Zevachim 36B

יהא חייב?!

the slaughterer would be liable to receive lashes?

והתניא, רבי יהודה אומר: יכול חטאת ששחטה בדרום ⁠– יהא חייב? תלמוד לומר: ״לא תזבח לה׳ אלהיך שור ושה וגו׳ כל דבר רע״⁠ – על דבר רע אתה מחייבו, ואי אתה מחייבו על חטאת ששחטה בדרום! תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי יהודה.

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: R' Yehuda says: One might have thought that with regard to a sin offering that one slaughtered in the south, he would be liable for it. Therefore, the verse states: “You should not sacrifice to YHWH your God an ox, or a sheep, that has a blemish, even any evil thing” (Deuteronomy 17:1), to teach that for slaughtering an evil thing, such as a blemished offering, you deem him liable to receive lashes, but you do not deem him liable for a sin offering that he slaughtered in the south. The Talmud answers: Here too, there are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of R' Yehuda.

אמר רבי אבא: ומודה רבי יהודה, שחוזר וקובעו לפיגול.

§ R' Abba says: Although R' Yehuda says that an offering is rendered not valid if it was slaughtered with the intent that its blood would be left over until the next day, R' Yehuda concedes that if the priest subsequently collected, conveyed, or presented the blood with the intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time, he then establishes the offering as piggul. The intent to leave it overnight does not prevent it from being rendered piggul, in contrast to intent to sacrifice or partake of it outside its designated area, or performing a sacrificial rite of the Paschal offering or a sin offering not for its own sake, which do prevent the offering from subsequently being rendered piggul (see 29b).