Study Yoma folio 63A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
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 Talmud asks: Does Rav Ḥisda accept the principle: Since a particular situation could come to be in the future, it is viewed as though it exis
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
The Talmud 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:
The Talmud 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