[Si] uno recibió la sangre de un Chattat [ofrendas traídas para expiar el pecado] en una taza, [con lo cual] la roció afuera [del patio del Templo] y luego la roció nuevamente adentro [contra la pared del altar], [o] si él [lo roció] adentro y luego lo roció nuevamente afuera, él es responsable porque todo estaba en condiciones de ser ofrecido dentro. Si uno recibió la sangre en dos vasos y los roció dentro, está exento. Si los roció a los dos afuera, es responsable. [Si roció] uno adentro y otro afuera, está exento. [Si roció] uno afuera y uno adentro, él es responsable por uno afuera, pero el que está adentro [logra] la expiación. ¿Con qué se puede comparar esto? Para alguien que dejó a un lado Chattat , [con lo cual] se perdió, luego dejó a un lado en su lugar, y luego se encontró el primero, y ambos están parados allí. [Si] los mata a ambos dentro está exento; si los mata a los dos afuera, es responsable. [Si él mata] uno adentro y uno afuera está exento; uno afuera y uno adentro es responsable por el afuera, pero el adentro [logra] la expiación. Así como su sangre exime a su carne, también exime a la carne de la otra.
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
נתן בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפני חייב – it is a simple matter, and because of the concluding clause [of the Mishnah], it brought it, if he [first] placed it outside [the Temple courtyard] and then in return placed it inside [the Temple courtyard], he does not place outside [the Temple courtyard] anything other than the residue of the blood, he is liable. But our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Nehemiah who holds that the residue is indispensable/invalidates an act by omission. But it is not the Halakha.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. The first scenario is one in which the priest received the blood of the hatat in one goblet. All of this blood should be poured out on the altar inside the Temple. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if he first pours some blood inside the Temple and then some outside, or some outside and then some inside, he is always liable. This matches Rabbi Nehemiah’s opinion in mishnah six, who held that even if one offers up the remainder of the blood outside the Temple he is liable. Once he pours out the blood inside the Temple, he still is liable for pouring the remainder outside.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
שניהן בחוץ חייב – the first, if he didn’t have any knowledge of it in the meantime [by fact that he sprinkled the blood from two cups from outside the Temple courtyard], he is liable for two [violations].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. The situation is now more complex. The priest receives the blood in two goblets. A) If he sprinkled both inside he is obviously exempt, since he has not offered anything outside the Temple. The mishnah did not need to state this; it only did so in order to exhaust all of the possibilities. B) If he sprinkled both outside, he is liable. Again, this seems obvious. C) Once he sprinkles one inside the other cannot be sprinkled on the altar and is to be poured out into the aqueduct which cleans out the Temple. Therefore, if he offers up this one outside the Temple he is exempt. D) If he first offers up one of the goblets of blood outside, he is liable, for this one should have been offered up inside. If he then offers the other goblet inside, it is valid and it effects atonement, as the sprinkling of the blood always does. The fact that the other goblet was spilled outside does not render invalid the goblet to be spilled inside.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
אחד בפנים – and afterwards, the second [sprinkling] was done outside, he is exempt. For even according to Rabbi Nehemiah who held that one cup removes its fellow consecrated cup from its purpose to be spilled a cubit, therefore, even that is not residue.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. The mishnah compares this situation to a person who set aside an animal to be a hatat, lost the animal, then set aside another animal and then found the first one. The two animals are now both hatats, but only one can effect atonement. The mishnah now runs through all of the possible scenarios, as it did above. A) Obviously, if he slaughters both inside he is exempt. B) Similarly, if he slaughters both outside, he is liable. C) If he first slaughters one inside and then the second one outside he is exempt, because the first animal already effected atonement. In this case the rule with the second one is that it cannot be a valid sacrifice and therefore he is not liable for offering it outside the Temple. D) When he slaughters the first one outside the Temple he is liable for slaughtering outside the Temple. However, the second one can still effect atonement when it is slaughtered inside because the first one does not affect its status.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
הפנימי מכפר – to make the animal sacrifice fit. For the blood that is sprinkled outside [the Temple courtyard] first did not make what had remained something similar to it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal]. The mishnah now makes a final note with regard to the situation of the two hatats. This section is not really connected to the issue of slaughtering outside the Temple. In this situation if one was to slaughter both hatats inside the Temple and then pour the blood of one of them on the altar, the pouring of the blood exempts one who benefits from the flesh of that animal from being punished for illicit benefit from Temple property. The flesh is exempt from this prohibition because after the blood is spilled the animal can be eaten by the priest. The mishnah teaches that just as the pouring of the blood exempts the flesh of the animal whose blood was poured, so too it exempts one who benefits from the other animal. The second animal cannot be a sacrifice and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. However, since it is no longer in the category of sacrifice, the laws of illegal use of Temple property no longer apply to it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
שתיהן בחוץ חייב – on each of them, for at the time of the ritual slaughter, each one was appropriate [to be offered] inside [the Temple courtyard].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
אחת בפנים – and the second afterwards outside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt, for this is a sin-offering where its owners had been expiated , but for death it (i.e., the second one) goes and is not accepted inside [the Temple courtyard].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
חייב על החיצונה – for it is appropriate [only] inside [the Temple courtyard] and he offers up whichever of them that he wishes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
כשם שדמה פוטר את כשרה – from [the law of] religious sacrilege, [for the sprinkling/tossing of the blood removes the meat of the Holy of Holies from religious sacrilege that gave it] a time of permission for the Kohanim [to consume it].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה (so it renders the meat of its fellow free) – and even though it is invalidated [and it refers to when I slaughter both of them inside the Temple courtyard]. And it comes to ell us here that where both of them are placed, and someone comes first and sprinkles the blood of the first one, he renders the meat of its fellow free because of the sin-offering through which its owners were expiated, for we hold that the sin-offerings left to die we don’t benefit from nor commit religious sacrilege.
