Zevachim

GEMARA. As for [sprinkling the blood] without and then sprinkling [it] within, it is well, because the whole of it was eligible within.1 But [if he first sprinkled] within and then offered [it] up without, it is [but] the residue?2 — This agrees with R. Nehemiah, who ruled: If one offers the residue of the blood without, he is liable. If it agrees with R. Nehemiah, consider the sequel: IF THE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS: IF ONE SPRINKLED BOTH WITHIN, HE IS NOT LIABLE; BOTH WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. [IF HE SPRINKLED] ONE WITHIN AND ONE WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE. Surely R. Nehemiah maintained [that] if one offers the residue of the blood without, he is liable? — I will answer you: Which Tanna disagrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon [and maintains that] one goblet renders the other rejected? It is R. Nehemiah. 3 TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED? TO ONE WHO SETS ASIDE [AN ANIMAL FOR] HIS SIN-OFFERING, THEN IT WAS LOST, AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER IN ITS PLACE; THEN THE FIRST WAS FOUND [etc.] What is the purpose of [adding]. TO WHAT MAY THIS BE COMPARED?4 — The author of this is Rabbi, who maintained: If [the first animal] was lost when [the second] was set aside, it must perish.5 And this is what it means: This is only if [the first] was lost. If, however, one set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings as surety,6 one of these was a burnt-offering from the very outset, in accordance with R. Huna's dictum in Rab's name, viz.: If a guilt-offering was transferred to pasture. and one then slaughtered it without a specified purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering.7 How compare: there, a guilt-offering is a male and a burnt-offering is a male; but a sin-offering was a female?8 — Said R. Hiyya of Vastania:9 It refers to a ruler's goat.10 CHAPTER XIV MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE COW OF LUSTRATION11 OUTSIDE ITS APPOINTED PLACE,12 AND LIKEWISE IF ONE OFFERED WITHOUT THE SCAPEGOAT,13 HE IS NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE IT SAYS, AND HATH NOT BROUGHT IT UNTO THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING,14 [WHICH INTIMATES THAT FOR] WHATEVER IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO COME TO THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING, ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ITS ACCOUNT. [AS FOR] A ROBA’, A NIRBA’, AN ANIMAL SET ASIDE [FOR AN IDOLATROUS SACRIFICE], AN ANIMAL WORSHIPPED [AS AN IDOL]. A [DOG'S] EXCHANGE, [A HARLOT'S] HIRE, KIL'AYIM, A TEREFAH, AN ANIMAL CALVED THROUGH THE CAESAREAN SECTION,15 IF ONE OFFERED THESE WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE IT SAYS, ‘BEFORE THE TABERNACLE OF THE LORD: FOR WHATEVER IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO COME BEFORE THE TABERNACLE OF THE LORD, ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ITS ACCOUNT. [AS FOR] BLEMISHED ANIMALS, WHETHER WITH PERMANENT BLEMISHES OR Nehemiah, is not even a residue, and therefore he is not liable. not perish, but must be left to graze until it receives a blemish, when it is redeemed, and a burnt-offering is brought for the redemption money. If they did not wait for it to become blemished, but sacrificed it as a burnt-offering, it is valid. Therefore if one sacrificed it without he is liable, in the view of the Rabbis.) 550). without, it entails liability.