זבחים י״ג:א׳ - י״ג:ב׳

השוחט –[He who ritually slaughters] Holy Things outside [of the Temple courtyard] and offered them up outside [the Temple courtyard]. In one act of forgetfulness [inadvertently]. He is liable [for a sin-offering] for the ritual slaughtering and he is liable [for a sin-offering] on the offering up, for they are two essential parts of the sin for both of them are written [in the Torah] (Leviticus 17:3): “[if anyone of the house of Israel] אשר ישחט/slaughters [an ox or sheep of goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp],” and (Leviticus 17:8): “[If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them] אשר – יעלה /offers [a burnt offering or a sacrifice].”

כיון שהוציאו פסלו –[because he took it outside, he has invalidated it] but nevertheless, he is liable. And the same law applies to the individual who slaughters it outside [the Temple courtyard] and offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard]. And Rabbi Yossi Haglili said to you, just as the person who slaughters it inside [the Temple courtyard] and offered up outside [the Temple courtyard] for he had a period of time when it was fit for use, shall you say to the person who slaughters it outside [the Temple courtyard] and offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard] that he didn’t have a period of time when it was fit for use? But the Halakah is not according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili.

טמא שאכל כו' – because Rabbi Yossi Haglili and the Rabbis disagree on both of them and these two disputes are similar to each other, they taught them [in the Mishnah] together.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר וכו' – when the body became ritually defiled and afterwards the meat became ritually defiled, no one disagrees that he is liable for extirpation. What they do dispute is when the meat [first] becomes ritually defiled and afterwards the body becomes defiled. The Rabbis have an inclusive prohibition (i.e., an exception to the principle that one prohibition does not take effect upon another; the second prohibition takes effect if it is a more comprehensive prohibition), for since the prohibition of the Levitical uncleanness of the body occurs upon it, it also prohibits the pure meat that was permitted from the outside, it also occurs even on the ritually impure meat, and even though it was continually prohibited, in order to make him liable even because of the Levitical uncleanness of the body. But Rabbi Yossi Haglili does not hold that one prohibition can take a legal hold where another prohibition already exists (i.e., you can punish, or impose sacrificial expiation only for the first one) with a comprehensive prohibition, and the prohibition of ritual defilement of the body does not occur on the prohibition of the ritual defilement of the meat. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili.

והטהור שאכל טמא פטור – from extirpation. But he endures forty [minus one] lashes because of (Leviticus 7:19): “Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; [it shall be consumed in fire. As for other flesh, only he who is pure may eat such flesh].”

שאינו חייב אלא על טומאת הגוף – as it is written (Leviticus 7:20): “ [But the person who], in a state of impurity, [eats flesh from the LOD’s sacrifice of well-being,] that person shall be cut off from his kin,” This verse is speaking of Levitical uncleanness of the body.