The kometz and the frankincense of which one offered up one of them outside [the Temple], he is liable. R’ Elazar exempts [from liability] until he offers up the second one. [If he offered] one within [the Temple] and the other outside [it], he is liable. [The] two spoonfuls of frankincense of which one offered up one of them outside [the Temple], he is liable. R’ Elazar exempts [from liability] until he offers up the second [spoonful]. [If] he offered up one [spoonful] within [the Temple] and the other outside [it], he is liable. [If] one throws some of the blood outside [the Temple], he is liable. R’ Elazar says: Even one who pours the water of the Festival on the Festival outside [the Temple] is liable. R’ Nechemiah says: [If] one offered up the remainder of the blood outside [the Temple] he is liable.

[If] one performed melikah on a bird within [the Temple] and offered [it] up outside, he is liable; [but if] one performed melikah [on it] outside [the Temple] and offered [it] up outside, he is not liable. [If] one slaughtered a bird [offering] within [the Temple] and offered [it] up outside, he is not liable; [but if] he slaughtered [it] outside [the Temple] and offered [it] up outside, he is liable. It follows that the method which renders it fit within [the Temple] exempts it from liability outside [it]; [and] the method which renders it fit outside [the Temple] exempts it within. R’ Shimon says: Anything which renders one liable when [performed] outside also renders one liable when its counterpart was [performed] within and [the parts were later] offered up outside — except for one who slaughters within and offers up outside.

A chatas-offering whose blood was received in one cup — [whether] one applied [the blood] outside [the Temple] and then applied [it] within, [or he applied the blood] within [the Temple] and then applied [it] outside — he is liable, since all of it is fit to be brought inside. [If] one received its blood in two cups — [if] he applied both within [the Temple], he is not liable; if [he applied] both [cups] outside, he is liable; one within and [then] one outside, he is not liable; one outside and [then] one within, he is liable for the outside one but the inner one atones. To what can this matter be compared? To one who consecrates his chatas-offering and it was [later] lost, so that he consecrated another in its place. Afterward, the first one was found, and now both are available. [If] he slaughtered both within [the Temple], he is not liable; [if] he slaughtered both of them outside [the Temple], he is liable; one within and [then] one outside, he is not liable; one outside and [then] one within, he is liable for the outside one and the inner one effects atonement. Just as its blood exempts its meat [from me’ilah], so also does it exempt the meat of its companion.

A chatas cow which one burned outside its pit, and similarly, a he-goat that is sent [to Azazel] which one offered up outside — one is not liable; as it says (Lev. 17:4): And he has not brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting — whatever is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account.