[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.