שְׁחָטָן בַּחוּץ קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּפְתְּחוּ דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל — פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא: מְחוּסָּר פְּתִיחָה כִּמְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה דָּמֵי. Based on Rav Ḥisda’s statement, if he slaughtered them outside the Temple before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened he is exempt. What is the reason? Lacking the opening of the doors is comparable to lacking an action. Therefore, the offering was not yet fit to be sacrificed in the Temple, and when he slaughtered it outside, despite doing so with the intention that it is a sacrificial offering, he is not considered to have violated the prohibition against sacrificing an offering outside the Temple.
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַב חִסְדָּא ״הוֹאִיל״? Rav Ḥisda stated above that since the Yom Kippur goats could be used for the additional offerings, one is liable for slaughtering them outside the Temple. The Gemara asks: Does Rav Ḥisda accept the principle: Since a particular situation could come to be in the future, it is viewed as though it existed already in the present?
וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: פֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּחוּץ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, לִשְׁמוֹ — פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — חַיָּיב. And didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb outside the Temple during the rest of the days of the year other than Passover eve, if he slaughtered it for its own sake, i.e., as a Paschal lamb, he is exempt, since at that time it is not fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal lamb. If he sacrificed it not for its own sake but rather as a peace-offering, he is liable. A Paschal lamb that is slaughtered as a peace-offering on any day of the year other than Passover eve is considered a valid peace-offering. Therefore, it has the status of an offering that is fit to be sacrificed in the Temple, and he is liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple.
טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הָא סְתָמָא, לִשְׁמוֹ הוּא וּפָטוּר. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּפְנִים! The Gemara comments: The reason he is liable is because he specifically slaughtered it not for its own sake. However, if he slaughtered it without specifying what offering he had in mind, it is considered to have been slaughtered for its own sake and he is exempt. But why is he exempt? Let us say: Since it is fit to be sacrificed within the Temple not for its own sake, i.e., as a peace-offering, it should be considered as though he slaughtered it as a peace-offering outside the Temple, and he should be liable.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה, הַאי לָא בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה. The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the Paschal lamb, it requires explicit uprooting from the status of a Paschal lamb in order to be considered a peace-offering. Therefore, if he did not specify his intent, it is still considered a Paschal lamb, which is not fit to be sacrificed. These Yom Kippur goats do not require uprooting from their previous status. The Yom Kippur goats have the status of a sin-offering and the goats sacrificed as part of the additional offerings of the day are also considered sin-offerings. Therefore, one who slaughters them outside the Temple is liable, as they are fit to be sacrificed at that time as sin-offerings, even without the principle: Since, etc.
רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי מַתְנֵי לְהוּ בִּדְרַבָּה, וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה אַדְּרַבָּה. וּמְשַׁנֵּי כִּדְשַׁנִּינַן. Rabba bar Shimi taught these two halakhot, cited above in the name of Rav Ḥisda, in the name of Rabba, and he found a difficulty between one statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. And he resolved the apparent contradiction as we resolved it.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּחוּץ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, בֵּין לִשְׁמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — פָּטוּר. § When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb outside the Temple during the rest of the days of the year, whether he slaughtered it for its own sake, as a Paschal lamb, or not for its own sake, as a peace-offering, he is exempt.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוֹ, דְּהָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אַמַּאי? הָא חֲזֵי שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּפְנִים? Rav Dimi said: I said this halakha before Rabbi Yirmeya and asked him: Granted, when he slaughters it outside the Temple for its own sake he is exempt, because it is not fit to be brought as a Paschal lamb at that time, and one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it was fit to be sacrificed in the Temple. However, if he slaughters it not for its own sake, why is he exempt? Isn’t it fit to be sacrificed not for its own sake as a peace-offering inside the Temple?
וַאֲמַר לִי: עֲקִירַת חוּץ לָאו שְׁמַהּ עֲקִירָה. And Rabbi Yirmeya said to me in response: Uprooting an offering’s designation outside the Temple is not called uprooting. Since he slaughtered it outside, the status of the offering does not change from that of a Paschal lamb to that of a peace-offering, despite his intention to this effect.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּחוּץ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, בֵּין לִשְׁמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — חַיָּיב. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said a different version of the statement that Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb outside the Temple during the rest of the days of the year, whether he slaughtered it for its own sake or not for its own sake, he is liable.
וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁמוֹ? וְהָתְנַן: מְחוּסַּר זְמַן — בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ, בֵּין בִּבְעָלִים. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is he liable even if he slaughtered it for its own sake? Didn’t we learn in a mishna in tractate Zevaḥim that one is exempt for sacrificing an offering that was not yet fit for sacrifice because it was lacking time? This is so whether it itself was lacking time, such as if it was less than eight days old, or it was lacking time due to its owners.
וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים — הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת וְהַמְצוֹרָע The Gemara explains: And what is an offering that is lacking time due to its owners? A zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper, who sacrificed their offerings before the appropriate time. A zav, a zava, and a leper bring their offerings after counting seven days; a woman after childbirth brings hers when her purification period is complete.
שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ חַטָּאתָם וַאֲשָׁמָם בַּחוּץ — פְּטוּרִין. עוֹלוֹתֵיהֶן וְשַׁלְמֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ — חַיָּיבִין. Any of these people who sacrificed their sin-offering and, in the case of lepers, their guilt-offering outside the Temple are exempt. Since they would not fulfill their obligations to bring these offerings if they would sacrifice them in the Temple, and the offerings are unfit to be brought as voluntary offerings, because sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are not brought as voluntary offerings, one who slaughters them outside the Temple is not liable. However, if they sacrifice their burnt-offerings and peace-offerings outside the Temple, they are liable. This is because these offerings could be valid as voluntary offerings if they were sacrificed in the Temple.
וַאֲמַר רַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ — חַיָּיב. And Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi said: They only taught that one is exempt for the guilt-offering when it is slaughtered for its own sake, but if it is slaughtered not for its own sake, he is liable, because a guilt-offering slaughtered in the Temple not for its own sake is valid.
לִשְׁמוֹ מִיהָא פָּטוּר, אַמַּאי? נֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיִן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ בִּפְנִים! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה, הָכָא פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה — שְׁלָמִים נִינְהוּ. The Gemara considers this: If he slaughtered it for its own sake, in any event he is exempt. Why? Let us say: Since they are fit to be sacrificed inside the Temple not for their own sake, he should be liable for sacrificing them outside. The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, the guilt-offering requires explicit uprooting of its designation in order to be valid. Here, a Paschal lamb during the rest of the days of the year is considered a peace-offering, even if its status is not explicitly uprooted.
רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי: חַיָּיב, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן. רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי מַתְנֵי: פָּטוּר. קָסָבַר: פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה, וַעֲקִירַת חוּץ לָאו שְׁמָהּ עֲקִירָה. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי. The Gemara continues to discuss the case of a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered outside the Temple during the rest of the year, and not for its own sake. Rav Ashi taught: He is liable, as we stated. Rav Yirmeya of Difti taught: He is exempt. Rav Yirmeya held that a Paschal lamb during the rest of the days of the year requires uprooting of its previous designation, and uprooting an offering’s designation outside the Temple is not called uprooting. And this halakha disagrees with the statement of Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi, who held that uprooting an offering’s designation outside the Temple is considered an effective uprooting of that designation.
אָמַר מָר: מִשֶּׁהִגְרִיל עֲלֵיהֶן חַיָּיב עַל שֶׁל שֵׁם, וּפָטוּר עַל שֶׁל עֲזָאזֵל. § The Master said: If he slaughtered the two Yom Kippur goats outside the Temple after he drew lots to determine which of them is to be sacrificed to God and which is sent to Azazel, he is liable for slaughtering the one designated for God, and exempt for the one designated to be sent to Azazel.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז בַּמַּחֲנֶה אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּן לַה׳״. The Sages taught in a baraita based upon the verses: “Any man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Leviticus 17:3–4).