## Zevachim Daf 111b

###### Zevachim 111b:1
[Zevachim 111b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:1)

שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if one **slaughtered** a bird offering **outside** the courtyard **and** then **offered** it **up outside,** he is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 111b:2
[Zevachim 111b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:2)

נִמְצָא דֶּרֶךְ הֶכְשֵׁירוֹ בִּפְנִים – פְּטוּרוֹ בַּחוּץ, דֶּרֶךְ הֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִבַּחוּץ – פְּטוּרוֹ בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 111b:3
[Zevachim 111b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:3)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיבִין עַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בִּפְנִים שֶׁהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ; חוּץ מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּפְנִים וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 111b:4
[Zevachim 111b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** הַאי ״הֶכְשֵׁירוֹ״?! חִיּוּבוֹ הוּא! תְּנִי ״חִיּוּבוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** In summarizing its rulings the mishna states: The manner of its preparation outside the courtyard effects its exemption inside the courtyard. The Gemara comments: **This** term: The manner of **its preparation,** is inappropriate when referring to the slaughter of a bird offering, as a bird offering is not prepared by slaughtering; on the contrary, it is disqualified if slaughtered. The slaughter of a bird offering outside the courtyard **is** the reason for **its liability.** The Gemara concedes: Emend the mishna and **teach: Its liability.**


###### Zevachim 111b:5
[Zevachim 111b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר [וְכוּ׳]. אַהֵיכָא קָאֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna cites the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: **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. The Gemara asks: **To what does he refer?**


###### Zevachim 111b:6
[Zevachim 111b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:6)

אִילֵּימָא אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי: הַמּוֹלֵק עוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, מָלַק בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כִּי הֵיכִי דִּפְנִים מִיחַיַּיב, בַּחוּץ נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב. הַאי ״כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ״?! ״כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בִּפְנִים״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say that he is referring to the first clause** of the mishna, which states: **One who pinches** the nape of the **bird** offering **inside and** then **offers** it **up outside** is **liable,** but if **one pinched** its nape **outside and** then **offered** it **up outside,** he is **exempt; and** it is with the second part of this clause that **Rabbi Shimon** disagrees and **says to** the first *tanna*: **Just as** one who pinches the nape of a bird offering **inside** and then offers it up outside is **liable, so too** one who pinches its nape **outside** and then offers it up outside is **liable,** this is difficult. If **that** is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then instead of saying in the mishna: 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, **he should have** said: With regard to **any** act of killing an animal concerning **which,** when it was performed **inside** the courtyard, one is **liable for** subsequently offering **it** up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for a similar act of killing done outside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first *tanna* on this issue.


###### Zevachim 111b:7
[Zevachim 111b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:7)

אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דִּבְחוּץ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, בִּפְנִים נָמֵי לָא לִיחַיַּיב? הַאי ״כֹּל שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first part of the first clause and says to the first *tanna*: **Just as** one who pinches the nape of a bird offering **outside** and then offers it up outside is **not liable, so too** one who pinches its nape **inside** and then offers it up outside is **not liable.** The Gemara rejects this: If **that** is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then **he should have** said: With regard to **any** act of killing an animal concerning **which,** when it was performed **outside** the courtyard, one is **not liable for** subsequently offering **it** up outside the courtyard, one is also not liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first *tanna* on this issue either.


###### Zevachim 111b:8
[Zevachim 111b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:8)

אֶלָּא אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּבִפְנִים לָא מִיחַיַּיב, בַּחוּץ נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב. הַאי ״כֹּל שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, he is referring to the latter clause** of the mishna: **One who slaughters a bird** offering **inside and offers** it **up outside is exempt,** but if **one slaughtered** a bird offering **outside and** then **offered** it **up outside,** he is **liable. And** it is with the second part of this clause that **Rabbi Shimon** disagrees and **says to** the first *tanna*: **Just as** one who slaughters a bird offering **inside** and then offers it up outside is **not liable, so too** one who slaughters it **outside** and then offers it up outside is **not liable.** The Gemara rejects this: If **that** is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then **he should have** said: With regard to **any** act of killing an animal concerning **which,** when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is **not liable for** subsequently offering **it** up outside the courtyard, one is also not liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing outside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first *tanna* on this issue.


###### Zevachim 111b:9
[Zevachim 111b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:9)

אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּבַחוּץ מִיחַיַּיב, בִּפְנִים נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב? הָא קָתָנֵי: חוּץ מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּפְנִים וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first part of the latter clause and says to the first *tanna*: **Just as** one who slaughters a bird offering **outside** and then offers it up outside is **liable, so too** one who slaughters it **inside** and then offers it up outside is **liable.** The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Shimon clearly does not hold **this,** as the mishna **teaches** that he concludes: 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.


###### Zevachim 111b:10
[Zevachim 111b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:10)

אָמַר זְעֵירִי: שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה בַּלַּיְלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: [וְכֵן] הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה בִּפְנִים בַּלַּיְלָה וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ בַּלַּיְלָה וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If Rabbi Shimon is not referring to any of the rulings mentioned in the mishna, he must be disagreeing with the first *tanna* with regard to another issue. **Ze’eiri said:** The difference **between** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon **is** with regard to the **slaughter of an animal** offering **at night** inside the courtyard, **and this** is what the mishna **is saying:** The first *tanna* said: **And so too, one who slaughters an animal** offering **inside** the courtyard **at night and** then **offers** it **up outside** is **exempt,** as by slaughtering the animal at night he caused it to become disqualified. But one who **slaughtered** an animal **outside** the courtyard **at night and** then **offered** it **up outside** is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 111b:11
[Zevachim 111b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:11)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיבִין עַל כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ, חוּץ מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is with this ruling that **Rabbi Shimon** disagrees and **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.


###### Zevachim 111b:12
[Zevachim 111b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:12)

רָבָא אָמַר: קַבָּלָה בִּכְלִי חוֹל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: [וְכֵן] הַמְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי חוֹל בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. הַמְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי חוֹל בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides another suggestion: **Rava said** that the difference **between** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon **is** with regard to the **collection** of the blood of an offering **in a non-sacred vessel, and this** is what the mishna **is saying:** The first *tanna* said: **And so too, one who collects** the blood of an offering **in a non-sacred vessel inside** the courtyard **and** then **offers up** that offering **outside** is **exempt,** as receiving blood in a non-sacred vessel disqualifies the offering. But **one who collects** the blood of an offering **in a non-sacred vessel outside** the courtyard **and** then **offers up** that offering **outside** is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 111b:13
[Zevachim 111b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:13)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ, חַיָּיבִין עַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלוֹ בַּחוּץ, חוּץ מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלוֹ בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is with this ruling that **Rabbi Shimon** disagrees and **says:** With regard to **any** act done with an animal, i.e., the collecting of its blood, 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 **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.


###### Zevachim 111b:14
[Zevachim 111b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:14)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: הַמּוֹלֵק עוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלוֹ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, מָלַק בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִיחַיַּיב; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם קָאֵי – וְתָנֵי: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Now that Shmuel’s father, son of Rav Yitzḥak, has taught** a *baraita*, another explanation can be provided. The *baraita* teaches: **One who pinches** the nape of a **bird inside** the courtyard **and** then **offers it up outside** is **liable,** but one who **pinched** the nape of a bird **outside and** then **offered** it **up outside** is **exempt. And Rabbi Shimon** says that he is **liable.** It is apparent then that **Rabbi Shimon** in the mishna **is referring to there,** i.e., to the first clause of the mishna, and disagreeing with it. Therefore, one should emend the mishna **and teach:** With regard to **any** act of killing an animal concerning **which,** when it was performed **inside** 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 outside the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 111b:15
[Zevachim 111b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** חַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָהּ בְּכוֹס אֶחָד; נָתַן בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים, בִּפְנִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ רָאוּי בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** 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.


###### Zevachim 111b:16
[Zevachim 111b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:16)

קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי כּוֹסוֹת; נָתַן שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּפְנִים – פָּטוּר. שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְאֶחָד בִּפְנִים – חַיָּיב עַל הַחִיצוֹן, וְהַפְּנִימִי מְכַפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 111b:17
[Zevachim 111b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:17)

לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמַפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת. שָׁחַט שְׁתֵּיהֶן בִּפְנִים – פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. אַחַת בִּפְנִים וְאַחַת בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. אַחַת בַּחוּץ וְאַחַת בִּפְנִים – חַיָּיב עַל הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְהַפְּנִימִית מְכַפֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 111b:18
[Zevachim 111b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111b:18)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדָּמָהּ פּוֹטֵר אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ, כָּךְ הִיא פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת בְּשַׂר חֲבֶירְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.