Zevachim, Chapter 13, Mishnah 7. We continue to discuss the laws of slaughtering and offering outside the Temple courtyard - two separate prohibitions, slaughtering a sacrifice and offering it outside its designated place, each carrying the penalty of kares. This mishnah focuses on these laws as they apply to birds, where the matter is more complex.
Background: Melikah vs. Shchitah:
We will focus on the bird burnt-offering, which is also burned, unlike the bird sin-offering, and therefore we discuss it regarding both actions together - the slaughtering as well as the offering and burning. The method of killing a bird for a sacrifice is through melikah: the kohen nips its neck from the back with his thumbnail, and does not use a knife as is done for standard slaughtering.
This creates two opposite sides: performing melikah on a bird outside the context of bringing sacrifices is merely mutilation, rendering the bird a nevelah and unkosher. On the other hand, slaughtering a bird with a knife inside the Temple courtyard - even though this is the proper way to slaughter a bird for eating - invalidates the bird from being offered as a sacrifice.
The Guiding Principle:
Throughout the entire chapter, we have established that liability for slaughtering or offering outside depends on the act done outside being of the type where the sacrifice could and should have been offered on the altar in its proper place, as a valid sacrifice. Because it was done in an improper place, the person is liable. This rule complicates the discussion regarding birds.
The Four Cases in the Mishnah:
"Hamolek es ha'of bifnim vehe'elah bachutz - chayav" - he performed melikah with his thumbnail in the courtyard, in the proper place, and his action is valid; afterward, he took the bird outside the boundary and offered it on an invalid altar. He is liable for offering it outside - a sin-offering if unintentional and kares if intentional - since this bird, which was killed properly inside, should have been offered on the inner altar and was not.
"Malak bachutz vehe'elah bachutz - patur" - melikah outside the courtyard is not slaughtering but rather mutilation, and there is no liability for it. Since the bird is invalid to be offered on the inner altar, offering it on the invalid altar outside is also not an act of offering outside for which one incurs kares.
"Shachat bifnim vehe'elah bachutz - patur" - slaughtering with a knife in the courtyard is invalid, and even though it is forbidden to do so, it does not carry kares. When he takes that same bird and offers it on an altar outside the boundary, he is exempt even for the offering, because this bird could not have been offered on the altar inside, since it was not properly killed through melikah.
"Shachat bachutz vehe'elah bachutz - chayav" - he slaughtered it with a knife outside the courtyard and offered it on the altar outside: he is liable, and in fact, he is liable for two separate sin-offerings or two separate penalties of kares - for the slaughtering and for the offering.
One may seemingly wonder: isn't the guiding principle that there is no liability for an act outside unless it would have been valid to be done inside? Yet slaughtering with a knife is not the way to kill a bird inside, and a bird slaughtered with a knife cannot be offered on the altar - so why, then, is he liable here for kares and a sin-offering?
The answer is that this liability is derived from two additional, specific drashos:
"O asher yishchat michutz lamachaneh" - the extra word "O" (or) comes to teach that even one who slaughters a bird with a knife outside the boundary is liable for slaughtering outside. This is a new law.
"Va'aleihem tomar" (in verse 8) - the extra letter vav ("And") connects the first passage, which deals with slaughtering, to the second one, which deals with offering, to teach that the rules transfer from one to the other: just as one is liable for slaughtering a bird with a knife outside the boundary, so too, if one offers such a bird outside, he is liable even for the offering.
This is the halachah, and everyone agrees with it, but its basis lies in additional drashos.
"Nimtza" - the Mishnah's note:
The Mishnah adds a note that does not introduce a new law, but rather marvels at the paradoxical nature of these laws, based on an observation of the four cases listed:
"Derech hechshero bifnim - peturo bachutz" - The way a bird is validated inside as an offering, namely melikah, if done outside the boundary - he is exempt, because melikah outside is not considered a valid slaughter that incurs liability.
"Derech hechshero bachutz - peturo bifnim" - The way a bird is validated to incur liability outside, namely slaughtering with a knife, if done inside - he is exempt: not only does the slaughter itself not incur kares, but if he subsequently offers up the bird outside he will not be liable, because it was not fit to be offered inside.
Rabbi Shimon's dispute: slaughtering at night:
The next line in the Mishnah is difficult to read, because there are words missing. Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with everything stated so far - he concedes all of this - but rather with a different point, regarding those missing words which deal with slaughtering at night.
Slaughtering is valid only during the day, and one who slaughters offerings at night - his slaughter is invalid. However, in Mishnah 2 of Chapter 9 there is a dispute on this matter, in the context of the discussion regarding invalid items that went up onto the Altar - whether they must be taken down or not:
Rabbi Yehudah (and this is the opinion of the Sages, and the halachah): If he slaughtered at night - it is completely invalid, and if he offered the animal up onto the Altar, it must be taken down.
Rabbi Shimon: Even though one may not slaughter at night and this slaughter is not valid, ex post facto - if he slaughtered at night and offered it up onto the Altar, it is not taken down.
Therefore they disagree here as well: according to Rabbi Shimon, one who slaughters at night inside and offers it up outside - is liable, since ex post facto the offering would have remained on the Altar. And according to the Sages, and this is the halachah, night slaughter is completely invalid, and even ex post facto the offering does not remain on the Altar, and therefore he is exempt for offering it up outside.
These are the missing words that the Gemara fills into the text of the Mishnah:
"Hashocheit behemah bifnim balailah vehe'elah bachutz - patur" - One who slaughters an animal inside at night and offers it up outside is exempt - this is the opinion of the Tanna Kamma, and this is the halachah, since even ex post facto the offering is not fit; and Rabbi Shimon disagrees on this point.
"Shachat bachutz balailah vehe'elah bachutz - chayav" - If he slaughtered outside at night and offered it up outside he is liable - and he is even liable for two violations. Everyone concedes to this, even Rabbi Shimon: the prohibition of slaughtering at night is limited to offerings in the Courtyard, but one who slaughters outside is liable for the outside slaughter, and the night does not exempt him.
Similarly, everyone concedes that if he offers this sacrifice on an altar outside the boundary, he will be liable for the offering up as well. And the Rambam and the Raavad disagree on this: according to the Rambam he is liable even if he offered it up at night, and according to the Raavad he is not liable unless he offered it up during the day.
And in the words of the Mishnah: "Rabbi Shimon omer: kol shechayav alav bachutz, chayav al kayotzei bo bifnim shehe'elu bachutz, chutz min hashocheit bifnim vehama'aleh bachutz" - Rabbi Shimon says: anything for which one is liable outside, he is liable for its equivalent inside that they offered up outside, except for one who slaughters inside and offers up outside. The explanation of his words:
"Kol shechayav alav bachutz, chayav al kayotzeh bo bifnim shehe'elu bachutz" - Any act for which one would be liable had he done it outside, such as slaughtering at night outside, he is liable even if he did it inside and afterward took the offering out and offered it outside. This is the novel ruling of Rabbi Shimon, unlike the opinion of the Sages who exempt him.
"Chutz min hashochet bifnim vehama'aleh bachutz" - Here Rabbi Shimon concedes to the law regarding birds that was explained: One who slaughters a bird with a knife inside and offers it outside is exempt, whereas one who slaughters with a knife outside and offers it outside is liable.
The halachah: The ruling follows the Tanna Kamma, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages. One who slaughters outside at night is liable to kares, and all agree to this; however, one who slaughters inside at night, and afterward takes the offering out and offers it outside, whether by day or by night - is exempt.