פירוש על זבחים 13:7

מלק בחוץ – it is an un-slaughtered animal carcass, for there is no pinching of the head other than inside [the Temple courtyard], therefore he exempt on his offering/bringing it up on the altar outside, and if you should say, but aren’t all that are offered up outside are disqualified through their being taken outside, and similar a person who performs a ritual slaughter outside [of the Temple courtyard] is invalid and they are liable on its being offered on the altar, there the All-Merciful includes it but regarding the matter of the rest of invalid things, we require that it is accepted inside.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who “nips,” or slaughters a bird inside or outside the Temple and offers it up outside. As a reminder “nipping,” plucking off the head from the back of the neck, was the way that bird sacrifices were slaughtered inside the Temple, whereas slaughtering, slicing the neck with a knife, was how they were slaughtered outside the Temple, to be eaten not as a sacrifice.

שחט בחוץ והעלה בחוץ חייב – even on the bringing up/offering on the altar. For all who are liable on its ritual slaughter outside [of the Temple courtyard] if he went back in and he or someone else brought them up/offered them, he is liable [on the ritual slaughter and on offering it up].

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; Inside the Temple a bird is slaughtered by nipping. Therefore, if he nips it inside the Temple he has slaughtered it correctly. When he then brings it outside the Temple and offers it up there, he is liable because he has offered a valid sacrifice outside of the Temple.

נמצא דרך הכשרו בפנים – In the Gemara it states (i.e., Tractate Zevakhim 111b, that it teaches that the manner of his liability by performing it inside [i.e., the Temple courtyard] exempts him outside [the Temple courtyard], and the manner of his liability by performing it outside, exempts him inside [the Temple courtyard. As for example, if he slaughtered the bird/fowl inside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt. If he slaughtered it outside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard], he is liable. If he pinched the head [of the bird] inside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up outside, he is liable. If he pinched the head [of the bird] outside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up inside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt. It is found, that the place where he is made liable on his offering it up, if the first Divine service was performed in side, as for example with the pinching of the head that was done inside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt for his offering it up, if the pinching of the head was done outside [the Temple courtyard]. But a person who becomes liable on his offering up, if the first Divine service was performed outside, like with the ritual slaughtering, he is exempted inside, if the animal was slaughtered inside and offered up outside.

If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. However, if he nips it outside, he has disqualified it from being a valid sacrifice and when he offers it up outside he is not liable.

רבי שמעון אומר כו' – the matter of the first Tanna/teacher is deficient and should be read as follows: And similarly, a person who slaughters an animal at night inside [the Temple courtyard] and offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard] is exempt, that it is not accepted inside, as it is written (Leviticus 19:6): “It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice/ביום זבחכם,” but not at night, and it is found that the animal offering is invalid, and therefore he is not liable for his offering it up But if he did not slaughter outside [the Temple courtyard] at night but offered it up outside at night, he is liable, because since the ritual slaughter was at night outside the Temple courtyard, it was kosher/fit, therefore, he is liable for two things – on the ritual slaughter and on the offering up. But Rabbi Shimon disputes this and states: “Any act for which they are liable [when it is done] outside, for the like act are they liable [when it is done] inside and when one offered it up outside, except for him who slaughters inside and offers up [the bird offering] outside.” כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ חייבין על כיוצא בו בפנים שהעלהו בחוץ – that is to say, just as when the person who performs the ritual slaughter outside at night and the one who offers it up outside is liable, so also if he performed the ritual slaughter inside at night and offered it up outside, he is liable for the offering up [of the sacrifice], except for one who slaughters the bird/fowl inside and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard] that he is exempt even though that if he performed the ritual slaughter and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard], he is liable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. Slaughtering it inside the Temple also disqualifies it from being a sacrifice and thus when he offers it up outside he is exempt.

If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Slaughtering is the proper way to kill the bird outside the Temple. So if he slaughters it and then offers it outside the Temple he is liable.

Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. We now get a summary, which may also serve as a type of mnemonic device. If one kills the bird outside the Temple with the rite prescribed for inside, that is nipping, he is exempt. Similarly, if one kills the bird inside the Temple with the rite prescribed for outside, that is slaughtering with the knife, he is exempt.

Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside. Rabbi Shimon holds that one who nips outside the Temple and then offers it up outside the Temple is liable. He then adds a rule that any time one is liable for an act when done outside the Temple, he is also liable if done inside and then offered up outside the Temple. The one exception is one who slaughters an animal inside and then offers it up outside. One who does this is exempt even though if he slaughtered it outside and offered it up there he would be liable. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yose the Galilean in mishnah one of our chapter, who holds that one who slaughters outside the Temple and offers it up outside the Temple is exempt, whereas one who slaughters inside the Temple and offers it up outside is liable. Rabbi Shimon holds that since he is exempt when done outside, he is also exempt when done inside. I should note that Rabbi Shimon’s words are exceedingly difficult. I have explained them according to Albeck’s commentary.