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.