  it would not be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food,  but if after the sprinkling of blood,  it would be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food.  Now, it is an accepted tradition that the meaning of 'before sprinkling' is 'without it first having become fit to be sprinkled' and of 'after sprinkling', 'after it became fit for sprinkling'. Hence, 'where it remained overnight without having first become fit for sprinkling' could only be where there was no time during the day to sprinkle it, such as where the sacrifice was slaughtered close upon sunset, in which case it would not be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food; and 'where it remained over night after it had already become fit for sprinkling,' [could only be] where there was time during the [previous] day to sprinkle it, in which case it would be subject to become defiled in accordance with the law applicable to the defilement of food.  This proves that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had already been sprinkled.  'Whatever is designated for being redeemed is considered as if it had already been redeemed,' — as taught: 'R. Simeon says: