json/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Zevachim/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Zevachim",
    "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
    "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
    "status": "locked",
    "priority": 2.0,
    "license": "CC-BY-NC",
    "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the <a href='https://www.korenpub.com/koren_en_usd/koren/talmud/koren-talmud-bavli-no.html'>Koren Noé Talmud</a>, with commentary by <a href='/adin-even-israel-steinsaltz'>Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz</a>",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה זבחים",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "<b>All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake,</b> i.e., during the slaughtering the slaughterer’s intent was to sacrifice a different offering, <b>are fit,</b> and one may continue their sacrificial rites and partake of their meat where that applies. <b>But</b> these offerings <b>did not satisfy the obligation of the owner,</b> who is therefore required to bring another offering. This is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to all offerings <b>except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering.</b> In those cases, if the owner sacrificed them not for their own sake, they are unfit. But there is a difference between the two exceptions. <b>The Paschal offering</b> is unfit only when sacrificed not for its sake <b>at its</b> appointed <b>time,</b> on the fourteenth day of Nisan after noon, while <b>the sin offering</b> is unfit <b>any time</b> that it is sacrificed not for its sake. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: The guilt offering too</b> is unfit when sacrificed not for its sake. According to his opinion, the correct reading of the mishna is: <b>The Paschal offering</b> is unfit only <b>at its</b> appointed <b>time,</b> while <b>the sin offering and the guilt offering</b> are unfit <b>at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said</b> in explanation: <b>The sin offering is brought for</b> performance of <b>a transgression and the guilt offering is brought for</b> performance of <b>a transgression. Just as a sin offering is unfit</b> when sacrificed <b>not for its sake, so too, the guilt offering is unfit</b> when sacrificed <b>not for its sake.</b>",
            "<b>Yosei ben Ḥoni says:</b> Not only are the Paschal offering and the sin offering unfit when slaughtered not for their sake, but also other offerings <b>that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering and for the sake of a sin offering are unfit.</b> <b>Shimon, brother of Azarya, says</b> that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if <b>one slaughtered them for the sake of</b> an offering whose level of sanctity is <b>greater than theirs, they are fit;</b> if one slaughtered them <b>for the sake of</b> an offering whose level of sanctity is <b>less than theirs, they are unfit.</b> <b>How so? Offerings of the most sacred order,</b> e.g., sin offerings and burnt offerings, <b>that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> e.g., peace offerings, <b>are unfit. Offerings of lesser sanctity that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit.</b> Likewise, there is a distinction between different offerings of lesser sanctity. <b>The firstborn</b> animal <b>and the</b> animal <b>tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of a peace offering are fit,</b> as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. <b>Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn</b> animal <b>or for the sake of</b> an animal <b>tithe are unfit.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the Paschal offering that one slaughtered</b> on the <b>morning of</b> the <b>fourteenth</b> of Nisan, the day when the Paschal offering should be slaughtered in the afternoon, if he did so <b>not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth</b> of Nisan. An animal consecrated as a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not at its designated time for the sake of a different offering is fit for sacrifice as a peace offering. <b>Ben Beteira deems it unfit as though it were slaughtered</b> in the <b>afternoon</b> of the fourteenth. <b>Shimon ben Azzai said: I received</b> a tradition <b>from seventy-two elders,</b> as the Sanhedrin deliberated and decided <b>on the day that they installed Rabbi Elazar</b> ben Azarya <b>at</b> the head of <b>the yeshiva</b> and ruled <b>that all the slaughtered offerings that are eaten that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but</b> these offerings <b>did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering.</b> Based on that version, <b>ben Azzai added</b> to the <i>halakha</i> cited in the first mishna <b>only the burnt offering,</b> which is not eaten, <b>and the Rabbis</b> disagreed and <b>did not concede to him.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the Paschal offering and the sin offering, where one slaughtered them not for their sake,</b> or where he <b>collected</b> their blood in a vessel, <b>conveyed</b> this blood to the altar, <b>or sprinkled</b> this blood on the altar <b>not for their sake, or</b> where he performed one of these sacrificial rites <b>for their sake and not for their sake, or not for their sake and for their sake,</b> in all these cases the offerings <b>are unfit.</b> <b>How</b> are these rites performed <b>for their sake and not for their sake?</b> In a case where one slaughtered the Paschal offering <b>for the sake of a Paschal offering and for the sake of a peace offering.</b> How are these rites performed <b>not for their sake and for their sake?</b> In a case where one slaughtered the Paschal offering <b>for the sake of a peace offering and for the sake of a Paschal offering.</b> The offering is unfit <b>because a slaughtered offering is disqualified</b> due to prohibited intent <b>in four matters: In</b> the performance of the sacrificial rites of <b>slaughtering</b> the animal, <b>in collecting</b> the blood, <b>in conveying</b> the blood, <b>and in sprinkling</b> the blood. <b>Rabbi Shimon deems</b> the offering <b>fit</b> if the prohibited intent was <b>during</b> the rite of <b>conveying</b> the blood, <b>as he would say: It is impossible</b> to sacrifice an offering <b>without slaughtering</b> the animal, <b>or without collection</b> of the blood, <b>or without sprinkling</b> the blood, <b>but it is possible</b> to sacrifice an offering <b>without conveying</b> the blood to the altar. How so? If one <b>slaughters</b> the animal <b>alongside the altar and sprinkles</b> the blood, the blood does not need to be conveyed. Therefore, the rite of conveying the blood is not significant enough to cause the offering to be disqualified due to prohibited intent while performing it. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> With regard to <b>one who conveys</b> the blood <b>in a situation where he is required to convey</b> it, prohibited <b>intent</b> while conveying it <b>disqualifies</b> the offering. If he conveys the blood <b>in a situation where he is not required to convey</b> it, prohibited <b>intent</b> while conveying it <b>does not disqualify</b> the offering."
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>all slaughtered offerings,</b> if the one <b>who collected their blood</b> was <b>a non-priest;</b> or a priest who was <b>an acute mourner,</b> i.e., one whose relative has died and has not yet been buried; or <b>one</b> who was ritually impure <b>who immersed that day</b> and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed; <b>or one who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering, e.g., a <i>zav</i> or leper after the seventh day of the purification process; <b>or</b> a priest <b>lacking</b> the requisite priestly <b>vestments;</b> or one <b>who did not wash his hands and feet</b> from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service; or <b>an uncircumcised</b> priest; or <b>a ritually impure</b> priest; or if the one who collected the blood was <b>sitting;</b> or if he was <b>standing</b> not on the floor of the Temple but <b>upon vessels,</b> or <b>upon an animal,</b> or <b>upon the feet of another,</b> he has <b>disqualified</b> the offering. If <b>he collected</b> the blood <b>with</b> his <b>left</b> hand, he <b>disqualified</b> the blood for offering. In this last case, <b>Rabbi Shimon deems</b> it <b>fit.</b> If <b>the blood spilled on the floor</b> before the priest managed to collect it into a vessel, <b>and</b> the priest then <b>collected it</b> from the floor into a vessel, it is <b>disqualified.</b> If the priest <b>placed</b> the blood <b>upon the ramp</b> leading up to the altar, or if he placed it on the wall of the altar in an area <b>that</b> is <b>not opposite the base</b> of the altar, i.e., in those parts of the altar where there is no foundation; or if <b>he placed</b> the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed below</b> the red line that runs along the middle of the altar, e.g., the blood of a burnt offering, <b>above</b> the red line, <b>or</b> if he placed the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed above</b> the red line, e.g., the blood of a sin offering, <b>below</b> the red line; <b>or</b> if he placed the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed inside</b> the Sanctuary, i.e., on the golden altar or in the Holy of Holies, <b>outside</b> the Sanctuary on the external altar, <b>or</b> if he placed the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed outside</b> the Sanctuary <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary, in all these cases the offering is <b>disqualified.</b> Nevertheless, <b>there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> one who partakes of these offerings.",
            "With regard to <b>one who slaughters the offering</b> with intent <b>to sprinkle its blood outside</b> the Temple <b>or</b> to sprinkle <b>part of its blood outside</b> the Temple, <b>to burn its sacrificial portions outside</b> the Temple <b>or</b> to burn <b>part of its sacrificial portions outside</b> the Temple, <b>to partake of its meat outside</b> the Temple <b>or</b> to partake of <b>an olive-bulk of its meat outside</b> the Temple, <b>or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail outside</b> the Temple, in all of these cases the offering is <b>disqualified, and there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> one who partakes of it. But if one had intent <b>to sprinkle its blood the next day</b> or <b>part of its blood the next day, to burn its sacrificial portions the next day or</b> to burn <b>part of its sacrificial portions the next day, to partake of its meat the next day or</b> to partake of <b>an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail the next day,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i>, and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it.</b>",
            "<b>This is the principle:</b> With regard to <b>anyone who slaughters</b> the animal, <b>or who collects</b> the blood, <b>or who conveys</b> the blood, <b>or who sprinkles</b> the blood, with intent <b>to partake of an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>partakes</b> of it, e.g., the meat of the offering, <b>or to burn an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>burns</b> it on the altar, if his intent was to partake of or to burn the measure of <b>an olive-bulk outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified, but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it.</b> If his intent was to do so <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it, provided that the permitting factor,</b> the blood, <b>is sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b>",
            "<b>How</b> is <b>the permitting factor sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva?</b> If one <b>slaughtered</b> the animal <b>in silence</b> with no specific intent, and <b>he collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood with intent to burn or partake of the offering <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or</b> if one <b>slaughtered</b> it with intent to burn or partake of the offering <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, and he collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood <b>in silence; or</b> if one <b>slaughtered</b> the animal <b>and collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood with intent to burn or partake of the offering <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, that is</b> the case <b>where</b> one <b>sacrifices the permitting factor in accordance with its mitzva.</b> <b>How</b> is <b>the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva?</b> If one <b>slaughtered</b> the animal with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> and <b>he collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or</b> if one <b>slaughtered</b> the animal with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> and <b>collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area; or</b> if one <b>slaughtered</b> the animal <b>and collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> these are cases in which the permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with the mitzva. Similarly, in the case of <b>the Paschal offering and the sin offering that one slaughtered not for their sake, and</b> one <b>collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or</b> if one <b>slaughtered</b> the Paschal offering or sin offering with intent to burn it or partake of it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> and <b>he collected and conveyed and sprinkled</b> the blood <b>not for their sake; or that one slaughtered</b> the Paschal offering or sin offering <b>and collected and conveyed and sprinkled their blood not for their sake, that is</b> the case of an offering <b>whose permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b>",
            "If one performed one of the sacrificial rites with the intent <b>to eat an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area and <b>an olive-bulk the next day,</b> or <b>an olive-bulk the next day</b> and <b>an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area, or <b>half an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area and <b>half an olive-bulk the next day,</b> or <b>half an olive-bulk the next day</b> and <b>half an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area, the offering is <b>disqualified and there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda said</b> that <b>this is the principle:</b> In <b>any</b> case <b>where the intent</b> with regard to <b>the time preceded the intent</b> with regard to <b>the area,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it. And if the intent</b> with regard to <b>the area preceded the intent</b> with regard to <b>the time,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified and there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it. And the Rabbis say:</b> In both <b>this</b> case <b>and that</b> case, the offering is <b>disqualified and there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> burning or partaking of <b>it.</b> If his intent was <b>to eat half an olive-bulk</b> and <b>to burn half an olive-bulk</b> not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is <b>fit because eating and burning do not join together.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>all</b> those <b>who are unfit</b> for Temple service <b>who slaughtered</b> an offering, <b>their slaughter is valid, as the slaughter</b> of an offering <b>is valid</b> <i>ab initio</i> when performed even <b>by non-priests, by women, by</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, and by ritually impure</b> individuals. <b>And</b> this is the <i>halakha</i> <b>even with</b> regard to <b>offerings of the most sacred order, provided that the ritually impure will not touch the flesh</b> of the slaughtered animal, thereby rendering it impure. <b>Therefore,</b> these unfit individuals can <b>disqualify</b> the offering <b>with</b> prohibited <b>intent,</b> e.g., if one of them intended to partake of the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area. <b>And</b> with regard to <b>all of them,</b> in a case <b>where they collected the blood</b> with the intent to offer it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time or outside its</b> designated <b>area, if there is blood of the soul</b> that remains in the animal, <b>the</b> priest <b>fit</b> for Temple service <b>should again collect</b> the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.",
            "If <b>the</b> priest <b>fit</b> for Temple service <b>collected</b> the blood in a vessel <b>and gave</b> the vessel <b>to an unfit</b> person, that person <b>should return</b> it <b>to the fit</b> priest. If the priest <b>collected</b> the blood in a vessel <b>in his right</b> hand <b>and moved</b> it <b>to his left</b> hand, <b>he should return</b> it <b>to his right</b> hand. If the priest <b>collected</b> the blood <b>in a sacred vessel and placed it in a non-sacred vessel, he should return</b> the blood <b>to a sacred vessel.</b> If the blood <b>spilled from the vessel onto the floor and he gathered it</b> from the floor, it is <b>valid.</b> If an unfit person <b>placed</b> the blood <b>upon the ramp</b> or on the wall of the altar <b>that</b> is <b>not opposite the base</b> of the altar, or if <b>he placed</b> the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed below</b> the red line <b>above</b> the red line, <b>or</b> if he placed the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed above</b> the red line <b>below</b> the red line, <b>or</b> if he placed the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed inside</b> the Sanctuary <b>outside</b> the Sanctuary <b>or the</b> blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed outside</b> the Sanctuary <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary, then <b>if there is blood of the soul</b> that remains in the animal, <b>the</b> priest <b>fit</b> for Temple service <b>should again collect</b> the blood and sprinkle it on the altar.",
            "In the case of <b>one who slaughters an offering</b> with the intent <b>to eat,</b> beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>not partake</b> of it, e.g., the portions of the offering consumed on the altar, <b>or</b> with the intent <b>to burn,</b> beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>not burn</b> it on the altar, e.g., the meat of the offering, the offering is <b>fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems</b> it <b>unfit.</b> One who slaughters an offering with the intent <b>to eat,</b> beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>partake</b> of it, <b>or</b> with the intent <b>to burn,</b> beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, <b>an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one does <b>burn</b> it on the altar, but his intent was to partake or burn <b>less than an olive-bulk,</b> the offering is <b>fit.</b> If his intent was <b>to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk</b> beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is <b>fit, because eating and burning do not join together.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>one who slaughters an offering</b> with the intent <b>to eat, beyond its</b> designated <b>time or outside its</b> designated <b>area, an olive-bulk from the hide, or from the gravy, or from the spices</b> that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, <b>or from a tendon in the neck, or from the bones, or from the tendons, or from the horns, or from the hooves,</b> the offering is <b>fit and one is not liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for it,</b> neither <b>due to</b> the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to partake of the offering beyond its designated time, <b>nor</b> due to the prohibition of <b>leftover</b> meat beyond the designated time, <b>nor</b> due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while <b>ritually impure.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>one who slaughters sacrificial</b> female animals with the intent <b>to eat</b> the <b>fetus</b> of those animals <b>or</b> their <b>placenta outside</b> the designated area, <b>he has not rendered</b> the offering <b><i>piggul</i>.</b> Likewise, in the case of <b>one who pinches doves,</b> i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent <b>to eat their eggs</b> that are still in their bodies <b>outside</b> the designated area, <b>he has not rendered</b> the offering <b><i>piggul</i>.</b> This is because the fetus, the placenta, and the eggs are not considered part of the body of the animal or the bird. For the same reason, one who consumes <b>the milk of sacrificial</b> female animals <b>or the eggs of doves is not liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>for</b> it, neither <b>due to</b> the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>, nor</b> due to the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, nor</b> due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while <b>ritually impure.</b>",
            "If <b>one slaughters</b> the animal <b>in order to leave its blood or its sacrificial portions for the next day, or to remove them outside</b> the designated area, but not in order to sacrifice them the next day, <b>Rabbi Yehuda deems</b> the offering <b>unfit, and the Rabbis deem</b> it <b>fit.</b> In the case of one who slaughters the animal <b>in order to place</b> the blood <b>upon the ramp</b> or on the wall of the altar <b>that</b> is <b>not opposite the base</b> of the altar, <b>or</b> in order <b>to place</b> the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed above</b> the red line <b>below</b> the red line, <b>or</b> to place the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed below</b> the red line <b>above</b> the red line, <b>or</b> the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed</b> <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary <b>outside</b> the Sanctuary, <b>or</b> the blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed outside</b> the Sanctuary <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary; and likewise, if he slaughtered the animal with the intent <b>that ritually impure</b> people <b>will partake of it,</b> or <b>that ritually impure</b> people <b>will sacrifice it,</b> or <b>that uncircumcised</b> people <b>will partake of it, or that uncircumcised</b> people <b>will sacrifice it;</b> and likewise, with regard to the Paschal offering, if he had intent during the slaughter <b>to break the bones of the Paschal offering,</b> or <b>to eat from</b> the meat of the Paschal offering <b>partially roasted, or to mix the blood of</b> an offering <b>with the blood of unfit</b> offerings, in all these cases, although he intended to perform one of these prohibited acts, some of which would render the offering unfit, the offering is <b>fit.</b> The reason is <b>that intent does not render</b> the offering <b>unfit except in</b> cases of intent to eat or to burn the offering <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time and outside its</b> designated <b>area, and</b> in addition, <b>the Paschal offering and the sin offering</b> are disqualified by intent to sacrifice them <b>not for their sake.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>Beit Shammai say:</b> With regard to <b>all</b> the offerings <b>whose</b> blood is to be <b>placed on the external altar,</b> even those that require that the blood be sprinkled on two opposite corners of the altar so that it will run down each of its four sides, in a case <b>where</b> the priest <b>placed</b> the blood on the altar <b>with</b> only <b>one placement, he facilitated atonement. And in</b> the case of <b>a sin offering,</b> which requires four placements, one on each of the four corners of the altar, at least <b>two placements</b> are necessary to facilitate atonement. <b>And Beit Hillel say: Even</b> with regard to <b>a sin offering,</b> in a case <b>where</b> the priest <b>placed</b> the blood with <b>one placement, he facilitated atonement</b> after the fact. <b>Therefore,</b> since the priest facilitates atonement with one placement in all cases other than a sin offering according to Beit Shammai, and even in the case of a sin offering according to Beit Hillel, <b>if he placed the first</b> placement <b>in its proper manner, and the second</b> with the intent to eat the offering <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, he facilitated atonement.</b> Since the second placement is not indispensable with regard to achieving atonement, improper intent while performing that rite does not invalidate the offering. <b>And</b> based on the same reasoning, <b>if he placed the first</b> placement with the intent to eat the offering <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time and</b> he placed <b>the second</b> placement with the intent to eat the offering <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> the second of which does not render an offering <i>piggul</i>, the offering is <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> an offering disqualified by improper intention, <b>and one is liable</b> to receive <b>excision from the World-to-Come [<i>karet</i>] for its</b> consumption. This is because the intent that accompanied the second placement does not supersede the <i>piggul</i> status of the offering.",
            "All this applies to those offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar. But with regard to <b>all</b> the offerings <b>whose</b> blood is to be <b>placed on the inner altar, if</b> the priest <b>omitted</b> even <b>one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. Therefore,</b> if <b>he placed all</b> the placements <b>in their proper manner, and one</b> placement <b>in an improper manner,</b> i.e., with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is <b>disqualified,</b> as it is lacking one placement; <b>but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> for</b> one who partakes of the offering, as the improper intention related to only part of the blood that renders the offering permitted for consumption, and an offering becomes <i>piggul</i> only when the improper intention relates to the entire portion of the offering that renders it permitted for consumption.",
            "<b>And these are</b> the <b>items for which one is not liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>.</b> One is liable to receive <i>karet</i> only if he partakes of an item that was permitted for consumption or for the altar by another item. As for the items listed here, either nothing else renders them permitted for consumption or for the altar, or they themselves render other items permitted. They are as follows: <b>The handful</b> of flour, which permits consumption of the meal offering; <b>the incense,</b> which is burned in its entirety, without another item rendering it permitted for the altar; <b>the frankincense,</b> which is burned together with the handful of the meal offering; <b>the meal offering of priests,</b> from which no handful of flour is removed and which is burned in its entirety (see Leviticus 6:16); <b>the meal offering of</b> the <b>anointed priest,</b> which is sacrificed by the High Priest each day, half in the morning and half in the evening; <b>the blood,</b> which permits all the offerings; <b>and the libations that are brought by themselves</b> as a separate offering and do not accompany an animal offering; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> The same <i>halakha</i> applies <b>even</b> with regard to libations <b>that are brought with an animal</b> offering. With regard to <b>the <i>log</i> of oil</b> that accompanies the guilt offering <b>of</b> a recovered <b>leper, Rabbi Shimon says: One is not liable for</b> consuming <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> because it is not permitted by any other item. <b>And Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for</b> consuming <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>, as the blood of the guilt offering</b> of the leper <b>permits its</b> use, as only after the blood’s sacrifice is the oil sprinkled and given to the priests. <b>And</b> the principle is: With regard to <b>any</b> item <b>that has permitting factors, either for</b> consumption by <b>a person or for</b> burning on <b>the altar, one is liable for</b> eating <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>.</b>",
            "The mishna elaborates: <b>The burnt offering, its blood permits its flesh to</b> be burned on <b>the altar and its hide to</b> be used by <b>the priests. The bird burnt offering, its blood permits its flesh</b> and its skin <b>to</b> be burned on <b>the altar. The bird sin offering, its blood permits its meat for</b> consumption by <b>the priests. Bulls that are burned,</b> e.g., the bull for an unwitting communal sin, <b>and goats that are burned,</b> e.g., the goats sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, <b>their blood permits their sacrificial portions to be sacrificed</b> on the altar. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Those bulls and goats are not subject to <i>piggul</i> because their blood is presented in the Sanctuary, and in the case of <b>any</b> offering <b>whose</b> blood <b>is not</b> presented <b>on the external altar like</b> that of <b>a peace offering,</b> with regard to which the <i>halakha</i> of <i>piggul</i> was stated in the Torah, <b>one is not liable for</b> eating <b>it due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>offerings</b> consecrated by <b>gentiles</b> for sacrifice to God, <b>one is not liable for</b> eating <b>them,</b> neither <b>due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i></b> if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to violation of the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, nor</b> due to violation of the prohibition against eating the meat while <b>ritually impure. And one who slaughters them outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>exempt;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yosei deems</b> him <b>liable.</b> Even with regard to those <b>items</b> enumerated in the previous mishna (42b) for <b>which one is not liable for</b> eating <b>them due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>piggul</i>,</b> e.g., the handful, the frankincense, and the incense, <b>one is,</b> nevertheless, <b>liable for</b> eating <b>them due to</b> violation of the prohibition of <b><i>notar</i>, and due to</b> violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while <b>ritually impure, except for the blood. Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>eats</b> it. <b>But</b> with regard to <b>the wood, the frankincense, and the incense, one is not liable for</b> eating <b>them due to</b> violation of the prohibition against eating a consecrated item while <b>ritually impure.</b>",
            "<b>The slaughtered offering is slaughtered for the sake of six matters,</b> and one must have all of these matters in mind: <b>For the sake of</b> the particular type of <b>offering</b> being sacrificed; <b>for the sake of the one who sacrifices</b> the offering; <b>for the sake of God; for the sake of</b> consumption by the <b>fires</b> of the altar; <b>for the sake of</b> the <b>aroma; for the sake of</b> the <b>pleasing</b> of God, i.e., in fulfillment of God’s will; <b>and,</b> in the cases of <b>a sin offering and a guilt offering, for the sake of</b> atonement for the <b>sin.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei says: Even</b> in the case of <b>one who did not have in mind</b> to slaughter the offering <b>for the sake of any one of these,</b> the offering is <b>valid, as it is a stipulation of the court</b> that he should not state any intent <i>ab initio</i>. This is necessary <b>because the intent follows only the one performing the</b> sacrificial <b>rite,</b> and therefore if the one who slaughters the animal is not careful and states the wrong intent, the offering would be disqualified through his improper intent."
        ],
        [
            "<b>What is the location</b> of the slaughtering and consumption <b>of offerings?</b> The principle is that with regard to <b>offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter</b> is <b>in the north</b> of the Temple courtyard. Specifically, with regard to <b>the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter</b> is <b>in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel</b> is <b>in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves</b> of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, <b>and upon the Curtain</b> separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, <b>and on the golden altar.</b> Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even <b>one placement of their</b> blood <b>disqualifies</b> the offering. As to <b>the remainder of the blood,</b> which is left after those sprinklings, a priest <b>would pour</b> it <b>onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place</b> the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does <b>not disqualify</b> the offering.",
            "With regard to <b>bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter</b> is <b>in the north</b> of the Temple courtyard, <b>and the collection of their blood in a service vessel</b> is <b>in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain</b> separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, <b>and upon the golden altar,</b> and failure to perform even <b>one placement of their</b> blood <b>disqualifies</b> the offering. As for <b>the remainder of the blood</b> that is left after those sprinklings, a priest <b>would pour</b> it <b>onto the western base of the external altar, but if he did not pour</b> the remainder it does <b>not disqualify</b> the offering. <b>These,</b> the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, <b>and those,</b> the bulls and the goats that are burned, <b>are</b> then <b>burned in the place of the ashes,</b> a place outside of Jerusalem where the priests would bring the ashes from the altar.",
            "These are the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>the communal and the individual sin offerings. These are the communal sin offerings: Goats of the New Moon and of the Festivals. Their slaughter</b> is <b>in the north</b> of the Temple courtyard, <b>and</b> the <b>collection of their blood in a service vessel</b> is <b>in the north, and their blood requires four placements on the four corners of the altar. How</b> did the priest do so? <b>He ascended the ramp</b> of the altar <b>and turned</b> right <b>to the surrounding ledge</b> and he continued east, <b>and he came to the southeast corner</b> and sprinkled the blood of the sin offering there and then to the <b>northeast</b> corner and sprinkled the blood there, and then to the <b>northwest</b> corner and sprinkled the blood there, and the <b>southwest</b> corner, where he performed the fourth sprinkling and descended from the altar. <b>He would pour the remainder of the blood on the southern base</b> of the altar. <b>And</b> the meat portions of the offering <b>are eaten within the curtains,</b> i.e., in the Temple courtyard, <b>by the males of the priesthood.</b> And they are eaten prepared <b>in any</b> form of <b>food</b> preparation, <b>on</b> the <b>day</b> the offering is sacrificed <b>and</b> during the <b>night</b> that follows, <b>until midnight.</b>",
            "<b>The burnt offering</b> is <b>an offering of the most sacred order. Its slaughter</b> is <b>in the north</b> of the Temple courtyard <b>and the collection of its blood in a service vessel</b> is <b>in the north, and its blood requires two placements that are four, and</b> it <b>requires flaying</b> of its carcass <b>and the cutting</b> of the sacrificial animal into pieces, <b>and</b> it is consumed <b>in its entirety,</b> with the exception of its hide, <b>by the fire</b> of the altar.",
            "These are the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>communal peace offerings and guilt offerings. These are guilt offerings: The guilt offering for robbery,</b> brought by one from whom another demanded payment of a debt and he denied it and took a false oath (see Leviticus 5:20–26); <b>the guilt offering for</b> unwitting <b>misuse</b> of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16); <b>the guilt offering of an espoused maidservant,</b> brought by one who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave (see Leviticus 19:20–22); <b>the guilt offering of a nazirite</b> who became impure via contact with a corpse (see Numbers 6:12); <b>the guilt offering of a leper,</b> brought for his purification (see Leviticus 14:12); and <b>the provisional guilt offering,</b> brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering (see Leviticus 5:17–18). Concerning all of these, <b>their slaughter</b> is <b>in the north</b> of the Temple courtyard <b>and collection of their blood in a service vessel</b> is <b>in the north, and their blood requires two placements that are four. And</b> the meat portions of the offering <b>are eaten within the curtains,</b> i.e., in the Temple courtyard, <b>by male priests.</b> And they are eaten prepared <b>in any</b> manner of <b>food</b> preparation, <b>on</b> the <b>day</b> the offering was sacrificed <b>and</b> during the <b>night</b> that follows, <b>until midnight.</b>",
            "<b>The thanks offering and nazirite’s ram</b> are <b>offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter</b> is <b>anywhere in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city</b> of Jerusalem, <b>by every person,</b> i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared <b>in any</b> manner of <b>food</b> preparation, <b>on</b> the <b>day</b> the offering was sacrificed <b>and</b> during the <b>night</b> that follows, <b>until midnight.</b> The status of the portion <b>that is separated from them</b> and given to the priests <b>is similar to theirs; but</b> the portion <b>that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.</b>",
            "<b>Peace offerings</b> are <b>offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter</b> is <b>anywhere in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city</b> of Jerusalem, <b>by every person,</b> i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared <b>in any</b> manner of <b>food</b> preparation, <b>for two days and one night,</b> i.e., the day on which they are slaughtered, the following day, and the intervening night. The status of the portion <b>that is separated from them</b> and given to the priests <b>is similar to theirs; but</b> the portion <b>that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.</b>",
            "<b>The firstborn</b> offering, <b>the</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offering, <b>and the Paschal offering are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard, and their blood requires one placement, provided that</b> the priest <b>places it</b> so that the blood goes <b>on the base</b> of the altar. The <i>halakha</i> <b>differs with regard to their consumption. The firstborn</b> offering <b>is eaten by the priests, and the</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offer-ing is eaten <b>by any person,</b> i.e., any ritually pure Jew. <b>And they are eaten throughout the city</b> of Jerusalem, prepared <b>in any</b> manner of <b>food</b> preparation, <b>for two days and one night. The Paschal offering is eaten only at night, and it is eaten only until midnight, and it is eaten only by its registrants,</b> i.e., those who registered in advance to partake of the offering, <b>and it is eaten only roasted,</b> not prepared in any other manner."
        ],
        [
            "It was taught in the previous chapter that offerings of the most sacred order are to be slaughtered in the northern section of the Temple courtyard. With regard to <b>offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered atop the altar, Rabbi Yosei says:</b> Their status is <b>as though they were slaughtered in the north,</b> and the offerings are therefore valid. <b>Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:</b> The status of the area <b>from the halfway point of the altar and to the south</b> is <b>like</b> that of <b>the south,</b> and offerings of the most sacred order slaughtered in that area are therefore disqualified. The status of the area <b>from the halfway point of the altar and to the north</b> is <b>like</b> that of <b>the north.</b> <b>Handfuls were removed from the meal offerings in any place in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard and were consumed within</b> the area enclosed by <b>the curtains by males of the priesthood,</b> prepared <b>in any</b> form of <b>food</b> preparation that he chooses, e.g., roasted or boiled, <b>for</b> one <b>day and night, until midnight.</b>",
            "The sacrificial rite of <b>a bird sin offering would be performed at</b> the <b>southwest corner</b> of the altar. <b>And</b> if its sacrificial rite was performed <b>in any place</b> on the altar, the offering <b>was</b> deemed <b>valid; but that</b> corner <b>was its</b> designated <b>place. And</b> there were <b>three matters</b> for which the portion of <b>that corner below</b> the red line that served as the demarcation between the upper and lower portions of the altar <b>served</b> as the proper location, <b>and</b> there were <b>three</b> matters for which the portion of that corner <b>above</b> the red line served as their proper location. The following rites were performed <b>below</b> the red line: Sacrificing <b>a bird sin offering, and bringing</b> meal offerings <b>near</b> the altar before removal of the handful, <b>and</b> pouring out <b>the remaining blood.</b> <b>And</b> the following rites were performed <b>above</b> the red line: <b>The wine libation</b> that is brought together with animal offerings or as an offering by itself, <b>and the water</b> libation on the festival of <i>Sukkot</i>, <b>and</b> sacrificing <b>a bird burnt offering when</b> they were <b>numerous</b> and it was impossible to perform the rite <b>in the east,</b> i.e., the southeastern corner where the bird burnt offering was sacrificed.",
            "<b>All</b> those <b>who ascend</b> the ramp <b>to the altar ascend via</b> the <b>right</b> side of the ramp toward the southeast corner <b>and circle</b> the altar until reaching the southwest corner <b>and descend via</b> the <b>left</b> side of the ramp, <b>except for one who ascends for</b> one of <b>these three matters, where they would ascend</b> directly to the southwest corner of the altar, <b>and descend</b> by turning <b>on</b> their <b>heels</b> and retracing the path by which they ascended rather than circling the altar.",
            "The sacrifice of <b>the bird sin offering, how was it performed?</b> The priest <b>would pinch</b> off <b>the</b> bird’s <b>head</b> by cutting <b>opposite its nape</b> with his thumbnail <b>and</b> would <b>not separate</b> the bird’s head from its body. <b>And he sprinkles from its blood on the wall of the altar</b> below the red line. <b>The remaining blood would be squeezed out</b> from the body of the bird <b>on the base</b> of the altar. <b>The altar has only its blood and the entire</b> bird goes <b>to the priests</b> for consumption.",
            "The sacrifice of <b>the bird burnt offering, how was it performed?</b> The priest <b>ascended the ramp and turned to the surrounding ledge and came to</b> the <b>southeast corner</b> of the altar. He <b>would</b> then <b>pinch</b> off <b>the</b> bird’s <b>head</b> by cutting <b>at its nape</b> with his thumbnail <b>and separate</b> the bird’s head from its body, <b>and</b> would <b>squeeze out its blood on the wall of the altar. He took the head and neared the place of its pinching,</b> i.e., its nape, <b>to the altar</b> in order to squeeze the blood from the head. <b>He would</b> then <b>absorb</b> the remaining blood <b>with salt and throw</b> the head <b>onto the fire</b> on the altar. <b>He</b> then <b>arrived at the body and removed the crop and the feather</b> attached to it <b>and the innards that emerge with them and he tossed them to the place of the ashes. He</b> then <b>ripped</b> the bird lengthwise <b>and did not separate</b> the two halves of the bird; <b>but if he separated</b> them, the offering is <b>valid.</b> He would then <b>absorb</b> the remaining blood <b>with salt and throw</b> the body of the bird <b>onto the fire</b> on the altar.",
            "If <b>he neither removed the crop, nor the feather and the innards that emerge with them, nor absorbed</b> the blood <b>with salt,</b> with regard to <b>any</b> detail <b>that he changed in</b> the sacrificial rites <b>after he squeezed out its blood,</b> the offering is <b>valid.</b> If <b>he separated</b> the head from the body <b>in</b> sacrificing <b>the sin offering, or</b> if <b>he did not separate</b> the head from the body <b>in</b> sacrificing <b>the burnt offering,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified.</b> In a case where <b>he squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified.</b> If he squeezed out the <b>blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head,</b> the offering is <b>valid.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>a bird sin offering that</b> the priest <b>pinched not for its sake,</b> or if <b>he squeezed out its blood not for its sake,</b> or if he did so <b>for its sake and</b> then <b>not for its sake, or not for its sake and</b> then <b>for its sake,</b> it is <b>disqualified,</b> like all other sin offerings that are disqualified when performed not for their sake (see 2a). <b>A bird burnt offering</b> sacrificed not for its sake is <b>valid;</b> it is <b>just that it did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.</b> With regard to <b>both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering where</b> the priest <b>pinched its nape or squeezed out its blood</b> with the intent <b>to partake of an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>partakes</b> of it, <b>or to burn an item whose</b> typical <b>manner</b> is such that one <b>burns</b> it on the altar, <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified.</b> But <b>there is no</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and</b> one is <b>liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> partaking of the offering, <b>provided that the permitting factor,</b> the blood, <b>was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b> <b>How</b> is <b>the permitting factor sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva?</b> If one <b>pinched</b> the nape <b>in silence,</b> i.e., with no disqualifying intent, <b>and squeezed out</b> its <b>blood</b> with the intent to partake of the parts typically eaten or to burn the portions that are to be burned on the altar, <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time; or</b> in the case of one <b>who pinched</b> with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, and squeezed out</b> its <b>blood in silence; or</b> in the case of one <b>who pinched and squeezed out the blood</b> with the intent to partake of the offering or burn it on the altar <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, that is</b> the case of a bird offering <b>where</b> the <b>permitting factor is sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b> <b>How</b> is <b>the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva?</b> If the priest <b>pinched</b> the nape of the bird with the intent to partake of it or burn it <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area</b> and <b>squeezed out</b> its <b>blood</b> with the intent to partake of it or burn it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, or</b> he <b>pinched</b> with the intent to partake of it or burn it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time and squeezed out</b> its <b>blood</b> with the intent to partake of it or burn it <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area, or</b> if the priest <b>pinched and squeezed out the blood</b> with the intent to partake of it or burn it <b>outside its</b> designated <b>area,</b> or in the case of <b>a bird sin offering where one pinched</b> its nape <b>not for its sake and squeezed out</b> its <b>blood</b> with the intent of consuming it or burning it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time, or</b> in a case <b>where he pinched</b> its nape with the intent to consume it or burn it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time and squeezed out</b> its <b>blood not for its sake, or</b> in a case <b>where he pinched</b> its nape <b>and squeezed out its blood not for its sake, that is</b> a case of a bird offering <b>whose permitting factor is not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.</b> If one pinched the nape of the bird and squeezed out its blood with the intent <b>to eat an olive-bulk</b> of the offering <b>outside</b> its designated area and <b>an olive-bulk the next day,</b> or <b>an olive-bulk the next day</b> and <b>an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area, or <b>half an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area and <b>half an olive-bulk the next day,</b> or <b>half an olive-bulk the next day</b> and <b>half an olive-bulk outside</b> its designated area, the offering is <b>disqualified and</b> it <b>does not include</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i>.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda</b> disagreed and <b>said</b> that <b>this is the principle: If the</b> improper <b>intent</b> with regard to <b>the time preceded the intent</b> with regard to <b>the area,</b> the offering is <b><i>piggul</i> and one is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> eating <b>it. And if the intent</b> with regard to <b>the area preceded the intent</b> with regard to <b>the time,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified and</b> it <b>does not include</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i>. And the Rabbis say:</b> In both <b>this</b> case where the intent with regard to time came first <b>and that</b> case where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is <b>disqualified and</b> it <b>does not include</b> liability to receive <b><i>karet</i>.</b> If his intent was <b>to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk</b> not at the appropriate time or in the appropriate area, the offering is <b>valid, because eating and burning do not join together.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "If the priest <b>sacrificed a bird sin offering</b> in its designated place <b>below</b> the red line, and he sacrificed it <b>according to the procedure of a sin offering</b> with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it <b>for the sake of a sin offering,</b> the offering is <b>fit.</b> This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering <i>ab initio</i>.  If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and <b>according to the procedure of a sin offering,</b> but he sacrificed it <b>for the sake of a burnt offering;</b> or if he sacrificed it <b>according to the procedure of a burnt offering,</b> even if he sacrificed it <b>for the sake of a sin offering;</b> or if he sacrificed it <b>according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering;</b> in all these cases the sin offering is <b>disqualified.</b> If <b>one sacrificed</b> a bird sin offering <b>above</b> the red line <b>according to the procedure of any of</b> the offerings, it is <b>disqualified,</b> because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.",
            "<b>A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed</b> in its designated place <b>above</b> the red line <b>according to the procedure of a burnt offering</b> and <b>for the sake of a burnt offering</b> is <b>fit.</b> This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering <i>ab initio</i>. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line <b>according to the procedure of</b> the <b>burnt offering</b> but <b>for the sake of a sin offering,</b> the offering is <b>fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.</b> If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering <b>according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering,</b> or <b>according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified.</b> If <b>he sacrificed it below</b> the red line <b>according to the procedure of any of</b> the offerings, it is <b>disqualified,</b> because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.",
            "<b>And all of</b> the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they <b>do not render</b> one who swallows their meat <b>ritually impure</b> when the meat is <b>in the throat.</b> This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. <b>But</b> nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of <b>them</b> is liable for <b>misusing</b> consecrated property. This is the <i>halakha</i> in all cases <b>except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below</b> the red line <b>according to the procedure of</b> the <b>sin offering</b> and <b>for the sake of a sin offering.</b> Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property. ",
            "In the case of <b>a bird burnt offering that</b> one improperly <b>sacrificed below</b> the red line <b>according to the procedure of</b> the <b>sin offering,</b> and one did so <b>for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> One who derives benefit from <b>it</b> is liable for <b>misusing</b> consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> One who derives benefit from <b>it</b> is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing</b> consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard. The mishna recounts the dispute between the <i>tanna’im</i>. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said: And if</b> in the case of <b>a sin offering that</b> was sacrificed <b>for its sake,</b> one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing it,</b> and nevertheless, <b>when one changed its designation</b> and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for <b>misusing it,</b> then in the case of <b>a burnt offering, where</b> one is liable for <b>misusing it</b> even when it was sacrificed <b>for its sake, when one changed its designation</b> and sacrificed it not for its sake <b>is it not right that</b> he is liable for <b>misusing it?</b> <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,</b> that <i>a fortiori</i> inference is not correct, as <b>if you said with regard to a sin offering</b> for <b>which one changed its designation</b> and sacrificed it <b>for the sake of a burnt offering</b> that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, <b>because he changed its designation to an item for which there is</b> liability for <b>misuse. Would you say in</b> the case of <b>a burnt offering</b> for <b>which one changed its designation</b> and sacrificed it <b>for the sake of a sin offering</b> that there is liability for misuse, <b>as</b> in that case <b>he changed its designation to an item for which there is no</b> liability for its <b>misuse?</b> <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to him:</b> The case of <b>offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south</b> of the Temple courtyard <b>and slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, will prove</b> that the fact that one changed the offering’s designation to an item that is not subject to the <i>halakhot</i> of misuse is not a relevant factor. <b>As</b> in this case, one <b>changed their designation to an item that is not subject to</b> the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>misuse and,</b> nevertheless, one is liable for <b>misusing them. You too should not be puzzled about the burnt offering,</b> concerning which <b>even though one changed its designation to an item that is not subject to</b> the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>misuse,</b> the <i>halakha</i> is <b>that</b> one would be liable for <b>misusing it.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No,</b> that is no proof, as <b>if you said with regard to offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south</b> of the Temple courtyard, <b>and slaughtered them for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> that one is liable for misusing them, that is reasonable. The reason is <b>that</b> one who slaughtered them <b>changed their designation to an item for which there are both prohibited and permitted</b> elements as offerings of lesser sanctity. Although one is not liable for misuse of their flesh, after the blood is sprinkled one is liable for misuse of the portions consumed on the altar. <b>Would you say</b> the <i>halakha</i> is the same <b>in</b> the case of <b>a burnt offering</b> for <b>which one changed its designation to an item that</b> is <b>permitted in its entirety,</b> i.e., a bird sin offering, which is eaten by the priests and none of it is burned on the altar?",
            " If a priest <b>pinched</b> it <b>with</b> the thumbnail of his <b>left</b> hand, <b>or</b> if he pinched it <b>at night,</b> or if <b>he slaughtered a non-sacred</b> bird <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard <b>or a sacrificial</b> bird <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard, in all these cases, although it is prohibited to consume these birds, <b>they do not render</b> one <b>ritually impure</b> when they are <b>in the throat,</b> as the halakhic status of pinching is like that of slaughtering. If <b>he pinched with a knife</b> and not with his thumbnail; or if <b>he pinched a non-sacred</b> bird <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard <b>or a sacrificial</b> bird <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard; or if he pinched <b>doves whose time</b> of fitness for sacrifice <b>has not</b> yet <b>arrived,</b> as they are too young to be sacrificed; <b>or if he</b> pinched <b>pigeons whose time</b> of fitness <b>has passed,</b> as they are too old; or if he pinched the nape of a fledgling <b>whose wing was withered,</b> or <b>whose eye was blinded, or whose leg was severed;</b> in all these cases, although the bird’s nape was pinched, <b>it renders</b> one who swallows it <b>ritually impure</b> when it is <b>in the throat.</b> <b>This is the principle:</b> The meat of <b>any</b> bird that was initially fit for sacrifice and <b>whose disqualification</b> occurred in the course of the service <b>in the sacred</b> Temple courtyard <b>does not render</b> one who swallows it <b>ritually impure</b> when it is <b>in the throat.</b> The meat of any bird <b>whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred</b> area, but rather was disqualified before the service began, <b>renders</b> one <b>ritually impure</b> when it is <b>in the throat.</b> With regard to <b>any</b> of those people <b>disqualified</b> from performing the Temple service <b>who pinched</b> the nape of a bird offering, <b>their pinching is not valid, but</b> the offering’s meat <b>does not render</b> one who swallows it <b>ritually impure</b> when it is <b>in the throat,</b> as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered.",
            "If the priest <b>pinched</b> the nape of the bird’s neck properly <b>and</b> then <b>it was found</b> to be <b>a <i>tereifa</i>,</b> and it was therefore disqualified from being sacrificed and forbidden for consumption by a priest, <b>Rabbi Meir says:</b> An olive-bulk of its meat <b>does not render</b> one who swallows it <b>ritually impure</b> when it is <b>in the throat,</b> as the pinching prevents it from assuming the status of a carcass. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and its meat <b>renders</b> one who swallows it <b>ritually impure.</b> <b>Rabbi Meir said:</b> My opinion can be inferred <b><i>a fortiori</i>. If an animal carcass transmits impurity</b> to a person <b>through touching</b> it <b>and through carrying</b> it, and nevertheless the <b>slaughter of</b> an animal <b>purifies it,</b> even if it is <b>a <i>tereifa</i>, from its impurity,</b> i.e., its slaughter prevents it from assuming the impurity status of a carcass, then with regard to <b>a bird carcass, which</b> possesses a lesser degree of impurity, as it <b>does not transmit impurity</b> to a person <b>through touching</b> it <b>and through carrying</b> it, but only through swallowing it, <b>is it not logical that its slaughter should purify it,</b> even if it is <b>a <i>tereifa</i>, from its impurity?</b> And once it is established that slaughter renders a bird that is a <i>tereifa</i> pure, it can be inferred that <b>just as we found with regard to its slaughter that it renders</b> a bird <b>fit for consumption and purifies</b> a bird, even if it is <b>a <i>tereifa</i>, from its impurity, so too its pinching, which renders</b> a bird offering <b>fit with regard to consumption, should purify it,</b> even if it is <b>a <i>tereifa</i>, from its impurity.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei says:</b> Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter renders even a bird that is a <i>tereifa</i> pure, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every <i>a fortiori</i> inference, namely, that a <i>halakha</i> derived by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: <b>It is sufficient</b> for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a <i>tereifa</i> to be <b>like</b> that of <b>the carcass of</b> an <b>animal</b> that is a <i>tereifa</i>; <b>its slaughter renders it pure, but its pinching</b> does <b>not.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>All the offerings that were intermingled with</b> animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden, e.g., <b>sin offerings</b> left to <b>die, or with an ox that</b> was sentenced to be <b>stoned, even</b> if the ratio is <b>one in ten thousand,</b> deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and <b>they all must die.</b> If the offerings <b>were intermingled with</b> animals whose sacrifice is forbidden but deriving benefit from them is not, the <i>halakha</i> is different. Examples of this are <b>an ox with which a transgression was performed,</b> which disqualifies it from being sacrificed as an offering, <b>or</b> an ox <b>that</b> is known to have <b>killed a person based on</b> the testimony of <b>one witness or based on</b> the admission of <b>the owner.</b> Had two witnesses testified, deriving benefit from the ox would have been prohibited. Additional examples include when an offering is intermingled <b>with an animal that copulated with a person; or an animal that was the object of bestiality;</b> or <b>with</b> an animal that was <b>set aside</b> for idol worship; <b>or</b> one that <b>was worshipped</b> as a deity; or <b>with</b> an animal that was given as <b>payment</b> to a prostitute <b>or</b> as the <b>price</b> of a dog, as it is written: “You shall not bring the payment of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). Additional examples include an offering that was intermingled <b>with</b> an animal born of a mixture of <b>diverse kinds,</b> e.g., the offspring of a ram and a goat, <b>or with an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>],</b> or <b>with</b> an animal <b>born by caesarean section.</b> In all these cases the animals that are intermingled <b>shall graze until they become unfit</b> for sacrifice <b>and</b> then <b>they shall be sold. And</b> from the money received in the sale, the owner <b>shall bring</b> another offering <b>of the monetary value of</b> the <b>highest-quality</b> animal <b>among them, of the same type</b> of offering that the intermingled offering was. The mishna continues: If sacrificial animals <b>were intermingled with unblemished, non-sacred</b> animals, which, if consecrated, are fit for sacrifice, <b>the non-sacred</b> animals <b>shall be sold for the purpose</b> of purchasing offerings <b>of the same type</b> as the offering with which they were intermingled.",
            "In a case where <b>sacrificial</b> animals were intermingled <b>with</b> other <b>sacrificial</b> animals, if it was an animal of one <b>type</b> of offering <b>with</b> animals of the same <b>type</b> of offering, <b>one shall sacrifice this</b> animal <b>for the sake of whoever is</b> its owner <b>and one shall sacrifice that</b> animal <b>for the sake of whoever is</b> its owner, and both fulfill their obligation. In a case where <b>sacrificial</b> animals were intermingled <b>with</b> other <b>sacrificial</b> animals, where an animal of one <b>type</b> of offering was intermingled <b>with</b> animals <b>not</b> of the same <b>type</b> of offering, e.g., two rams, where one is designated as a burnt offering and one as a peace offering, <b>they shall graze until they become unfit</b> for sacrifice <b>and</b> then <b>they shall be sold. And</b> from the money received in the sale, the owner <b>shall bring</b> another offering <b>of the monetary value of</b> the <b>highest-quality</b> animal <b>among them as this type</b> of offering, <b>and</b> another offering <b>of the monetary value of</b> the <b>highest-quality</b> animal <b>among them as that type</b> of offering, <b>and he will lose the additional</b> expense of purchasing two highest-quality animals, when he had sold only one highest-quality animal, <b>from his</b> own <b>assets.</b> In a case where sacrificial animals <b>were intermingled with a firstborn</b> offering <b>or with</b> an animal <b>tithe</b> offering, <b>they shall graze until they become unfit</b> for sacrifice <b>and they shall</b> both <b>be eaten as a firstborn</b> offering <b>or as</b> an animal <b>tithe</b> offering. <b>All</b> offerings <b>can become</b> indistinguishably <b>intermingled</b> with each other, <b>except for a sin offering and a guilt offering,</b> as the Gemara will explain.",
            "In the case of <b>a guilt offering that was intermingled with a peace offering, Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north</b> of the Temple courtyard, as a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north while a peace offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. <b>And</b> they both <b>must be eaten in accordance with</b> the <i>halakha</i> of <b>the</b> more <b>stringent of them,</b> i.e., the guilt offering, with the following <i>halakhot</i>: They may be eaten only in the courtyard rather than throughout Jerusalem; by male priests and not by any ritually pure Jew; and on the day they were sacrificed and the following night, and not on the day they were sacrificed, the following day, and the intervening night. The Rabbis <b>said to</b> Rabbi Shimon: One may not limit the time of the consumption of an offering, as <b>one may not bring sacrificial</b> animals <b>to the status of unfitness.</b> According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, the peace offering becomes leftover, <i>notar</i>, the morning after it is sacrificed, and not at the end of that day, as is the <i>halakha</i> concerning peace offerings. Rather, the owner shall wait until these animals become blemished, redeem them, and bring an offering of each type that is worth the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them. The mishna adds: Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if <b>pieces</b> of the meat of one offering <b>were intermingled with pieces</b> of the meat of another offering, e.g., meat from <b>offerings of the most sacred order with</b> meat from <b>offerings of lesser sanctity;</b> or if pieces of meat from offerings <b>eaten for one day</b> and the following night were intermingled <b>with</b> pieces of meat from offerings <b>eaten for two days and</b> one <b>night,</b> since in that case the remedy with regard to offerings that were intermingled cannot be implemented, they both <b>must be eaten in accordance with</b> the <i>halakha</i> of <b>the</b> more <b>stringent of them.</b>",
            "In the case of <b>the limbs of a sin offering,</b> which are eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, <b>that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering,</b> which are burned on the altar, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The priest <b>shall place</b> all the limbs <b>above,</b> on the altar, <b>and I view the flesh</b> of the limbs <b>of the sin offering above</b> on the altar <b>as though they are</b> pieces of <b>wood</b> burned on the altar, and not as though they are an offering. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> One should wait until <b>the form of</b> all the intermingled limbs <b>decays and they will</b> all <b>go out to the place of burning</b> in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.",
            "In a case where <b>limbs</b> of burnt offerings fit for sacrifice were intermingled <b>with limbs of blemished</b> burnt offerings, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Although all the limbs are unfit for sacrifice, <b>if the head of one of them was sacrificed all the heads shall be sacrificed,</b> as the head that was sacrificed is assumed to have been that of the unfit animal in the mixture. Likewise, if one sacrificed <b>the legs of one of them all the legs shall be sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: Even</b> if <b>all</b> the limbs <b>were sacrificed except for one of them,</b> there is a concern that the remaining limb is the unfit limb, which may not be sacrificed. Rather, all of the limbs <b>must go out to the place of burning</b> in the Temple courtyard.",
            "In the case of <b>blood</b> of an offering fit for sacrifice <b>that was mixed with water, if</b> the mixture <b>has the appearance of blood</b> it is <b>fit</b> for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood <b>was mixed with</b> red <b>wine, one views</b> the wine <b>as though it is water.</b> If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise if the blood <b>was mixed with the blood of</b> a non-sacred <b>domesticated animal or the blood of</b> a non-sacred <b>undomesticated animal, one considers</b> the non-sacred blood <b>as though it is water.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood.</b> Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.",
            "If blood fit for presentation <b>was mixed with the blood of unfit</b> offerings, there is no remedy. Therefore, the entire mixture <b>shall be poured into the drain</b> running through the Temple courtyard. Likewise, if blood fit for presentation was mixed <b>with blood of exudate,</b> i.e., that exudes from the neck after the initial spurt following its slaughter concludes, which is unfit for presentation, the entire mixture <b>shall be poured into the</b> Temple courtyard <b>drain. Rabbi Eliezer deems</b> this mixture <b>fit</b> for presentation. Even according to the first <i>tanna</i>, <b>if</b> the priest <b>did not consult</b> the authorities <b>and placed</b> the blood on the altar, the offering is <b>fit.</b>",
            "If <b>the blood of unblemished</b> offerings was mixed <b>with the blood of blemished</b> animals unfit for sacrifice, the entire mixture <b>shall be poured into the</b> Temple courtyard <b>drain.</b> This is the <i>halakha</i> when the fit and unfit blood were mixed in one vessel. By contrast, if <b>a cup</b> of the blood of a blemished offering was intermingled <b>with cups</b> of blood fit for offering and it is unclear which blood is in the cup, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Although it is prohibited to present all the blood due to the uncertainty, <b>if</b> it happened that a priest already <b>sacrificed,</b> i.e., presented, <b>one cup,</b> the blood in <b>all</b> the other <b>cups shall be sacrificed,</b> as the blood that was presented is assumed to have come from the unfit cup in the mixture. <b>And the Rabbis say: Even</b> if the blood in <b>all</b> the cups <b>was sacrificed except for one of them,</b> the remaining blood <b>shall be poured into the</b> Temple courtyard <b>drain.</b>",
            "With regard to blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed below</b> the red line circumscribing the altar, e.g., blood of a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, <b>that was mixed with</b> blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed above</b> the red line, e.g., blood of a sin offering, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The priest <b>shall</b> initially <b>place</b> the blood of the mixture <b>above</b> the red line for the sake of the sin offering, <b>and I view</b> the blood that was to be placed <b>below</b> that was in fact placed <b>above as though it is water, and</b> the priest shall <b>again place</b> blood from the mixture <b>below. And the Rabbis say:</b> It <b>shall</b> all <b>be poured into the</b> Temple courtyard <b>drain.</b> Even according to the Rabbis, <b>if</b> the priest <b>did not consult</b> the authorities <b>and placed</b> the blood above the red line, the offering is <b>fit,</b> and he should then place the remaining blood below the red line.",
            "In a case of the blood of an offering <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed</b> on the altar <b>with one placement that was mixed with</b> the blood of another offering <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed</b> on the altar <b>with one placement,</b> e.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of another firstborn offering or the blood of an animal tithe offering, the blood <b>shall be placed with one placement.</b> In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with <b>four placements</b> that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar <b>with four placements,</b> e.g., the blood of a sin offering with that of another sin offering, or the blood of a burnt offering with that of a peace offering, the blood <b>shall be placed with four placements.</b> If the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with <b>four placements</b> was mixed with the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar <b>with one placement, Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The blood <b>shall be placed with four placements. Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> The blood <b>shall be placed with one placement,</b> as the priest fulfills the requirement with one placement after the fact. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to</b> Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest <b>violates</b> the prohibition of: <b>Do not diminish,</b> as it is written: “All these matters that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 13:1). One may not diminish the number of required placements from four to one. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said to</b> Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, the priest <b>violates</b> the prohibition of: <b>Do not add,</b> derived from the same verse. One may not add to the one required placement and place four. <b>Rabbi Eliezer said to</b> Rabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition of: <b>Do not add, is stated only</b> in a case <b>where</b> the blood <b>is by itself,</b> not when it is part of a mixture. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua said to</b> Rabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition of: <b>Do not diminish, is stated only</b> in a case <b>where</b> the blood <b>is by itself. And Rabbi Yehoshua also said: When you placed</b> four placements, <b>you transgressed</b> the prohibition of: <b>Do not add, and you performed a direct action. When you did not place</b> four placements but only one, although <b>you transgressed</b> the prohibition of: <b>Do not diminish, you did not perform a direct action.</b> An active transgression is more severe than a passive one.",
            "Blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed</b> on three locations <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary, i.e., between the staves, on the Curtain, and on the golden altar, <b>that was mixed with</b> blood <b>that is</b> to be <b>placed outside</b> the Sanctuary on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, has no remedy, as one may not change the location of the placement of the blood of one to fulfill his obligation with the other type of blood. Therefore, all the blood <b>shall be poured into the</b> Temple courtyard <b>drain.</b> If the priest, on his own initiative, <b>placed</b> the mixture of blood <b>outside</b> the Sanctuary <b>and again placed</b> the mixture of blood <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary, the offering is <b>fit.</b> If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary <b>and again placed</b> the mixture of blood <b>outside</b> the Sanctuary, <b>Rabbi Akiva deems</b> the blood placed outside <b>disqualified, and the Rabbis deem</b> it <b>fit. As Rabbi Akiva says: Any blood</b> that is to be presented outside <b>that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified; but the Rabbis say:</b> That is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to the blood of an external <b>sin offering alone,</b> as it is written: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The status of <b>a guilt offering</b> is like that of a sin offering <b>as well, as it is stated: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”</b> (Leviticus 7:7), i.e., there is one <i>halakha</i> for them. That is not the case with regard to the blood of other offerings.",
            "In the case of <b>a sin offering</b> whose blood placement is on the external altar <b>whose blood</b> the priest <b>collected in two cups,</b> if <b>one of them left</b> the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, <b>the</b> cup that remained <b>inside</b> the courtyard is <b>fit</b> to be presented. If <b>one of the</b> cups <b>entered inside</b> the Sanctuary and was thereby disqualified, <b>Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deems</b> the blood <b>in the</b> cup that remained <b>outside</b> the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, <b>fit</b> to be presented, <b>and the Rabbis deem it disqualified</b> from being presented. <b>Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said</b> in support of his opinion: The <i>halakha</i> is that if one slaughters an offering with the intent that its blood be presented outside of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified, but if his intention was that the blood be presented inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not disqualified. <b>Just as in</b> a case where part of the blood reached <b>a place where the intent</b> to present the blood there <b>disqualifies</b> the offering, i.e., <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard, and yet when some of the blood is taken there it <b>does not render the</b> status of the <b>remaining</b> blood disqualified <b>like</b> that of blood that <b>leaves</b> the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached <b>a place where the intent</b> to present the blood there <b>does not disqualify</b> the offering, i.e., <b>inside</b> the Sanctuary, <b>is it not logical that we will not deem</b> the status of <b>the remaining</b> blood <b>like</b> that of blood that <b>entered</b> the Sanctuary? The mishna continues: If all of the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar <b>entered</b> the Sanctuary <b>to atone</b> through sprinkling, <b>despite</b> the fact <b>that</b> the priest <b>did not</b> actually sprinkle the blood to <b>atone,</b> the offering is <b>disqualified;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> The offering is disqualified <b>only when he atones</b> and sprinkles the blood in the Sanctuary. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: If he took</b> the blood <b>into</b> the Sanctuary <b>unwittingly,</b> the blood remains <b>fit</b> to be presented. With regard to <b>all the blood disqualified</b> for presentation <b>that was placed on the altar, the frontplate effects acceptance only</b> for offerings sacrificed <b>that</b> are <b>ritually impure.</b> Although it is written with regard to the frontplate worn on the forehead of the High Priest: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters” (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is <b>because the frontplate effects acceptance for</b> offerings sacri-ficed <b>that</b> are <b>ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for</b> offerings <b>that leave</b> the courtyard."
        ],
        [
            "Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed. The mishna teaches: <b>The altar sanctifies</b> only items <b>that are suited to it.</b> The <i>tanna’im</i> disagree as to the definition of suited for the altar. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any</b> item <b>that is suited to</b> be consumed by <b>the fire</b> on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, <b>if it ascended</b> upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed <i>ab initio</i>, <b>it shall not descend.</b> Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, <b>as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre</b> upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: <b>Just as</b> with regard to <b>a burnt offering, which is suited to</b> be consumed by <b>the fire</b> on the altar, <b>if it ascended it shall not descend, so too,</b> with regard to <b>any</b> item <b>that is suited to</b> be consumed by <b>the fire</b> on the altar, <b>if it ascended it shall not descend.</b> <b>Rabban Gamliel says:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> item <b>that is suited to</b> ascend upon <b>the altar,</b> even if it is not typically consumed, <b>if it ascended, it shall not descend,</b> even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed <i>ab initio</i>, <b>as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar,”</b> from which it is derived: <b>Just as</b> with regard to <b>a burnt offering, which is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, any</b> item <b>that is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.</b> The mishna comments: <b>The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only</b> with regard to disqualified <b>blood and</b> disqualified <b>libations,</b> which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, <b>as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend,</b> as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, <b>and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend,</b> as they are not burned on the altar. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Whether <b>the offering was fit and</b> the accompanying <b>libations</b> were <b>unfit,</b> e.g., if they became ritually impure or they were brought outside their designated area, or whether <b>the libations</b> were <b>fit and the offering</b> was <b>unfit,</b> rendering the accompanying libations unfit as well, and <b>even</b> if both <b>this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend,</b> as it was sanctified by the altar, <b>but the libations shall descend.</b>",
            "<b>These</b> are the items that even if they were disqualified, <b>if they ascended</b> the altar <b>they shall not descend:</b> Blood, sacrificial portions, or limbs of a burnt offering, any of <b>which were left overnight</b> off the altar, <b>or that emerge</b> from the Temple courtyard, <b>or that</b> become <b>ritually impure, or</b> that came from an animal <b>that was slaughtered</b> with the intent to sacrifice it <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time or outside its</b> designated <b>area, or</b> an offering <b>that</b> people <b>unfit</b> to perform the Temple service <b>collected and</b> then <b>sprinkled its blood.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> In the case of a sacrificial animal <b>that was slaughtered at night, or</b> one <b>whose blood was spilled</b> on the floor of the Temple without its being collected in a vessel, <b>or</b> one whose <b>blood emerged outside the curtains,</b> i.e., outside the Temple courtyard: Even <b>if it ascended</b> upon the altar <b>it shall descend. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> In all these cases, if it ascended <b>it shall not descend, because its disqualification</b> occurred <b>in sanctity. As Rabbi Shimon says:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> unfit offering <b>whose disqualification</b> occurred <b>in sanctity,</b> i.e., in the course of the Temple service, <b>the sacred</b> area <b>renders</b> the offering <b>acceptable,</b> and if it ascended onto the altar it shall not descend. But with regard to any offering <b>whose disqualification</b> did <b>not</b> occur <b>in sanctity</b> but rather was unfit initially, <b>the sacred</b> area <b>does not render</b> the offering <b>acceptable.</b> ",
            "<b>And these are</b> the offerings <b>whose disqualification</b> did <b>not</b> occur <b>in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and</b> an animal that was <b>set aside</b> for idol worship, <b>and</b> an animal that was <b>worshipped</b> as a deity, <b>and</b> an animal that was given as <b>payment</b> to a prostitute <b>or</b> as <b>the price</b> of a dog, <b>and</b> an animal born of a mixture of <b>diverse kinds, and an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>], and</b> an animal <b>born by caesarean section, and blemished</b> animals. <b>Rabbi Akiva deems blemished</b> animals <b>fit</b> in the sense that if they ascended they shall not descend. <b>Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished</b> animals <b>from upon the altar.</b>",
            "Concerning those animals that, if they ascended, do not descend, <b>just as if they ascended</b> the altar <b>they shall not descend, so too, if they descended they shall not</b> then <b>ascend. And all of them that</b> if they ascend they do not descend, if <b>they ascended to the top of the altar alive they descend,</b> as an animal is fit for the altar only after it is slaughtered. <b>A burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend,</b> as one does not slaughter an animal atop the altar <i>ab initio</i>. But if <b>one slaughtered</b> the animal <b>at the top of the altar, he should flay</b> it <b>and cut it into pieces in its place,</b> and it is not removed from the altar.",
            "<b>And these</b> are the items that <b>if they ascended</b> upon the altar <b>they descend,</b> because they are completely unfit for the altar: <b>The meat of offerings of the most sacred order,</b> i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; <b>and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> which is eaten by the owners; <b>and the surplus of the <i>omer</i></b> meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; <b>and the two loaves</b> meal offering brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>; <b>and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings</b> after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; <b>and the incense</b> that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned. With regard to <b>the wool that is on the heads of the sheep</b> brought as burnt offerings, <b>and the hair that is in the beard of goats</b> that were sacrificed, <b>and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached</b> to the flesh of the offering <b>they shall ascend</b> upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, <b>as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke</b> on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If <b>they separated</b> from the flesh of the offering <b>they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”</b> (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.",
            "<b>And all of</b> those disqualified offerings with regard to which it was taught (84a) that if they ascended they do not descend, in a case <b>where they were dislodged from upon the altar,</b> the priest <b>does not restore</b> them to the altar. <b>And likewise,</b> with regard to <b>an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar,</b> the priest <b>does not restore</b> it to the altar. As for <b>limbs</b> of a fit burnt offering <b>that were dislodged from upon the altar,</b> if they were dislodged <b>before midnight,</b> the priest <b>should restore</b> them to the altar <b>and</b> one is liable for <b>misusing them.</b> But if they were dislodged <b>after midnight,</b> the priest <b>does not restore them and</b> one is <b>not</b> liable for <b>misusing them,</b> as one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property after it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designated.",
            "With regard to unfit items that if they ascended do not descend, <b>just as the altar sanctifies</b> items <b>that are suited to it, so too, the ramp sanctifies</b> items that are suited to it. <b>Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify</b> items <b>that are suited to them, so too, the</b> service <b>vessels sanctify</b> items that are placed in them. The mishna elaborates on the <i>halakha</i> taught in the previous mishna (86a) that service vessels sanctify items placed in them. <b>The</b> service <b>vessels</b> used for <b>liquids sanctify</b> only <b>liquids</b> used in the service, <b>and</b> the service vessels that serve as <b>dry measures sanctify</b> only <b>dry</b> items used in the service. <b>The</b> service <b>vessels</b> used for <b>liquids do not sanctify dry</b> items, <b>and</b> the service vessels used for <b>dry</b> items <b>do not sanctify liquids.</b> With regard to <b>sacred vessels that were perforated, if one</b> continues to <b>utilize them</b> for a use <b>similar to the use for which they would utilize them</b> previously when <b>they</b> were <b>whole, they</b> continue to <b>sanctify</b> their contents. <b>And if not, they do not sanctify</b> their contents. <b>And all of</b> these vessels <b>sanctify</b> items <b>only</b> when they are <b>in the sacred</b> area, i.e., the Temple courtyard."
        ],
        [
            "<b>Any</b> offering <b>that is</b> more <b>frequent than another precedes the other</b> offering. Therefore, <b>the daily offerings precede the additional offerings,</b> which are sacrificed only on certain days. When Shabbat and the New Moon coincide, the <b>additional Shabbat offerings precede</b> the <b>additional New Moon offerings.</b> Likewise, the <b>additional New Moon offerings precede</b> the <b>additional New Year offerings.</b> The mishna cites the source for the principle that the frequent precedes the less frequent: <b>As it is stated</b> with regard to the additional offerings of the first day of Passover: <b>“Besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt offering, you shall offer these”</b> (Numbers 28:23). The verse indicates that the daily offering is sacrificed first, and then the additional offerings are sacrificed.",
            "<b>Any</b> offering <b>that is</b> more <b>sacred than another precedes the other</b> offering. The mishna elaborates: If there is blood of a sin offering and blood of a burnt offering to be presented, <b>the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering because it effects acceptance,</b> i.e., atonement, for severe transgressions punishable by <i>karet</i>. Likewise, if there are limbs of a burnt offering and portions of a sin offering to be burned on the altar, the burning of <b>the limbs of</b> the <b>burnt offering precedes the portions of</b> the <b>sin offering, because</b> the burnt offering <b>is entirely</b> burned <b>in the flames</b> on the altar, whereas only part of the sin offering is burned. Similarly, although both effect atonement, <b>a sin offering precedes a guilt offering due to</b> the fact <b>that its blood is placed on</b> the <b>four corners</b> of the altar and the remnants of its blood are poured <b>on the base</b> of the altar, whereas the blood of the guilt offering is sprinkled on only two corners of the altar. <b>A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and</b> the <b>nazirite’s ram due to</b> the fact <b>that it is an offering of the most sacred order,</b> and the others are offerings of lesser sanctity. <b>A thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram precede a peace offering due to</b> the fact <b>that they are eaten for one day,</b> like offerings of the most sacred order, whereas a peace offering is eaten for two days, <b>and</b> the thanks offering and nazirite’s ram <b>require loaves</b> to be brought with them, four types with the thanks offering and two types with the nazirite’s ram. Sacrifice of <b>the peace offering precedes</b> sacrifice of <b>the firstborn</b> offering <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> the peace offering <b>requires placing</b> the blood on the altar, in the form of two placements that are <b>four, and placing hands</b> on the head of the offering, <b>and libations, and the wavings of</b> the <b>breast and the thigh</b> by the priest and the owner; none of which is required for the firstborn offering. ",
            "<b>The firstborn</b> offering <b>precedes the</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offering <b>because it is sanctified from</b> the <b>womb,</b> i.e., unlike the animal tithe offering it does not require consecration, <b>and it is eaten by the priests,</b> whereas everyone may partake of the animal tithe offering. <b>The</b> animal <b>tithe</b> offering <b>precedes bird</b> offerings <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that it</b> requires <b>slaughtering,</b> whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; <b>and there are</b> two elements <b>of</b> the animal tithe offering that have the status of <b>offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood</b> that is presented on the altar <b>and its portions</b> that are burned on the altar, whereas with regard to bird offerings only the blood is presented on the altar. ",
            "<b>The bird</b> offerings <b>precede meal offerings due to</b> the fact <b>that they are types</b> whose <b>blood</b> is presented, and atonement is effected by the blood. The <b>meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering due to</b> the fact <b>that it comes</b> to atone <b>for a sin.</b> For the same reason the sacrifice of <b>the bird sin offering precedes</b> the sacrifice of <b>the bird burnt offering, and likewise with regard to its consecration,</b> the sin offering takes precedence. ",
            "<b>All the sin offerings</b> mandated <b>by the Torah take precedence over the guilt offerings,</b> as explained in the previous mishna (89a), <b>except for the guilt offering of a leper, because it comes to</b> render one <b>fit.</b> One who has been cured of leprosy must undergo a process through which he is rendered ritually pure before coming into contact with consecrated items. Although he must also bring a sin offering, his guilt offering is more central to that process of purification and therefore it takes precedence over the sin offering. <b>All the guilt offerings</b> mandated <b>by the Torah come</b> as rams <b>in their second year, and come worth</b> two <b>silver shekels, except for the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, as they come</b> from sheep <b>in their</b> first <b>year, and do not</b> need to <b>come worth</b> two <b>silver shekels,</b> as they have no fixed value.",
            "<b>Just as</b> the more sacred offerings <b>precede</b> other offerings <b>with regard to their sacrifice,</b> as taught in the previous mishna (89a), <b>they</b> also <b>precede</b> the others <b>with regard to their consumption.</b> If one has <b>a peace offering from yesterday and a peace offering from today,</b> the peace offering <b>from yesterday precedes</b> the peace offering <b>from today.</b> If one has <b>a peace offering from yesterday</b> and <b>a sin offering or a guilt offering from today,</b> the <b>peace offering from yesterday precedes</b> the others; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> The <b>sin offering precedes</b> the peace offering, <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that it is an offering of the most sacred order.</b> Likewise, the guilt offering precedes the peace offering, as it is also of the most sacred order.",
            "<b>And</b> with regard to <b>all of</b> the offerings that are eaten, <b>the priests are permitted to alter</b> the manner of <b>their consumption</b> and eat them as they choose. Therefore, the priests are permitted <b>to eat them roasted, or boiled, or cooked,</b> and <b>to place in</b> the cooking pot <b>non-sacred spices or <i>teruma</i> spices.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: One may not place <i>teruma</i> spices in it,</b> so <b>that he will not bring the <i>teruma</i> to</b> a state <b>of disqualification.</b> Consumption of consecrated foods is permitted only for a limited period, after which they are disqualified and burned. Adding <i>teruma</i> spices might cause those spices to be similarly disqualified.",
            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard</b> for consumption by the priests and you seek to ascertain its nature, you <b>do not need to ask what it is. Rather,</b> it is <b>left over</b> from the oil <b>of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites</b> after they smeared a bit of oil on them, <b>or</b> it is left over from the <b><i>log</i> of oil of a leper</b> after a small amount of the oil was placed on him. <b>If you saw oil that is placed on the flames</b> of the altar in the manner of an offering, you <b>do not need to ask what it is. Rather,</b> it is <b>left over</b> from the oil <b>of the wafers of the meal offering of priests, or</b> it is the leftover oil from <b>the meal offering of the anointed priest,</b> which requires a great deal of oil and which is burned in its entirety on the altar. The mishna adds: One can-not say that the oil distributed to priests or burned on the altar was brought as a gift offering, <b>as one may not contribute oil</b> as a gift offering. <b>Rabbi Tarfon says: One may contribute oil</b> as a gift offering."
        ],
        [
            "In the case of <b>the blood of a sin offering</b> designated for presentation <b>that was sprayed on a garment, that</b> garment <b>requires laundering,</b> as is stated with regard to a sin offering: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment, you shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). <b>Although the verse is speaking only of</b> sin offerings <b>that are eaten</b> and whose blood is presented on the outer altar, <b>as it is stated: “In a sacred place shall it be eaten”</b> (Leviticus 6:19), the principle is not exclusive to eaten sin offerings. With regard to the blood of <b>both</b> the sin offerings <b>that are eaten and the</b> sin offerings that are wholly burned and not eaten and whose blood is presented on the <b>inner</b> altar, garments sprayed with blood from each of these offerings <b>require laundering. As it is stated</b> at the start of that passage: “This is <b>the law of the sin offering”</b> (Leviticus 6:18), it is understood: There is <b>one law for all the sin offerings.</b>",
            "That is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to sin offerings fit for sacrifice. With regard to <b>a disqualified sin offering, its blood does not</b> cause a garment to <b>require laundering whether</b> the offering <b>had a period of fitness</b> when its blood was fit for presentation <b>or whether it did not have a period of fitness. Which</b> offering <b>is</b> the disqualified sin offering <b>that had a period of fitness?</b> It is one <b>that was left overnight</b> and then became disqualified; <b>or</b> it is one <b>that became ritually impure; or</b> it is one <b>that emerged</b> from of the Temple courtyard. <b>Which</b> offering <b>is</b> the disqualified sin offering <b>that did not have a period of fitness?</b> It is one <b>that was slaughtered</b> with the intent to eat it or present its blood <b>beyond its</b> designated <b>time or outside its</b> designated <b>area; or</b> it is one whose blood was <b>collected</b> by people <b>disqualified</b> for Temple service <b>and</b> they <b>sprinkled its blood.</b>",
            "If the blood of a sin offering <b>sprayed from the neck</b> of the animal <b>onto a garment,</b> the garment <b>does not require laundering.</b> If the blood was collected in a vessel and sprinkled on the altar and sprayed <b>from the corner or from the base</b> of the altar onto the garment, the garment <b>does not require laundering,</b> as the blood was already sprinkled and its mitzva was fulfilled. If the blood <b>spilled</b> from the neck <b>onto the floor</b> before it was collected in a vessel, <b>and</b> the priest <b>collected</b> the blood and it sprayed on a garment, the garment <b>does not require laundering.</b> It is <b>only</b> with regard to <b>blood that was received in</b> a sacred <b>vessel and is fit for sprinkling</b> that the garment <b>requires laundering.</b> Apropos laundering the blood of a sin offering from garments onto which it sprayed, the mishna discusses what is considered a garment. If the blood of a sin offering <b>sprayed onto the hide</b> of an animal <b>before it was flayed</b> from the animal, the hide <b>does not require laundering,</b> because its status is not that of a garment, which is susceptible to ritual impurity. If the blood sprayed onto the hide <b>after it was flayed, it requires laundering;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>Rabbi Elazar says: Even</b> if the blood sprayed onto the hide <b>after it was flayed, it does not require laundering</b> until it is crafted into a vessel or garment that is actually susceptible to ritual impurity. This is the principle with regard to laundering: A garment must be laundered <b>only</b> in the <b>place</b> where <b>the blood</b> was sprayed, <b>and</b> only if it is <b>an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and</b> only if it is an item <b>fit for laundering.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>the garment</b> mentioned explicitly in the Torah, <b>and the sackcloth, and the hide, all</b> of these <b>require laundering. And the laundering</b> must be performed <b>in a sacred place,</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>and the breaking of an earthenware vessel</b> in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed <b>in a sacred place, and scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel</b> in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed <b>in a sacred place.</b> With regard to <b>this</b> matter, <b>a stringency</b> applies <b>to a sin offering</b> more <b>than</b> it applies to <b>offerings of the most sacred order.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>a garment</b> upon which the blood of a sin offering was sprayed <b>that went outside the curtains,</b> i.e., the Temple courtyard, before being laundered, the garment <b>reenters</b> the courtyard <b>and</b> one <b>launders it in a sacred place.</b> If the garment <b>became ritually impure outside the curtains,</b> one <b>tears</b> the garment in order to render it ritually pure, <b>enters</b> the courtyard with it, <b>and launders it in a sacred place.</b> With regard to <b>an earthenware vessel</b> in which a sin offering was cooked <b>that went outside the curtains,</b> the vessel <b>reenters</b> the courtyard <b>and</b> one <b>breaks it in a sacred place.</b> If the vessel <b>became ritually impure outside the curtains,</b> one <b>punctures</b> the vessel to render it ritually pure, <b>and</b> one <b>enters</b> the courtyard with it <b>and breaks it in a sacred place.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>a copper vessel</b> in which a sin offering was cooked <b>that went outside the curtains,</b> the vessel <b>reenters</b> the courtyard, <b>and</b> one <b>scours it and rinses it in a sacred place.</b> If the vessel <b>became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks</b> the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure <b>and enters</b> the courtyard with it <b>and scours and rinses it in a sacred place.</b>",
            "<b>Whether</b> with regard to a copper vessel <b>in which</b> one <b>cooked</b> the meat of an offering <b>or whether</b> with regard to one <b>into which</b> one <b>poured</b> the <b>boiling</b> meat of an offering, <b>whether</b> the meat is from <b>offerings of the most sacred order or whether</b> it is from <b>offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> such vessels <b>require scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> Vessels in which <b>offerings of lesser sanctity</b> were cooked or poured <b>do not require scouring and rinsing.</b> <b>Rabbi Tarfon says:</b> If one <b>cooked</b> a sin offering in a copper vessel <b>from the beginning of the</b> pilgrimage <b>Festival,</b> one <b>may cook in it</b> for <b>the entire</b> pilgrimage <b>Festival;</b> he need not scour and rinse the vessel after every use. <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform <b>scouring and rinsing before</b> the end of the <b>period</b> during which <b>partaking</b> of the particular cooked offering is permitted. <b>Scouring</b> is <b>like the scouring of</b> the inside of <b>a cup,</b> the cleaning done when wine sticks to the cup, <b>and rinsing</b> is <b>like the rinsing of</b> the outside of <b>a cup. Scouring</b> is performed <b>with hot</b> water, <b>and rinsing with cold</b> water. With regard to <b>the spit and the</b> metal <b>grill [<i>askela</i>],</b> one <b>purges them in hot water.</b>",
            "If one <b>cooked in</b> one vessel <b>sacrificial</b> meat <b>and non-sacred</b> meat, <b>or</b> the meat of <b>offerings of the most sacred order and</b> the meat of <b>offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> the status of the food depends upon the taste of the stringent substance. <b>If there is</b> enough <b>of</b> the more sacred meat <b>to impart flavor</b> to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then <b>the lenient</b> components of the mixtures must <b>be eaten in accordance with</b> the restrictions of <b>the stringent</b> components <b>therein,</b> insofar as who may partake of them, as well as the time when and the place where they may be eaten. <b>And</b> the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked <b>do not require scouring and rinsing, and</b> the lenient components <b>do not disqualify</b> pieces of meat <b>through contact.</b> With regard to these principles, the lenient components do not assume the status of the stringent components. In the case of a fit <b>wafer that touched</b> an unfit <b>wafer or a piece</b> of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit <b>piece</b> of sacrificial meat, <b>neither all the wafers nor all the pieces</b> of meat <b>are forbidden. No</b> part is <b>forbidden other than</b> that which is <b>in the place where</b> the item <b>absorbed</b> taste from the unfit wafers or pieces."
        ],
        [
            "A priest who was ritually impure <b>who immersed that day</b> and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, <b>and</b> a priest <b>who has not yet</b> brought <b>an atonement</b> offering to complete the purification process, e.g., a <i>zav</i> and a leper who did not bring their requisite atonement offerings, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat, <b>do not receive a share of sacrificial</b> meat along with the other members of the patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, in order <b>to partake</b> of it <b>in the evening</b> after the offerings were sacrificed, even though after nightfall he would be permitted to partake of the offerings. A priest who is <b>an acute mourner,</b> i.e., if one of his relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn died that day, is permitted to <b>touch</b> sacrificial meat, as he is not ritually impure. <b>But he may not sacrifice</b> offerings, <b>and he does not receive a share</b> of sacrificial meat in order <b>to partake</b> of it <b>in the evening.</b> <b>Blemished</b> priests, <b>whether</b> they are <b>temporarily blemished</b> or <b>whether</b> they are <b>permanently blemished, receive a share and partake</b> of the offerings with their priestly brethren, <b>but do not sacrifice</b> the offerings. The principle is: <b>Any</b> priest <b>who is unfit for the service</b> that specific day <b>does not receive a share of the</b> sacrificial <b>meat, and anyone who has no</b> share <b>of the meat has no</b> share <b>in the hides</b> of the animals, to which the priests are entitled as well. <b>Even</b> if the priest was <b>ritually impure</b> only <b>at the time of the sprinkling of the blood</b> of the offering <b>and</b> he was <b>pure at the time of the burning of</b> the <b>fats</b> of that offering, he still <b>does not receive a share of the meat, as it is stated: “He that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings and the fat, from among the sons of Aaron, shall have the right thigh for a portion”</b> (Leviticus 7:33). One who cannot sprinkle the blood does not receive a share in the meat.",
            "In the case of <b>any</b> burnt offering <b>for which the altar did not acquire its flesh,</b> e.g., if it was disqualified prior to the sprinkling of its blood, the <b>priests did not acquire its hide, as it is stated</b> with regard to the burnt offering: “And the priest that sacrifices <b>a man’s burnt offering,</b> the priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” (Leviticus 7:8), indicating that the priest acquires only the hide of <b>a burnt offering that satisfied</b> the obligation <b>of a man.</b> Nevertheless, in a case of <b>a burnt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake</b> but for the sake of another offering, <b>although it did not satisfy</b> the obligation <b>of the owner, its hide</b> goes <b>to the priests.</b> In addition, although the verse states: “A man’s burnt offering,” in the case of <b>both the burnt offering of a man and the burnt offering of a woman, their hides</b> go <b>to the priests.</b>",
            "<b>The hides of offerings of lesser sanctity</b> belong <b>to the owners; the hides of offerings of the most sacred order</b> belong <b>to the priests.</b> The right of priests to hides of offerings of the most sacred order is derived via <b>an <i>a fortiori</i></b> inference: <b>If</b> for <b>a burnt offering, for which</b> the priests <b>do not acquire its flesh,</b> as it is burned in its entirety, <b>they acquire its hide,</b> then for other <b>offerings of the most sacred order, for which</b> the priests <b>acquire its flesh, is it not right that they should acquire its hide?</b> And <b>there is no</b> room to contend that the <b>altar will prove</b> that this is not a valid inference, as it acquires the flesh of a burnt offering but not its hide, <b>since it does not have</b> the right to the <b>hide</b> of an offering <b>in any place.</b>",
            "If <b>any offerings</b> of the most sacred order <b>were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not</b> go <b>to the priests;</b> rather, they are burned together with the flesh in the place of burning. If they were disqualified <b>after their flaying, their hides</b> go <b>to the priests. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In</b> all <b>my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of</b> Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, <b>we learned that</b> in a case where <b>one flays the firstborn</b> offering, <b>and</b> the animal is later <b>discovered to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>],</b> the <i>halakha</i> is <b>that the priests may derive benefit [<i>sheye’otu</i>] from its hide. And the Rabbis say:</b> The claim: <b>We did not see, is no proof; rather,</b> if after flaying it is discovered that the animal was unfit before it was flayed, the hide <b>goes out to the place of burning.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>bulls that are burned,</b> i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which are burned after their blood is sprinkled and their sacrificial portions burned on the altar, <b>and goats that are burned,</b> i.e., the goat of Yom Kippur and the goat brought for the unwitting communal transgression of the prohibition against idol worship, <b>when they are burned in accordance with their mitzva, they are burned in the place of the ashes</b> (see Leviticus 4:12) outside of Jerusalem, <b>and they render</b> the <b>garments</b> of the priests who tend to their burning <b>impure</b> (see Leviticus 4:25). <b>And if</b> these offerings <b>are not burned in accordance with their mitzva</b> because they were disqualified, and offerings that are disqualified are also burned, <b>they are burned in the place of</b> burning in <b>the <i>bira</i>, and they do not render</b> the <b>garments</b> of the priests who tend to their burning <b>impure.</b>",
            "The priests <b>would carry</b> the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended <b>on poles.</b> When <b>the first</b> priests, carrying the front of the pole, <b>emerged outside the wall of the</b> Temple <b>courtyard and the latter</b> priests <b>did not</b> yet <b>emerge, the first</b> priests <b>render</b> their <b>garments impure, and the latter</b> priests <b>do not render</b> their <b>garments impure until they emerge.</b> When both <b>these and those</b> priests <b>emerged, they render</b> their <b>garments impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not render</b> their <b>garments impure,</b> as this <i>halakha</i> applies only to those who burn the offerings. And even then their garments do not become ritually impure <b>until the fire is ignited in the majority of</b> the offerings. Once <b>the flesh is</b> completely <b>scorched,</b> with no moisture remaining, <b>one who</b> then <b>burns</b> the remains <b>does not render</b> his <b>garments impure.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "<b>One who slaughters</b> an offering outside the Temple courtyard <b>and one who offers</b> it <b>up outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>liable for the slaughter and liable for</b> the <b>offering up,</b> as each act involves an independent prohibition. If done intentionally, he is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [<i>karet</i>] for each act, and if done unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. <b>Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:</b> If <b>he slaughtered</b> an offering <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>and</b> then <b>offered</b> it <b>up outside</b> the courtyard, he is liable. But if <b>he slaughtered</b> it <b>outside,</b> thereby rendering it unfit, <b>and</b> then <b>he offered</b> it <b>up outside,</b> he is <b>exempt</b> for the offering up, <b>as he offered up only an item</b> that is <b>unfit,</b> and one is liable only for offering up an item that is fit to be offered up inside the Temple. The Rabbis <b>said to him:</b> According to your reasoning, <b>even</b> in a case where <b>he slaughters</b> it <b>inside and offers</b> it <b>up outside,</b> he should be exempt, <b>since</b> the moment <b>that he took it outside</b> the courtyard, he thereby <b>rendered it unfit.</b> Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for offering it up. So too, one who slaughters an offering outside and then offers it up outside is liable.",
            "<b>One who is ritually impure who ate</b> sacrificial food, <b>whether</b> it was <b>ritually impure sacrificial</b> food <b>or ritually pure sacrificial</b> food, is <b>liable</b> to receive <i>karet</i> if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly. <b>Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure</b> person <b>who ate pure</b> sacrificial food is <b>liable. But an impure</b> person <b>who ate impure</b> sacrificial food is <b>exempt, as he merely ate an impure item,</b> and the prohibition against eating sacrificial food while one is impure applies only to pure sacrificial food. The Rabbis <b>said to him:</b> According to your logic, this <i>halakha</i> would apply <b>even</b> in a case of <b>an impure</b> person <b>who ate</b> what had been <b>pure</b> sacrificial food, because <b>once he touched it, he</b> thereby <b>rendered it ritually impure.</b> Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure person who ate impure sacrificial food is liable. <b>And a pure</b> person <b>who ate impure</b> sacrificial food is <b>exempt, as</b> one is <b>liable</b> for eating sacrificial food in impurity <b>only due to</b> the <b>impurity of</b> one’s <b>body,</b> but not due to the impurity of the food.",
            "There is <b>a greater stringency with regard to slaughtering</b> outside the Temple courtyard <b>than with regard to offering up</b> outside, <b>and</b> there is a greater stringency <b>with regard to offering up</b> outside <b>than with regard to slaughtering</b> outside. The mishna elaborates: The <b>greater stringency with regard to slaughtering</b> outside is <b>that one who slaughters</b> an offering outside the Temple courtyard even <b>for</b> the sake of <b>an ordinary</b> purpose, not for the sake of God, is <b>liable. But one who offers up</b> an offering outside the courtyard <b>for</b> the sake of <b>an ordinary</b> purpose is <b>exempt.</b> The <b>greater stringency with regard to offering up</b> outside is that <b>two</b> people <b>who grasped a knife and</b> together <b>slaughtered</b> an offering outside the courtyard are <b>exempt.</b> But if two <b>grasped a limb</b> from an offering <b>and</b> together <b>offered</b> it <b>up</b> outside, they are <b>liable.</b> If one unwittingly <b>offered up</b> part of an offering outside the courtyard <b>and then</b> in a different lapse of awareness <b>offered up</b> other parts of that offering <b>and then</b> again, in another lapse of awareness, <b>offered up</b> yet other parts, he is <b>liable</b> to bring a sin offering <b>for each</b> act of <b>offering up;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yosei says:</b> He is <b>liable</b> to bring <b>only one</b> sin offering. Rabbi Yosei adds: <b>And</b> one is <b>liable</b> for offering up an offering outside the courtyard <b>only once he offers</b> it <b>up at the top of an altar</b> that was erected there. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: Even</b> if <b>he offered</b> it <b>up on a rock or on a stone,</b> not an altar, he is <b>liable.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>both fit sacrificial</b> animals, <b>and unfit sacrificial</b> animals <b>whose disqualification occurred in sanctity,</b> i.e., in the course of the Temple service, <b>and one sacrificed them outside</b> the Temple courtyard, he is <b>liable.</b> <b>One who offers up outside</b> the courtyard <b>an olive-bulk</b> made up <b>of</b> the flesh of <b>a burnt offering and of</b> its <b>sacrificial portions</b> is <b>liable.</b> If there is <b>a meal offering</b> from <b>which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside</b> the Temple courtyard, he is <b>exempt</b> from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest <b>took a handful from it and</b> then <b>returned its handful into</b> the remainder of the meal offering, <b>and one sacrificed</b> the entire mixture <b>outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable,</b> as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder. With regard to <b>the handful</b> of a meal offering, <b>the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of</b> the <b>anointed priest, and the meal offering</b> brought with the <b>libations</b> that accompany animal offerings, in a case <b>where one sacrificed</b> even <b>an olive-bulk from</b> any <b>one of these,</b> which should be sacrificed on the altar, <b>outside</b> the Temple, he is <b>liable,</b> as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. <b>Rabbi Eliezer deems</b> him <b>exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of</b> any one of these items outside the Temple. <b>But</b> Rabbi Eliezer concedes that with regard to <b>any of them that one sacrificed inside</b> the courtyard <b>but left over an olive-bulk from them and</b> then <b>sacrificed that</b> olive-bulk <b>outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable.</b> <b>And</b> with regard to <b>any of these</b> offerings <b>that were lacking any amount,</b> if <b>one sacrifices it outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>exempt.</b>",
            "<b>One who sacrifices sacrificial</b> meat, which is eaten, <b>and sacrificial portions,</b> i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, <b>outside</b> the courtyard, is <b>liable</b> for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions. But he is not liable for sacrificing the meat. If there is <b>a meal offering</b> from <b>which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside</b> the Temple courtyard, he is <b>exempt</b> from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest <b>took a handful from it and</b> then <b>returned its handful into</b> the remainder of the meal offering, <b>and one sacrificed</b> the entire mixture <b>outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable,</b> as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder.",
            "The burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the consumption of the remainder of the meal offering by the priests. With regard to <b>the handful and the frankincense,</b> in a case <b>where one sacrificed</b> only <b>one of them outside</b> the Temple courtyard, he is <b>liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts</b> from liability one who burns only one of them <b>until he</b> also <b>sacrifices the second.</b> Since the remainder of the meal offering becomes permitted only once both have been burned, he considers each one alone to be an incomplete offering, and he holds one is not liable for sacrificing only one of them. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed <b>one inside</b> the courtyard <b>and one outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable.</b> The burning of two bowls of frankincense permits the consumption of the shewbread. With regard to the <b>two bowls of frankincense,</b> in a case <b>where one sacrificed</b> only <b>one of them outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts</b> from liability one who burns only one of them <b>until he</b> also <b>sacrifices the second,</b> since the shewbread becomes permitted only once both bowls of frankincense are burned. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed <b>one inside</b> the courtyard <b>and one outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable.</b> <b>One who sprinkles part of</b> the <b>blood</b> of an offering, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four, <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard is <b>liable. Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water</b> consecrated for the libation <b>of the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, <b>during the Festival, outside</b> the courtyard, is <b>liable. Rabbi Neḥemya says:</b> For the <b>remainder of the blood</b> of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and <b>that</b> instead <b>one sacrificed outside</b> the courtyard, one is <b>liable.</b> ",
            "<b>One who pinches</b> the nape of <b>a bird</b> offering <b>inside</b> the Temple courtyard <b>and</b> then <b>offers</b> it <b>up outside</b> the courtyard is <b>liable.</b> But if <b>one pinched</b> its nape <b>outside</b> the courtyard <b>and</b> then <b>offered</b> it <b>up outside</b> the courtyard he is <b>exempt,</b> as pinching the nape of a bird outside the courtyard is not considered valid pinching. <b>One who slaughters,</b> with a knife, <b>a bird</b> offering <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>and offers</b> it <b>up outside</b> the courtyard is <b>exempt,</b> as slaughtering a bird offering in the Temple courtyard disqualifies it as an offering. But if one <b>slaughtered</b> a bird offering <b>outside</b> the courtyard <b>and</b> then <b>offered</b> it <b>up outside,</b> he is <b>liable.</b> <b>Evidently, the manner of its preparation inside</b> the courtyard, i.e., pinching, effects <b>its exemption outside</b> the courtyard, and <b>the manner of its preparation outside</b> the courtyard, i.e., slaughter, effects <b>its exemption inside</b> the courtyard. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> act of killing an animal concerning <b>which,</b> when it was performed <b>outside</b> the courtyard, one is <b>liable for</b> subsequently offering <b>it</b> up outside the courtyard, one is also <b>liable for</b> having <b>offered</b> the animal <b>up outside</b> the courtyard after performing <b>a similar</b> act of killing <b>inside</b> the courtyard. This is the <i>halakha</i> <b>except with regard to one who slaughters</b> a bird <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>and offers</b> it <b>up outside</b> the courtyard; he is exempt.",
            " With regard to <b>a sin offering where one collected its blood in one cup,</b> if he first <b>placed</b> its blood on an altar <b>outside</b> the courtyard <b>and then placed</b> the remaining blood on the altar <b>inside</b> the courtyard, or if he first placed its blood on the altar <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>and then placed</b> the remaining blood on an altar <b>outside</b> the courtyard, in both cases he is <b>liable</b> for placing the blood outside the courtyard, <b>as</b> the blood in <b>its entirety is fit</b> to be placed on the altar <b>inside</b> the courtyard. If <b>one collected its blood in two cups</b> and <b>placed</b> the blood from <b>both of them</b> on the altar <b>inside</b> the courtyard he is <b>exempt</b> as he acted appropriately. If he placed the blood from <b>both of them</b> on an altar <b>outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable,</b> as both are fit to be placed inside. If he first placed the blood from <b>one</b> cup <b>inside and</b> then placed the blood from the other <b>one outside,</b> he is <b>exempt.</b> By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup unfit to be placed on the altar; therefore, there is no liability for placing it on an altar outside. If he first placed the blood from <b>one</b> cup <b>outside and</b> then placed the blood from the other <b>one inside,</b> he is <b>liable for the external</b> placement as that blood was fit to be placed inside, <b>and the internal</b> placement <b>atones</b> for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought. <b>To what is this matter comparable?</b> It is comparable <b>to</b> a case where one <b>separated</b> an animal for <b>his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another</b> animal <b>in its place, and thereafter, the first</b> animal <b>was found.</b> In that case, <b>both of them stand</b> before him and he must sacrifice one as his sin offering. If <b>he slaughtered both of them inside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>exempt.</b> If he slaughtered <b>both of them outside</b> the courtyard, he is <b>liable,</b> as each was fit to be slaughtered in the courtyard. If he first slaughtered <b>one inside and</b> then slaughtered the other <b>one outside</b> he is <b>exempt</b> from liability for slaughtering the second, as he has already fulfilled his obligation with the first, thereby rendering the second one unfit for sacrifice. If he first slaughtered <b>one outside and</b> then slaughtered the other <b>one inside</b> he is <b>liable for</b> slaughtering <b>the external</b> animal outside the courtyard, as it was fit to be slaughtered inside, <b>and the internal</b> animal <b>atones</b> for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought. The mishna adds: In a case where one slaughtered both inside the courtyard, <b>just as</b> placing <b>the blood of</b> the first animal <b>exempts</b> one who consumes <b>its meat</b> from liability for misuse of consecrated property, <b>so too, it exempts</b> one who consumes <b>the meat of its counterpart,</b> the second animal, from liability."
        ],
        [
            "With regard to <b>the</b> red <b>heifer of purification that one burned outside its pit,</b> the pit being an excavation on the Mount of Olives opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary designated for its slaughter and its burning, <b>and likewise the scapegoat that one sacrificed outside</b> the Temple courtyard rather than casting it off a cliff as prescribed, he is <b>exempt</b> from punishment for violating the transgression of slaughtering and sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard. The source for this is <b>as it is stated</b> with regard to slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the courtyard: “Whatever man…that slaughters outside the camp, <b>and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it,</b> to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:3–4). From that verse it is derived: For <b>any</b> offering <b>that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting</b> for sacrifice on the altar, e.g., the red heifer and the scapegoat, <b>one is not liable for its</b> slaughter and sacrifice outside its place.",
            "With regard to <b>an animal that</b> actively <b>copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or</b> an animal <b>that</b> was <b>set aside</b> for idol worship, <b>or</b> an animal <b>that was worshipped</b> as a deity, <b>or</b> an animal given as <b>the price</b> of a dog that was purchased, <b>or</b> an animal that was given as <b>payment</b> to a prostitute, <b>or</b> an animal born of a mixture of <b>diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [<i>tereifa</i>], or</b> an animal <b>born by caesarean section,</b> any of <b>which one sacrificed outside</b> the Temple courtyard, he is <b>exempt.</b> The source for this is <b>as it is stated:</b> “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it to present it as an offering to the Lord <b>before the Tabernacle of the Lord.”</b> From this verse, it is derived: For <b>any</b> animal <b>that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting</b> for sacrifice on the altar, <b>one is not liable for its</b> slaughter and sacrifice outside the courtyard. For <b>blemished</b> animals, <b>whether</b> they are <b>permanently blemished</b> or <b>whether</b> they are <b>temporarily blemished, which one sacrificed outside</b> the Temple courtyard, one is <b>exempt. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> For <b>permanently blemished</b> animals one is <b>exempt;</b> for <b>temporarily blemished</b> animals one is <b>liable for</b> violation of <b>a prohibition,</b> but it is not the type of prohibition for which he will receive <i>karet</i>, because ultimately the animal will be fit for sacrifice. With regard to <b>doves whose time</b> of fitness for sacrifice <b>has not arrived,</b> as they are fit for sacrifice only when they are older, after their wings assume a golden hue; <b>and pigeons whose time</b> of fitness <b>has passed,</b> as they are fit only when they are young and their wings did not yet assume a yellowish tint, <b>that one sacrificed outside</b> the Temple courtyard, he is <b>exempt. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> For <b>pigeons whose time</b> of fitness <b>has passed</b> one is <b>exempt, and</b> for <b>doves whose time</b> of fitness <b>has not</b> yet <b>arrived</b> he is <b>in</b> violation of <b>a prohibition.</b> With regard to an animal <b>itself and its offspring</b> that were slaughtered on the same day, where one violates a prohibition for slaughtering the second, <b>and</b> an animal <b>whose time has not yet</b> arrived, if one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard he is <b>exempt. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> For an animal whose time has not yet arrived, <b>that</b> person is <b>in</b> violation of a mere <b>prohibition, as Rabbi Shimon says:</b> With regard to <b>any</b> sacrificial animal <b>that is fit to come</b> and be sacrificed <b>after</b> the passage of <b>time,</b> if one sacrificed it outside the courtyard, <b>that</b> person is <b>in</b> violation of <b>a prohibition but there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i>. And the Rabbis say: In any</b> case <b>in which there is no</b> liability for <b><i>karet</i> there is no</b> violation of <b>a prohibition.</b> ",
            "The mishna adds: An animal is defined as one <b>whose time has not yet</b> arrived, <b>whether</b> it is <b>intrinsically</b> premature, e.g., doves whose wings have not yet assumed a golden hue or an animal less than seven days old (see Leviticus 22:27), or <b>whether</b> it is premature <b>for its owner.</b> <b>Which is</b> the animal <b>whose time has not yet</b> arrived because it is premature <b>for its owner?</b> It is the animal of <b>a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [<i>zav</i>], and a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [<i>zava</i>], and a woman after childbirth, and a leper</b> whose period of impurity is not yet complete, <b>where</b> these owners, who are ritually impure, <b>sacrificed their sin offerings or guilt offerings outside</b> the Temple courtyard. In this case <b>they are exempt,</b> as they are neither obligated nor permitted to bring those offerings. But if they sacrificed <b>their burnt offerings or their peace offerings outside</b> the courtyard <b>they are liable,</b> as those offerings may be brought as gift offerings even if their owner is ritually impure. <b>One who offers up</b> outside the Temple courtyard a portion <b>of the meat of a sin offering</b> that is eaten; <b>of the meat of a guilt offering; of the meat of</b> other <b>offerings of the most sacred order</b> that are eaten, e.g., the sheep sacrificed on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, or <b>of the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity,</b> is exempt, as all these are eaten by the priests and not sacrificed on the altar. <b>And</b> for the same reason, one who sacrificed a portion of <b>the surplus of the <i>omer</i> offering,</b> a measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of the Hebrew month of Nisan, after the handful was removed; <b>or the two loaves,</b> i.e., the public offering on <i>Shavuot</i> of two loaves from the new wheat; <b>or the shewbread</b> arranged on the Table each Shabbat in the Sanctuary; <b>or the remainder of meal offerings,</b> is also exempt. <b>And</b> likewise with regard to <b>one who pours</b> oil onto a meal offering; <b>and one who breaks</b> the loaves of a meal offering into pieces; <b>and one who mixes</b> oil into the flour of a meal offering; <b>and one who salts</b> a meal offering or other offerings; <b>and one who waves</b> a meal offering; <b>and one who brings</b> a meal offering to the corner of an altar, if he performs these actions outside the courtyard; <b>and one who arranges</b> shewbread on <b>the table</b> outside the Sanctuary; <b>and one who removes the ashes</b> from <b>the lamps</b> of the Candelabrum; <b>and one who removes a handful</b> from a meal offering; <b>and one who collects</b> the <b>blood</b> of an offering in a vessel, if he did so <b>outside</b> the Temple courtyard: In all of these cases he is <b>exempt.</b> This is because one is liable only if he performs an action similar to sacrifice that completes the sacrificial service, while all of these actions are ones that are normally followed by additional sacrificial rites. <b>And one is</b> likewise <b>not liable for</b> any of these actions, <b>neither due to</b> the prohibition against <b>a non-priest</b> performing the Temple service, <b>nor due to</b> the prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of <b>ritual impurity, nor due to</b> the prohibition against a priest <b>lacking</b> the requisite priestly <b>vestments</b> while performing the Temple service, <b>nor due to</b> the prohibition against performing the Temple service <b>without washing</b> one’s <b>hands and feet.</b>",
            "<b>Until the Tabernacle was established,</b> private <b>altars were permitted and</b> the sacrificial <b>service</b> was performed <b>by the firstborn. And from</b> the time <b>that the Tabernacle was established,</b> private <b>altars were prohibited and</b> the sacrificial <b>service</b> was performed <b>by the priests. Offerings of the most sacred order were</b> then <b>eaten within the curtains</b> surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness <b>and offerings of lesser sanctity</b> were eaten <b>throughout the camp of Israel.</b> ",
            "When the Jewish people <b>arrived at Gilgal</b> private <b>altars were permitted, offerings of the most sacred order were</b> then <b>eaten within the curtains, and offerings of lesser sanctity</b> were eaten <b>anywhere.</b>",
            "When <b>they arrived at Shiloh,</b> private <b>altars were prohibited. And there was no roof</b> of wood or stone <b>there,</b> i.e., in the Tabernacle in Shiloh; <b>rather</b> there was <b>only a building of stone below and the curtains</b> of the roof of the Tabernacle were spread <b>above it. And</b> the period that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh <b>was</b> characterized in the Torah as <b>“rest”</b> in the verse: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 12:9). <b>Offerings of the most sacred order were</b> then <b>eaten within the curtains</b> in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, <b>and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe</b> were eaten <b>in any</b> place <b>that overlooks</b> Shiloh.",
            "When Shiloh was destroyed (see I Samuel 4:18), the Jewish people <b>arrived</b> with the Tabernacle <b>at Nov, and</b> later at <b>Gibeon,</b> and private <b>altars were permitted. Offerings of the most sacred order were</b> then <b>eaten within the curtains</b> in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and <b>offerings of lesser sanctity</b> were eaten <b>in all the cities of</b> Eretz <b>Yisrael.</b>",
            "When the Jewish people <b>arrived at Jerusalem</b> and built the Temple during the reign of Solomon, private <b>altars were prohibited, and</b> private altars <b>did not have</b> a subsequent period when they were <b>permitted. And</b> the Temple in Jerusalem <b>was</b> characterized as <b>“inheritance”</b> in the verse: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you.” <b>Offerings of the most sacred order were</b> then <b>eaten within the curtains,</b> i.e., in the Temple courtyard, and <b>offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe</b> were eaten <b>within the walls</b> of the city, whose legal status was that of the Israelite camp in the wilderness.",
            "With regard to <b>all offerings that one consecrated during a period of prohibition of</b> private <b>altars and sacrificed during a period of prohibition of</b> private <b>altars,</b> if he sacrificed them <b>outside</b> their designated area, for <b>these</b> animals he is <b>in</b> violation of both the <b>positive mitzva</b> to sacrifice the offering in the place chosen by God <b>and</b> the <b>prohibition</b> against sacrificing them on a private altar, <b>and he is liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> doing <b>it.</b> If <b>one consecrated</b> the animals <b>during a period of permitting of</b> private <b>altars and sacrificed them during a period of prohibition of</b> private <b>altars, outside</b> their designated area, for <b>these</b> animals he is <b>in</b> violation of <b>a positive mitzva and a prohibition, but he is not liable to</b> receive <b><i>karet</i> for</b> sacrificing <b>them.</b> If <b>he consecrated</b> the animals <b>during a period of prohibition of</b> private <b>altars and sacrificed them during a period of permitting of</b> private <b>altars,</b> outside their designated area, for <b>these</b> animals he is <b>in</b> violation of <b>a positive mitzva</b> for failure to bring it to the Tabernacle, <b>but these</b> animals <b>are not subject to a prohibition,</b> as it is permitted to sacrifice on a private altar.",
            "<b>And these are</b> the <b>sacrificial</b> items that <b>are sacrificed</b> only <b>in the Tabernacle</b> even when private altars are permitted: <b>Sacrificial</b> animals <b>that were</b> presumed to be <b>consecrated for</b> sacrifice in <b>the Tabernacle.</b> Therefore, <b>communal offerings are sacrificed in the Tabernacle, but offerings of an individual</b> may be sacrificed <b>on</b> a private <b>altar.</b> In addition, with regard to <b>offerings of an individual that were consecrated</b> expressly <b>for</b> sacrifice in <b>the Tabernacle, one must sacrifice</b> them <b>in the Tabernacle. But if he sacrificed them on</b> a private <b>altar,</b> he is <b>exempt.</b> <b>And what</b> is the difference <b>between the</b> private <b>altar of an individual and the public altar</b> at the site of the Tabernacle when it was located in Gilgal, Nov, and Gibeon? It is that on a private altar there is no <b>placing</b> of <b>hands</b> on the head of an offering, no <b>slaughter in the north,</b> no <b>placement</b> of blood <b>around</b> all sides of the altar in offerings for which this is required, no <b>waving</b> of meal offerings, <b>and</b> no <b>bringing</b> of meal offerings to the corner of the altar prior to removal of the handful. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no meal offering</b> sacrificed <b>on an altar</b> outside the Temple. <b>And</b> requiring a member of the <b>priesthood</b> to perform the sacrificial rites, the priestly <b>service vestments,</b> the <b>service vessels,</b> the <b>pleasing aroma</b> to God, the <b>partition for the blood,</b> i.e., the red line dividing the upper and lower halves of the altar, <b>and</b> the priest’s <b>washing of hands and feet</b> before his service all do not apply to sacrifice on private altars, as the service there need not be performed by priests nor follow all the protocols of the Temple service. <b>But the</b> intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated <b>time,</b> which renders the offering <i>piggul</i>; the <i>halakha</i> of portions of <b>the</b> offering <b>left over [<i>notar</i>]</b> beyond the time it may be eaten; <b>and the</b> prohibition against eating consecrated meat while <b>ritually impure are equal in this,</b> a private altar, <b>and that,</b> a public altar."
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}