Sacrifices Rendered Unfit

All persons disqualified from performing sacrificial service may slaughter sacrificial animals, even sacrifices of the most sacred order, as an initial preference, with the exception of a person who is ritually impure, who may not slaughter as an initial preference. Even though he stands outside the Temple Courtyard and inserts his hands and slaughters in the Courtyard, [he was restricted]. This a decree, lest he touch the [sacrificial] meat.

If [an impure person] transgressed and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal], the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, with regard to the bull [brought by] the High Priest on Yom Kippur even though [Leviticus 16:11] states: "And Aaron... shall slaughter [the bull]," if a non-priest slaughtered it, it is acceptable. Even a red heifer that was slaughtered by a non-priest is acceptable, for there is no slaughter by a non-priest that invalidates [a sacrifice].

One who is slaughtering the sacrificial animals but has no intention behind the slaughter, just does it mindlessly - this is invalid, unless there is intention that the act is for the sake of slaughter.

One should not slaughter the heads of two sacrificial animals at the same time. If one slaughtered [in this manner], the sacrifices are acceptable.

Two people may slaughter a sacrificial animal together, just as they may slaughter an ordinary animal.

A child does not slaughter sacrifices even though an adult is standing and observing him, since sacrifices require thought, and a child has no thought. Even if his thought could be deduced from his actions, it is not considered thought where this would lead to leniency, only to stringency. How so? If a burnt-offering was standing in the south of the altar and the child dragged it over to the north side and slaughtered it, even though from his actions one could deduce his thoughts were for sacrificial slaughter - nonetheless this is invalid.

When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] or their blood was received there, they are disqualified.

If one was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and slaughtered [a sacrifice of the most sacred order], his slaughter is acceptable.

If, [by contrast, a priest] was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and received the blood [of such a sacrificial animal], his receiving of the blood is unacceptable.

If he brings his head and the majority of his body into the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], it is considered as if he was standing there.

If one slaughtered [such an animal] in the northern portion [of the Temple Courtyard] and then in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, it moved to the southern portion or even if [a priest] took it to the southern portion, it is acceptable. If after these convulsive movements took it to the southern portion and then it returned to the northern portion and its blood was received there, it is acceptable. Similarly, if [animals to be slaughtered as] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were inside [the Temple Courtyard] and one was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and inserted his hand inside and slaughtered it, his slaughter is acceptable.

If, [while standing outside the Temple Courtyard, a priest] inserted his hand inside and received the blood, the receiving of the blood is unacceptable. Even if [the entire body of the priest] performing the service was inside [the Temple Courtyard], and his locks of hair were outside, his service is unacceptable, for [when describing the priests' service in the Temple, Leviticus 10:9] states: "When you come to the Tent of Meeting." Implied is that one must enter in his entirety.

If in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, [such an] animal moved out of [the Courtyard] after its blood was received, it is acceptable. For even if the organs and fats to be offered on the altar, and the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, were taken outside [the Courtyard] before [the blood] was presented [on the altar], the sacrifice is acceptable, as will be explained.

If the entire body of [such an] animal was inside the Temple Courtyard and its foot was outside and it was slaughtered, the sacrifice is unacceptable. For [when speaking of bringing the sacrifices, Leviticus 17:5] states: "And they shall be brought to G-d." Implied is that they should be entirely within [the Courtyard].

If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] while it was located entirely in [the Temple Courtyard], and afterwards, it moved one of its feet outside, he should cut off the meat until he reaches the bone, and afterwards, the blood should be received. If he received the blood and afterwards, cut off the meat, it is disqualified because of the fat of the meat that is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. With regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, there is no need to cut off [the meat]. Instead, he should bring its foot back inside [the Temple Courtyard], and receive the blood. For [even] if meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood was cast [on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.

If one hung the animal [above the earth] and slaughtered it in the free space of the Temple Courtyard, it is unacceptable, for [Leviticus 1:11] speaks [of slaughtering animals] "on the flank of the altar," implying that one must slaughter on the ground.

If the [sacrificial] animal was on the ground, but [the slaughterer] was hanging in the air and he slaughtered the animal while hanging, this disqualifies sacrifices of the most sacred order. Sacrifices of lesser sanctity, by contrast, are acceptable.

If one slit the lesser portion of the organs that must be slit for ritual slaughter outside [the Temple Courtyard], and one completed the slaughter inside or one slit the lesser portion of the organs in the southern portion of [the Temple Courtyard], and completed the slaughter in the north, they are unacceptable. For ritual slaughter is considered as one continuous, integral act from the beginning to its completion.

If one was hung and received the blood from the neck of a [sacrificial] animal that is located on the ground, [the act] is unacceptable, because this is not the manner of Temple service.

If one was standing in the Temple Courtyard and hung a receptacle over his arm and received the blood in the air, or lifted the animal and thus received the blood in the air, [the act] is acceptable, for the open space above the place is considered as the space itself.

If one placed one receptacle within a second receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable, one substance is not considered as an interposing substance for another substance of the same type. If one placed fibers inside the receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable, because the fibers are porous and thus the blood descends into the receptacle and there is no interference. If, however, one does this while taking a handful of flour from a meal offering and took the handful with the fibers, it is unacceptable.

Receiving the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bringing it to the altar, casting it on the altar and bringing the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] to the ramp, are all tasks that are only acceptable if performed by a priest who is fit to perform service, as we explained with regard to taking the handful of flour from a meal offering or snipping of the head of a fowl.

Bringing [blood or limbs] to the altar in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore if a priest receives the blood [and while] standing in that place, casts it on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.

If [the priest] received [the blood] with his right hand and then transferred [the receptacle in which he received] it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand. If he received [the blood] with an ordinary utensil, the sacrifice is disqualified. If he received it in a sacred receptacle and transferred it to an ordinary receptacle, he should return it to a sacred receptacle.

If [the blood] spilled out of the receptacle on to the floor [of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice] is acceptable if one gathers up [the blood]. If, however, it spilled out from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal to the floor, and then was collected and placed in a sacred receptacle, the sacrifice is disqualified.

If some of the blood from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal was spilled on the ground and not collected, but [a priest] received the remainder from the neck of the animal, [the sacrifice] is acceptable, provided the blood that was received is [the animal's] lifeblood and not blood concentrated [in the limbs] or the blood of the skin.

If any of the individuals who are unacceptable to perform Temple service receive the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bring the blood to the altar, or cast it on the altar as required by law, the sacrifice is disqualified. If [a priest] who is acceptable for such service receives the blood and gives it to one who is unacceptable, but the latter does not walk with it, but instead stands in his place, he should return it to the acceptable [priest]. If, however, the unacceptable person carried it [toward the altar] and then returned it to the acceptable [priest] who carried it [to the altar] or the acceptable priest carried it [to the altar] and then gave it to the unacceptable one who carried it, since it was carried by the unacceptable person, whether at the beginning or the end, the sacrifice is disqualified, because this matter cannot be corrected.

[The following laws apply if] the blood was received by an unacceptable person. If any of [the animal's] lifeblood remains, an acceptable [priest] should receive the blood, bring it [to the altar], and cast [it upon it]. [The rationale is that] individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants. An exception is one who is impure. Since he is fit to carry out Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity as explained, he causes [the blood to be considered as] remnants. What is implied? If an impure [priest] received the blood [of a sacrificial animal] even if an acceptable [priest] received [the animal's] lifeblood afterwards and cast it [upon the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. For [the blood] received by the acceptable [priest] afterwards is considered as remnants and is of no consequence.

When even the slightest substance is taken from one of the [sacrificial] animal's limbs after it was slaughtered, but before its blood was cast upon the altar, it is disqualified. Even if one [merely] mutilated the ear of an animal before [its blood] was received, it is as if [its blood] was not received. [This is derived from Leviticus 16:14 which] states: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull." [Implied is that] it must be entirely whole at the time [the blood] is received. If one received [the blood] of an imperfect [animal] and cast it upon the altar, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

If, however, its substance was reduced after [its blood] was received, before it was cast [on the altar], even if the meat was lost before the blood was cast [on the altar] or it was consumed by fire, he should cast the blood [on the altar] as long as an olive-sized portion of the meat or the organs and fats to be offered on the altar's pyre remain. If not even that remains, he should not cast the blood. With regard to a burnt-offering, even if half an olive-sized portion from the meat and half an olive-sized portion of the organs and fats [remain, he should cast the blood], because the entire [animal] is [offered on the altar's] pyre.

If less than an olive-sized portion [of a burnt-offering remains], [the blood] should not be cast [on the altar]. If it is cast [upon it], the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above]. If the meat is disqualified before [the blood] is cast on the altar or it was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above].

When the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity was taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast [on the altar], even though the blood was cast [upon the altar] while the meat was outside, the sacrifice is acceptable, because ultimately, the meat will be taken outside [the Temple Courtyard]. Casting [the blood on the altar] is effective with regard to [the obligation to have the sacrificial meat] which was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] burnt, but not to have it permitted to be eaten.

Similarly, when the organs and fats to be offered on the altar from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood [was cast on the altar] and the blood was cast [on the altar] when they were outside, the sacrifice was not disqualified. If they were returned [to the Temple Courtyard], they should be offered on the altar's pyre. Even if they were not returned [to the Temple Courtyard], one is liable for violating the transgressions [against partaking of] piggul, notar, and impure [sacrificial] meat if he partakes of them.

With regard to any sacrifices [brought by] a private individual, whether the meat became impure, but the fats are intact or the fats became impure, but the meat remains intact, the blood should be cast on the altar. If they both became impure, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above], for the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [G-d's] favor. Similarly, when fats and organs to be offered on the altar's pyre or the limbs of a burnt-offering became impure and they were [nonetheless] offered on the altar, the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [G-d's] favor, as explained. With regard to any of the communal sacrifices, [even if] all of the meat and fats became impure, the blood should be cast [upon the altar].

When the blood of sacrificial animals was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified. Even though it was brought back inside and cast on the altar, the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].

No blood from sacrificial animals is susceptible to ritual impurity at all. For [Deuteronomy 12:16] states with regard to blood: "You shall pour it on the earth like water." [Implied is that] blood which is poured out like water is considered as water and is susceptible to ritual impurity. The blood of sacrificial animals, by contrast, is not poured out like water and hence is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

When the sun sets and the blood from a sacrificial animal [slaughtered that day] has not been cast [on the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. If [the blood] is cast [on the altar afterwards], [the sacrifice] is not received with favor [Above].

[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated. Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance. Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar." [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.

Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it, the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."

With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar, if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."

If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.

If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.

If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.

If [a priest] was sprinkling [the blood of a sacrifice on the altar] and his hand was cut off before the blood reached the space above the altar, the sprinkling of the blood is not acceptable.

If one changed [the order] of corners [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is disqualified. If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.

If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar was presented below it; if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar, but it was presented above it; if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple] and was presented on the outer altar; if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; or if blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar], [in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable. Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement. When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar], the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of life remains. Instead, an acceptable person should receive the remainder of the blood of life and cast it [on the altar] in its appropriate place.

[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood or between two cups of blood. If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood], one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations, four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four, one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar], all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.

If [blood from a sin-offering became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering] and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable. If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion. He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].

If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel. If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable. When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside. If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be presented outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]." [The above applies] provided [the blood] is brought in through the gate to the Temple Building, for the prooftext speaks of it being "brought," implying an ordinary manner of entrance. If, however, it was brought in through a wicket or through a window or the roof, it is not disqualified.

When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation of a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood. Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there, was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. [The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed. Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.

If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed. If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.

[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary. If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.

If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary, it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].

When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.

If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl was taken into the Sanctuary in its neck, there is an unresolved doubt whether its neck is considered a receptacle [which would disqualify the sacrifice].

If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl was spilled and then collected, there is an unresolved question: Does the receptacle disqualify the blood or not? Therefore the fowl should be burnt like all the sin-offerings of fowl concerning which there are unresolved doubts.

When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.

When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood, it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified. When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.

When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal. Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable. If the [life-]blood [of a sacrificial animal] became mixed with blood concentrated [in the limbs], [the mixture] should be poured into the drainage canal. If, [however,] one did not ask and presented [the blood on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.

If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.

When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hin measure, or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.

When one arranged the limbs [of a burnt-offering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not. Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.

When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered on the top of the altar, it is as if they were slaughtered in the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], as [Exodus 20:21] states: "You shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This teaches that the entire altar is an appropriate place for the slaughter of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.

When a burnt-offering was slaughtered on the top of the altar or it was slaughtered below [on the ground of the Temple Courtyard] and then brought up to the top of the altar, it should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin should be taken down and given to the priests.

Similarly, when [other] sacrifices that had been slaughtered were brought up to the altar, they should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin and the meat should be taken down and given to the owners. The remainder [of the sacrifice] should be offered on the altar's pyre. Why shouldn't he bring down the entire [carcass] instead of skinning it and cutting it up on the top of the altar? Because anything that is fit to be offered on the pyre if it was brought up to the top of the altar should not be taken down, as [indicated by ibid. 29:36]: "Everything that touches the altar shall be sanctified." Does [the above principle apply] even when [the entity brought to the top of the altar] is not fit [to be offered on the altar's pyre]? It is taught [Leviticus 6:2] "It is the burnt-offering on the pyre." Just as the burnt-offering is fit to be consumed by the altar's pyre should not be taken down once it was taken up [to the altar], so too, any entity that is fit for the altar's pyre if it is brought up, it should not be brought down.

When [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering is brought up to the top of the altar while alive, it should be brought down, because it is not yet fit [to be consumed by the altar's pyre].

Similarly, a handful of meal from a meal-offering that was not consecrated in a sacred vessel and all entities that are forbidden to be offered on the altarshould be taken down from the altar even if they were brought up, because from the outset, they were not fit [to be offered on the pyre].

Similarly, when a consecrated animal was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, or its [blood] was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, if it was taken up [to the altar's top], it should be taken down.

[Different rules apply] if, by contrast, sacrificial animals were left overnight - whether their blood, their meat, or their fats and organs were left overnight; a sacrificial animal was taken out of the Temple Courtyard; it became impure or disqualified because of a disqualifying thought concerning the time [it was to be eaten] or the place [it was to be eaten]; it was sacrificed for the sake of a different offering; impure [priests] received its blood and cast it on the altar; [this is significant] since they are fit to perform Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity; when the blood was presented in an improper place; or sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard or their blood was received there. Although in all of these situations, [the sacrifices] are disqualified, if [the meat, fats, and/or organs] were brought to the top of the altar, they should not be taken down.

[This is the general principle:] Whenever an entity is disqualified in the Temple Courtyard, the holiness [of the altar] accepts it. Just as when these entities were brought up, they should not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they should not be brought up a second time. For they have been disqualified.

If the [altar's] fire took hold of them [before they were brought down from the altar], they should be brought up again [so that] they will be consumed by its fire.

When the handful of meal [from the meal-offering] becomes disqualified as piggul, and a portion of it is on the ground and a portion took fire, the entire [handful] should be brought up [to the altar to be consumed].

When limbs, fats, and handfuls of meal were left overnight on the top of the altar, it is as if they were left overnight in the Temple Courtyard. If they were brought down from the altar, they should not be brought up again. If, however, they were not brought down, they should be offered on the altar's pyre in all situations.

The open space above the altar is considered as the altar. When one brought the fats and the organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity up [to the altar] before their blood was poured on the altar, they should not be taken down, because they have become "the food of the altar."

[The following law applies when a person] sets aside two [animals for] a guilt-offering, one intended to serve as surety for the other. If he slaughtered both of them and brought the fats and organs of one up [to the altar] before [the blood] was cast [upon it], they should be brought down.

When an unacceptable sacrifice and unacceptable wine libations were brought up to the altar, the sacrifice should not be taken down as we explained. The wine libations, [by contrast,] should be taken down. Similarly, when wine libations are brought independently and they were disqualified and brought to the top of the altar, they should be taken down.

When melikah was performed on a fowl by a non-priest and then it was brought to the top of the altar, it should not be taken down. If, [by contrast,] a handful of meal was taken by a non-priest and brought to the top of the altar, it should be brought down. Even though both of these acts disqualify [the offerings], [the handful from the meal-offering] is considered as if it was never consecrated at all. [These laws apply to] a non-priest as well as to anyone else who is disqualified [from performing sacrificial service].

The following, however, should be taken down [even though] they were brought up to the top of the altar, anything that is not fit for the altar's pyre. [This includes:] the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order, the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the remainder of the omer, the remainder of the meal-offerings, the two breads [offered on Shavuot], the showbread, the incense offering, the wool that is on the heads of sheep, the hair on the beards of goats, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hoofs if they are not attached to [the animal's body]. [In all these instances,] if [these entities] were brought to the top [of the altar], they should be brought down.

If some of the oil from the handful of meal was squeezed out on a bone [that had been laying on the altar] and then the bone was taken down, it should be returned [to the altar]. [The rationale is that] there is an unresolved doubt whether entities attached to entities that should be brought up [to the altar] are considered as if they should be brought up as well.

The inner altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it, but the outer altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it, as we explained. What is implied? When sacrifices that were disqualified are brought up to the outer altar, they should not be brought down. If an unfitting incense offering was offered upon it, it should be brought down, because an incense offering is not fit for the outer altar. If, by contrast, a handful of meal from the meal-offering was placed on the inner altar, it should not be taken off, whether it was fit or not fit. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Just as the altar sanctifies any entity that is fit for it, so too, the ramp, and other sacred utensils, sanctify what is fit for them. For with regard to the sacred utensils, [Exodus 30:29] states: "Any entity that touches them will be sanctified." Thus when an entity that is fit for it reaches the ramp, it should not be brought down even though it is disqualified. Similarly, if any entity that is fit for a sacred vessel reaches a sacred vessel, it should never be redeemed even though it was disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach.

Vessels made for liquids do not consecrate solids and vessels made for solids do not consecrate liquids. To what does the above apply? To the liquid and dry measures that existed in the Temple which we mentioned in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash. Receptacles, by contrast, consecrate both liquids and solids. Sacred utensils sanctify blood that was disqualified and cause it to be offered [on the altar].

Sacred vessels only consecrate [entities] in the Temple. Also, they only consecrate [entities placed in them] willfully, from their insides, and when intact. [The following rules apply if] a hole was made within them. If they could still be used to perform the original task for which they were used when intact, they consecrate what is placed within. If not, they do not consecrate [their contents]. They consecrate [their contents] only when they are full. The measures do not consecrate their contents when they are lacking unless one intends to fill them. If one does not intend to fill them, they consecrate their contents only in that [the contents] could [later] be disqualified, but not to have them offered.

[When an entity is placed] in a sacred vessel at an inappropriate time, it is consecrated only to the extent that it is disqualified, not that it should be offered. What is implied? When an entity whose mitzvah is performed during the day is placed into a sacred vessel at night, it is disqualified. It should be burnt, but not sacrificed. For example, if a handful is taken from a meal-offering at night and that handful is placed in a sacred vessel, it should be burnt.

When an altar became damaged, all of the sacrificial animals that were in the Temple and had been slaughtered, but whose blood had not been cast on the altar, are disqualified. For there is no altar on which to cast the blood and [Exodus 20:21] states: "And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." Implied is that when you slaughter [your offerings,] it shall be intact and not blemished.

Sacrificial animals that were alive and located in the Temple Courtyard at the time [the altar] became damaged are not disqualified. Instead, when the altar is repaired, they should be sacrificed. [The rationale is that] living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.

If animals were consecrated before the altar was built, they should be sacrificed after the altar was built, for the fact that they could not [be sacrificed] originally is not a disqualifying factor.

Similarly, sacrificial meat should not be eaten while the altar is damaged, as [Leviticus 10:12] states: "You shall eat it as unleavened bread near the altar." This also applies to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity; they should not be eaten in Jerusalem while the altar is damaged until it is repaired.

[All of the following:] a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering, b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering, c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement, should be consigned to die. [In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Therefore it should be consigned to death. What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher. All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured - whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit- should be left to pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold. The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings. With regard to communal sin-offerings, it is impossible to speak of offspring, exchanges, or the owners dying, because all of the communal offerings are male. The community cannot exchange one sacrificial animal for another as will be explained. And the entire Jewish people will not die.

When the bull and/or the goat of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found]. Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].

[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death. If he asks the advice [of the court], he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering. If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed. If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]. If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.

[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish]. If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture. If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.

When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety, he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.

When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.

If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.

Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement, - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed - it is not consigned to death. Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed, since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.

If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death]. If it first was lost at night, even though it remained lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].

If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it]. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].

All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.

If [the animal] was considered lost by both [the owner] and the shepherd, but another person - even in a far corner of the world - knows of its existence, there is an unresolved doubt whether it should be consigned to death. Therefore it should be consigned to death.

[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.

When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive. When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained. [Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering. [If] its owner died or received atonement, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.

[If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself, it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.

When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering. If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.

When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a burnt-offering in which he [is obligated] and she gives birth to a male, [the offspring] should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a burnt-offering.

If, however, an ordinary person set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering, a king set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering, or an anointed priest set aside a cow, these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated, nor is their worth consecrated. Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.

[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering and then discovered that he did not sin or that he definitely sinned. [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. [The rationale is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses and the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah, [the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified. If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.

[This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal. There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried. If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.

When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety, he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Needless to say, this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.

All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life and their price should be [two] silver shekalim with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at and the guilt offering brought by a nazirite which should be brought in their first year of life and their cost has no limit. A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim.

If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance]. He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.

If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] one sela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement, it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own, a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property. If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable. If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained. To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared.

[The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering and the other should be left to pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.

If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old, and instead, brought one that was two years old, brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come, it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt. This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guilt-offering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.

When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite, a woman who gives birth, or a person who is being purified after tza'arat, was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come, it is acceptable and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought. This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering and dies, the money should be [thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea. Similarly, when a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, another sin-offering is offered in its place, and then the [initial] money is found after atonement was achieved, [the money should be thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside other money in its stead, but did not have the opportunity to purchase a sin-offering with the later funds before the first funds were found, he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering in its stead, but before he sacrificed it, the [original] funds were found and the [animal was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

When a person set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside money in its stead, but was not able to purchase [an animal] as a sin-offering with it before the [first] animal was found, but it [was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

If he set aside two piles of money for surety [that he will be able to purchase a sin-offering], he should gain atonement with one of them and the other should be used for freewill offerings.

If he set aside [an animal for] a sin-offering or the money for a sin-offering, because he thought that he was obligated [to bring one] and then he discovered that he was not so obligated, [the animal or the money] is of ordinary status; it is not consecrated. If he set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings or the money for two [animals] because he thought he was obligated to bring both and then it was discovered that he was only liable to bring one, he should bring one as a sacrifice and the other should be used for freewill offerings.

When he picks up coins in his hand or was in the process of collecting them and said: "I will bring my sin-offering from these," the remainder are not consecrated. Similarly, it appears to me that an inference can be drawn [from this ruling] to [similar situations involving] other sacrifices and the remainder are not considered as consecrated.

When a person sets aside money for a meal-offering of a sinner and brings a meal-offering from those funds, or he set aside a meal-offering itself, and [in either of the above instances, money] was left over, the remainder should be used to bring a freewill meal-offering. Any extra [meal left after] the tenth of the ephah that is brought by the High Priest as his chavitin offering should be left to rot. Similarly, the remainder [of meal left after preparing] the bread for a thanksgiving offering or the bread for a nazirite's offering should be left to rot. The remainder of money for wine libations should be used for freewill offerings. We have already explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim, that any money remaining from the half-shekalim are considered as ordinary funds.

[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] pairs of doves for zavim, zavot or for women after childbirth, sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings should be used for freewill offerings. They should be offered as burnt-offerings, as explained. [Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] burnt-offerings should be used for burnt-offerings, [to purchase] peace-offerings, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] meal-offerings, for meal-offerings, [to purchase] a Paschal sacrifice, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] nazirite-offerings, for nazirite-offerings, [to purchase] the offerings for a particular nazirite, for [freewill] offerings to be brought by that nazirite. When does the ruling that [money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] a sin-offering should be used for freewill offerings apply? With regard to a fixed sin-offering. When, however, one was obligated to bring an adjustable guilt offering and set aside money for a sin-offering of an animal and became poor, he should bring a fowl instead. He may transfer the holiness from those funds to the fowl and benefit from them. Similarly, if he set aside money for a fowl and became poor, he should bring a [meal-offering] of a tenth of an ephah instead. He may transfer the holiness from those funds to [the meal] and benefit from them.

If a person set aside an animal [for an adjustable guilt-offering], it contracted a disqualifying physical blemish, [and he became poor], it may be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a fowl. If, however, he set aside a fowl [for such an offering], it was disqualified, [and he became poor], he may not sell it and bring a tenth of an ephah from the proceeds of the sale, for a fowl [that was consecrated] may not be redeemed, as stated in [Hilchot] Issurei HaMizbeiach.

[The following rules apply to] all those obligated by the Torah to bring pairs of doves who set aside money for those doves. If they desired to use all the money for sin-offerings of fowl alone, they may. If they desire to use it for burnt-offerings of fowl, they may. Even if they had [originally] said: "This is the money for my sin-offering and this is the money for my burnt-offering," he may mix the money together and buy the two offerings together, or use the money solely for sin-offerings, or solely for burnt-offerings. [The rationale is that the identity of] pairs of doves is designated only when purchased by the owners or when offered by a priest.

Therefore if one set aside money for a pair of doves without making a determination and died, all of the money that was undetermined should be used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it is all fit to used for a burnt-offering.

[The following laws apply when someone] was obligated to bring a sin-offering and he said: "I pledge a burnt-offering," and set aside money saying: "This is for my obligation." If he desires, he may use them to bring an animal as a sin-offering or he may use them to bring an animal as a burnt-offering. If he died and left the money, it should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea.

If one of [the animals designated as] a sin-offering that was consigned to death or an ox that was condemned to be stoned becomes intermingled with any other sacrificial animals - even in a ratio of one to a myriad - they should all be consigned to death. [The rationale is that] living animals are important and are never considered insignificant [in a mixture]. If [the animals] were sacrificed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.

If [sacrificial animals] became intermingled with [animals that are] forbidden to be offered on the altar, they should all be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes. They should then be sold and the proceeds from the sale of the choicest animal among them should be used to bring sacrifices from the type in which [the forbidden animal] became intermingled.

If sacrificial animals become intermingled with unblemished ordinary animals, the ordinary animals in the mixture should be sold as sacrifices of that type, and they should all be sacrificed. What is implied? If four animals that were designated as peace-offerings became intermingled with four unblemished ordinary animals, the four ordinary animals should be sold to someone who is obligated to bring peace-offerings and they should all be offered as peace-offerings. Similar laws apply with regard to burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings. The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary money, for they are the proceeds of the sale of ordinary animals.

When an ox that was consecrated became intermingled with ordinary animals, the largest among them is considered as the consecrated one and the others should be sold for sacrifices of that type. If sacrifices of the most sacred order became intermingled with animals consecrated for the same purpose, each one should be offered for the sake of its owner, even though none [of the owners] recognize their sacrificial animal. When does the above apply? With regard to sacrifices to be brought by women in which there is no obligation for semichah. With regard to sacrifices to be brought by men, since each one of them is obligated to perform semichah on his sacrifice, these animals should not be offered until each one gives his portion [in the sacrificial animal] to his colleague or until they all become blemished and are sold. [In that instance,] each one should then bring a sacrificial animal equal in value to the more select of that type.

If [sacrificial animals of] two [different] types become intermingled, e.g., a peace-offering with a burnt-offering, they should not be sacrificed, even as the more sacred. [The rationale is that] we should not cause sacrificial animals to become disqualified.

Just as we may not reduce the time [in which sacrifices] may be eaten, so too, we may not limit the people eligible to partake of them, nor the place where they can be eaten. Instead, what should be done? All [of the sacrificial animals of mixed identity] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. Then each one should be sold individually. He should purchase a sacrifice for each type of the value of the most choice animal. He must suffer the loss from his own resources.

Even though the person already sacrificed the burnt-offering or the peace-offering which he was obligated to bring, he should nevertheless bring a different burnt-offering and peace-offering from the proceeds [of the sale] of the mixture.

When a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, [the two] should be allowed to pasture until they contracted disqualifying physical blemishes and were redeemed. He should bring a peace-offering of the value of the most choice animal and a sin-offering of the value of the most choice animal. If he took the initiative and offered another [animal as a] sin-offering for the sin-offering that was set aside for him first, they should all be consigned to death.

Similarly, if money for a sin-offering becomes mixed together with money for a guilt-offering, one should take two animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on [the animal set aside as] a sin-offering and transfer the holiness of the money for the guilt-offering on [the animal set aside as] a guilt-offering. If he already offered his sin-offering, all of the money should be taken and thrown to the Mediterranean Sea. If he had already offered his guilt-offering, all of the money should be used for freewill offerings.

When a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with an animal exchanged for it, they should both be offered and the bread [that accompanies the thanksgiving-offering] should be waved with [both of] them. If a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with other sacrificial animals, even if the person offered [another animal as] his thanksgiving-offering, all [the sacrificial animals] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish. He should then bring another thanks-offering of the value of the most choice animal and the other offering of the value of the most choice animal.

If [a thanksgiving-offering] becomes mixed with a nazirite's ram, they should both be sacrificed and the bread waved with them.

When a firstborn offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, they should both be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, and then eaten as a [blemished] firstborn offering. Why aren't they sacrificed? Because a Paschal sacrifice may be eaten by any person until midnight and the firstborn offering is eaten for two days and is eaten only by priests. [We follow the principles that] we do not cause sacrifices to be disqualified and we do not reduce the amount of people eligible to partake of them.

Similarly, when a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, when they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions regarding a tithe offering. When a firstborn and a tithe offering become intermingled, they may be eaten [as ordinary meat] after contracting a disqualifying physical blemish.

Similarly, when other sacrificial animals become intermingled with a firstborn or a tithe offering, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. They may be eaten according to the restrictions applying to a firstborn offering or a tithe offering that became blemished.

When a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace-offering, even though only the fats and the organs are offered and the meat is eaten, they should not be offered. Instead, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish and he should bring a guilt-offering of the value of the more choice one and a peace-offering of the value of the more choice one. [The owner should] suffer the loss of the difference [between the value of these animals and the animals lost] from his own resources. If he took the initiative and offered his guilt-offering first, they should both [be allowed to pasture until they become blemished and sold, with the proceeds] used for freewill offerings.

It is possible for sacrificial animals of any type to become intermingled with other sacrificial animals of the same species with the exception of [animals consecrated] as sin-offerings and [those consecrated as] guilt-offerings, because guilt offerings may be brought only from male sheep and sin-offerings are brought from female sheep.

If any of the sacrificial animals [of two types] that were intermingled while alive were sacrificed, they are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.

[The following rules apply with regard to] any animal found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder or that radius to any other direction. If it is a female [that can be estimated to be] a year old, it is placed in a closed room to die, lest it be a sin-offering. If it [appears to be] two years old, it should be brought as a peace-offering and bread should be brought with it, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering. If a male that [appears to be] two years old is found, there is no way of correcting the situation, for it is possible that it is a guilt-offering whose owner has not yet received atonement. If one found a male animal that is a year old, he should allow it to pasture until it becomes blemished, bring two animals in its stead and make a stipulation, stating: "If the [blemished animal] was a burnt-offering, this is designated as a burnt-offering in place of it. If it was a peace-offering, this is a peace-offering in place of it." He then offers the first as a burnt-offering. Its accompanying offerings should be brought from communal funds. The other should be brought as a peace-offering together with bread, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering. What should be done with the animal that was found? It should be eaten after it contracts a blemish. For even if it was a firstborn offering or a tithe offering, it could be eaten after it was blemished. If it was a Paschal sacrifice whose time had passed, it is considered as a peace-offering. And during the time the Paschal sacrifice [must be offered], everyone is careful regarding it. If one might ask: Maybe it is a guilt-offering of a nazirite or a person purified from tzara'at? These are not frequently found. Therefore [the Sages] showed no concern about them.

If sacrifices became intermingled with other sacrifices after the animals were slaughtered, they should be eaten according to the laws pertaining to the more severe category. If [such sacrifices] became intermingled with sacrificial animals that were disqualified or ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard, they should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable and then be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.

When the limbs of a sin-offering become mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, the entire mixture should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable. [Afterwards,] they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.

When a limb from a blemished [sacrificial] animal becomes mixed with the limbs of sacrificial animals - even one in a thousand - they should all be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt. Even if all the limbs [of the sacrifices] were offered except for one, it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.

When pieces [of meat] from sacrifices of the most sacred order become mixed with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness or those which are eaten for one day become mixed with those eaten for two days, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions of the more severe of the two.

When a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 pieces of meat from a pure sin-offering or a slice of the showbread that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 slices of the showbread that are pure, [the mixture] may be considered acceptable, as we explained in [Hilchot] Terumot.

If, however, a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering became mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary meat or a piece of the showbread which is pure becomes mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary bread, [the mixture] should not be considered as acceptable. Instead, the entire mixture should be eaten by priests, as is true with regard to any mixture of consecrated food and ordinary food.

Whenever anyone who is unacceptable to perform Temple service performs the rite of melikah, the melikah is unacceptable. [Nevertheless,] even though the dove [killed by such a melikah] is unacceptable, it is not considered as a nevelah of a kosher fowl with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Similarly, if one performed melikah at night or slaughtered an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard], they are not nevelot.

If one performed melikah on turtle-doves before they reached the appropriate age or on young doves who passed the appropriate age or on a dove whose wing shriveled, whose eye was lost or whose leg was cut off, it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. This is the general principle: Any disqualifying factor that takes place after [a dove] entered the Temple Courtyard disqualifies it, but does not render it a nevelah. If the disqualifying factor did not take place after it was brought into the Temple Courtyard, [the dove] is a nevelah in all contexts.

For this reason, when a person performs melikah and the animal is discovered to be tereifah, he performed melikah with a knife, or performed melikah on an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard], they are considered as a nevelah in all contexts. For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar.

In contrast, if melikah was performed on a dove that was sodomized, set aside for pagan sacrifice, worshiped, given to a prostitute as her fee, exchanged for a dog, was a tumtum or an androgynus, it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. It causes a person's garments to become impure when it [enters his] gut. The rationale is that the holiness [of a sacrifice] does not fall upon them and thus it is not considered as having been disqualified [after entering] the Temple Courtyard.

We already explained in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh Hakorbanot, that [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the lower [half of the altar] and [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar]. When [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar], it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the blood was presented in the manner of a sin-offering or in the manner of a burnt-offering, whether it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering or for the sake of a sin-offering.

Similarly, when [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl was presented on the lower [half of the altar], even if he performed melikah on one of the signs of ritual slaughter on the lower half and the other sign on the upper half, it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the melikah was performed in the manner of a burnt-offering or in the manner of a sin-offering, whether it was offered for the sake of a sin-offering or for the sake of a burnt-offering.

When melikah was performed on a sin-offering of a fowl on the lower half of the altar in the manner as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering, or as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering, it is unacceptable.

Similarly, when a burnt-offering of a fowl was presented on the upper [half of the altar] in the manner as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering or as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is unacceptable. If, however, he performs it as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is acceptable, but it is not considered as if the owner fulfilled his obligation.

All of these fowl that are disqualified because of the place [in the altar] where their blood was presented, because of the difference in the manner in which [melikah] is performed, or the intent for which they are offered, are not considered as a fowl that has become a nevelah with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Similarly, when a sin-offering or a burnt-offering of fowl becomes piggul, impure, or notar it does not cause impurity in one's gut as does a fowl that has become a nevelah, for all of these became disqualified [after having entered] the Temple Courtyard.

When a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt, it should be offered as required, but not eaten. Instead, it should be burnt like all other sacrificial animals that become disqualified. When is such a sacrifice brought because of a doubt? When there is an unresolved question whether a woman is a zavah, impure because of childbirth, or the like. There is no concept of an animal being brought as a sin-offering because of a doubt, because if a person is unsure whether or not he committed a sin, he should bring a conditional guilt-offering, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot.

[The following rules apply when] a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt and then it is discovered that the woman is definitely obligated to bring [the sacrifice]. If she realized this before melikah was performed on [the dove], it should be offered with certainty and eaten. If she did not discover this until after melikah was performed, the sprinkling and presentation of its blood [on the altar] should be completed. Then it should be burnt, so that it will not be said that a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt is eaten. For at the outset, [this offering] was brought because of a doubt.

If, after melikah was performed, she discovered that she was not obligated to bring a sacrifice, it should be buried.

When a sin-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with a burnt-offerings of doves or a burnt-offering of a dove becomes intermingled with sin-offerings of doves, even one in a myriad, they should all be consigned to death. When does the above apply? When their identity had been explicitly determined when they were purchased by the owner, [saying]: "This is a sin-offering. This is a burnt-offering." Different rules apply, however, if one brought doves to fulfill his obligation, some [for] a sin-offering and some for a burnt-offering, without stating explicitly [what each was, instead, they were brought] without specification and then a [dove designated as] a sin-offering or as a burnt-offering became mixed with these undesignated [doves] brought to fulfill his obligation.

What are the appropriate laws? If [a dove designated as] a sin-offering becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves] brought to fulfill one's obligation, only the number of doves to be brought as sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable. The number of burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the sin-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a sin-offering has become intermingled with burnt-offerings.

Therefore if the unspecified [group] is [at least] twice as large as the number of sin-offerings [that became intermingled with them], half of the unspecified group is acceptable, and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the lower portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a sin-offering.

Similarly, if a burnt-offering becomes intermingled with this unspecified [group of doves], only the number of doves to be brought as burnt-offerings in the unspecified [group] are acceptable. The number of sin-offerings in the unspecified [group] and the burnt-offering that became intermingled with them are disqualified, for a burnt-offering has become intermingled with sin-offerings. Whether there are more doves in the unspecified group than the number of burnt-offerings that became intermingled with them, there were more burnt-offerings than doves in the unspecified group, or they were of equal amounts, only the amount of burnt-offerings in the unspecified group are acceptable. Therefore if the unspecified group was twice as large as the number of doves that became intermingled with them, half of the unspecified group is acceptable, and half are disqualified. It appears to me that [the priest offering the sacrifices] should offer all of them on the upper portion of the altar according to the rites appropriate for a burnt-offering.

When one unspecified group becomes intermingled with another unspecified group - whether they were all for one purpose, e.g., doves brought by zavim together with doves brought by zavim, or for two purposes, doves brought by zavim together with doves brought by women after childbirth, whether they were both brought by the same person, or they were brought by two separate people, if they were both similar, half are acceptable and half are disqualified. [This applies] whether [the priest] offered all of them on the upper portion of the altar or all on the lower portion of the altar, or half were offered on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, half are always acceptable and half are always disqualified, because half [of the mixture] are burnt-offerings and half are sin-offerings and a sin-offering is offered on the lower portion of the altar and a burnt-offering is offered on the upper portion. [To explain:] If he offered them all on the upper portion, half are acceptable and they are burnt-offerings. If he offered them all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and they are sin-offerings. If half were offered on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion, half of the half offered on the upper portion are acceptable [and the other half are disqualified,] because of the mixture. [The acceptable ones] are burnt-offerings. And half of the half of those offered on the lower portion are acceptable and they are sin-offerings.

[The following rules apply if] two unspecified groups became intermingled with each other and one was larger than the other, e.g., one had four doves and one had six. If he offered them all on the upper portion of the altar, or all on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are disqualified for the reason we explained. [Different laws apply] if he offered half on the lower portion of the altar and half on the upper portion. If he did this after he asked, the lesser amount are acceptable. If he did this on his own initiative, the greater amount are acceptable.

This is the general principle: Whenever, on his initiative, the priest offered half on the upper portion of the altar and half on the lower portion, and it is impossible that [the doves of] one [owner] will not have been offered on both halves of the altar, the greater amount is acceptable. Since it is known that a portion of [this person's] sacrifices will be [offered] on the upper portion of the altar and a portion on the lower half, all of his sacrifices are acceptable.

When two individuals purchase pairs of doves together or give the money for them to the priest [to purchase them], the priest may offer whichever he desires as sin-offerings and whichever he desires as burnt-offerings. For [the identity of the sacrifices] in the pair is determined only when purchased by the owners or when offered by the priest, as we explained.

If there were [groups of doves], some [groups of] sin-offerings and others, burnt-offerings, before a priest and he offered both [groups] on the upper portion of the altar or both on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not. If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion without knowing whether it was the sin-offerings or the burnt-offerings that he offered on the lower portion, they are all unacceptable. For we surmise that it was the burnt-offering that were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.

If there were three groups of doves before him: one sin-offerings, one burnt-offerings, and one undefined, half burnt-offerings and half sin-offerings, without the purpose [for any given dove] being defined, if he offered all of them on the upper portion or on the lower portion, half are acceptable and half are not.

If he offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion, only the group that was undefined that was offered half on the upper portion and half on the lower portion is acceptable. It is divided between the owners and [the portion allotted to] each one is considered as valid for them, for the priest does not know which groups were specified [as being sin-offerings] and which one was left undefined. The two specified groups are not acceptable, because it is not known which one was offered on the upper portion of the altar and which one, on the lower portion and it is possible that the burnt-offerings were offered on the lower portion and the sin-offerings on the upper portion.

When a dove from an unspecified group flies to free spaces or among doves that are consigned to death, or one of the doves dies, a second one should be taken for its pair.

If it flies among [doves] that are fit to be offered, it is disqualified and it disqualifies one [of the group], for when a dove flies from an unspecified group to among those which will be offered, it becomes disqualified and it disqualifies another one corresponding to it. What is implied? A dove from a group of unspecified doves flies to an unspecified group of ten doves. If [the priest] offered five on the lower portion [of the altar] and six on the upper portion, five of the burnt-offerings from the six offered on the upper portion are acceptable and four of the sin-offerings from the five offered on the lower portion are acceptable. [The rationale is that] one says: "Perhaps the dove that flew is one of the five offered on the lower portion." Similarly, if he offered six on the lower portion and five on the upper portion, five sin-offerings and four burnt-offerings are acceptable. For one might say: "Perhaps the dove [that flew] is one of the five offered on the upper portion." Thus from the ten [from the second group], nine are acceptable and [the dove] disqualified one.

[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of four doves and another unspecified group of four doves. If one from the first group flew to the second group, it disqualified one of the second group. If, after it became intermingled among them, one of the second group flew to the first group, it disqualifies one of the first group. Thus there are only two doves in the first group that are acceptable.

If, again, one of the first group flew back to the second group, even if [they continue flying back and forth] the entire day, they do not add to the number disqualified, for even if they become entirely intermingled with each other, half are acceptable and half are disqualified, as we explained.

[The following rules apply when there is one] unspecified group of two doves, a second group of four doves, a third of six, a fourth of eight, a fifth of ten, a sixth of twelve, and a seventh of fourteen. If one of the first group flew to the second, one of the second flew to the third, one of the third to the fourth, one of the fourth to the fifth, one of the fifth to the sixth, and one of the sixth to the seventh - and then, one flew back from group to group until one returned to the first group from which the original one had flown, one dove is disqualified in the first movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the first and second groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the third group has two; the fourth, four; the fifth, six; the sixth, eight, and the seventh, twelve. If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a second time and then one flew back from the last [group], going from group to group until it reaches the first, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. The third and the fourth groups do not have any [acceptable doves]; the fifth group has two; the sixth, four, and the seventh, ten. If one of the doves flew from [group] to [group] a third time and then one flew a fourth time, going from group to group, one dove is disqualified in the movement from group to group and one is disqualified in the return. Thus the fifth and the sixth are disqualified entirely and the seventh has eight acceptable doves remaining, i.e., when the fourteen doves are offered [on the altar], seven on the upper portion and seven on the lower portion, eight will be acceptable and six will be disqualified because of the intermingling of the doves that flew back and forth.

[The following laws apply when there was] a group of doves that was unspecified and another group [in which the doves for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering] had already been specified. If one of the doves from the unspecified group flew to the group that had been specified, [the owner of the unspecified group] should take a partner for the remaining dove. If [the above group became intermingled and then one of the doves] returned [to the unspecified group] or [at the outset,] one of the doves from the specified group flew to the unspecified group and it was not known whether it was the one designated as a burnt-offering or the one designated as the sin-offering, all of the doves in the unspecified group should be consigned to death. [The rationale is that] if it was the one designated as a burnt-offering that became intermingled, all of the sin-offerings [in that group] are disqualified. And if it was the one designated as a sin-offering that became intermingled, all of the burnt-offerings [in that group] are disqualified. Therefore, they should all be consigned to death.

[The following laws apply when there were] a group of doves that were designated as sin-offerings on one side, others designated as burnt-offerings on the other side, and an unspecified group in the middle. If one of the unspecified group flew to the group on one side and another, to the other group, nothing is lost. Instead, the owner should say: "The one which flew to the sin-offerings is a sin-offering. The one which flew to the burnt-offerings is a burnt-offering." If, after they became intermingled, one from each of the sides returned to the center, the two in the center should be consigned to death, for they are a burnt-offering and a sin-offering mixed together and those on the sides should be offered - these as sin-offerings and these as burnt-offerings - as was their original state. If those [which returned to] the center flew to the sides, they must all be consigned to death for perhaps the burnt-offering became intermingled with the sin-offerings and the sin-offering became intermingled with the burnt-offerings.

When a woman says: "I pledge a pair of doves when I give birth to a male," when she gives birth to a male she must bring four doves: two because of her vow, they are burnt offerings, as we explained, and two which she is obligated to bring because of the birth, one, a burnt-offering and the other, a sin-offering. Therefore the priest must offer three doves on the upper portion of the altar and one dove on the lower portion. If he erred and offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion, and he did not consult [with the woman], she must bring another dove and offer it on the upper portion of the altar. When does the above apply? When she brought all four doves from one type; either they were all turtle doves or young doves. If, however, she brought two turtle doves and two young doves and two were offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and two on the lower portion, she must bring one more turtle dove and one more young dove on the upper portion to fulfill her obligation. For if at the outset, two turtle doves were offered on the lower portion, another turtle dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation. [Or] if two young doves were offered on the lower portion, another young dove must be brought on the upper portion to complete her obligation. For a person should not bring a pair to fulfill his obligation that comprises one turtle dove and one young dove. Instead, either they should both be turtle doves or both be young doves.

If she made her vow explicit, telling the priest: "These are for my vow and these are for my obligation," and the priest offered two on the upper portion and two on the lower portion without knowing which ones he offered on the upper portion and which ones he offered on the lower portion, she must bring three doves, two for her vow and one to complete her obligation. The two should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. [The rationale is that] she made her vow explicit and possibly the two brought because of her vow were offered on the lower portion, thus disqualifying them. When does the above apply? When she brought the four doves from which she explicitly defined two as being for her vow from one type. If, however, [she brought them from] two types, she must bring four other doves: the two from the type she designated explicitly for her vow should be offered for her vow and the other two may be from either type she desires for her obligation. One should be offered on the upper portion [of the altar] and one on the lower portion.

[The following laws apply if a woman] defined [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow, saying: "If I give birth to a male, I pledge two turtle doves," and she gave birth and brought four doves: two for her vow and two for her obligation. The priest offered two on the upper portion [of the altar] and two on the lower portion, but did not know which were offered on the upper portion and which were offered on the lower portion and she also forgot and did not know the type of doves she had pledged for her vow, whether turtle doves or young doves. She should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow. [All] four should be offered on the upper portion of the altar. She should bring another dove to complete her obligation and it should be offered on the lower portion. When does the above apply? When originally she brought all of the four of one type. If, however, they were of two types, she must bring six other doves: two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow and for her obligation, she should bring either two turtle doves or two young doves and offer one on the upper portion of the altar and one on the lower portion. Similarly, if she gave them to the priest and forgot what she gave him and the priest went and offered them, but was not aware where he offered all of the doves, whether he offered them all on the upper portion, all on the lower portion, or half above and half below, she should bring two turtle doves and two young doves for her vow and two turtle doves or two young doves for her obligation.

If she defined [which type of offering to be offered to fulfill] her obligation and [which types of doves to be offered to fulfill] her vow and forgot what she defined, it is [also] possible that her obligation was a lamb for a burnt-offering and a dove - either a turtle dove or a young dove - as a sin-offering. Therefore she must bring six doves - four for her vow and two for her obligation. And she must bring one sin-offering, either a young dove or a turtle dove, with a lamb. Thus she will have brought seven doves and a lamb.

None of these sin-offerings should be eaten, because they are all offered because of a doubt.

Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering, the offering is disqualified. Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense, the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.

[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified: a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable; b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil; c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.

If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.

If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard and it is acceptable.

If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.

[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]: it was not placed in a sacred utensil, the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil, it was brought to the altar while not in a sacred utensil, or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.

All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces, or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them, a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful..." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest. Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.

When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written: "on all its frankincense."

If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugim for every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering, it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.

If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified. If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up. If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].

If one placed oil on the remnants [of such a meal-offering] after the handful was removed, he is not liable for lashes, nor does he disqualify the offering, for the handful is acceptable.

If he placed even the smallest amount of oil on an olive-sized portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense unless he places an olive-sized portion [on the offering].

Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.

If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.

A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.

If one offered the handful [of meal on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable, for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained. When a meal-offering was lacking before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering, not placing it into a sacred vessel.

When a person donates a handful of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.

[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established. If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense. Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread], [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.

When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre, the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]" If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.

If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure, was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above]. If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.

If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful. If one did, it is unacceptable.

If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.

If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance]. If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.

If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread, the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified, but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].

If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].

[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified. The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron]. If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified. The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them. If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.

Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten. [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions. For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden. [One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.

When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest, the meal-offering from an accompanying offering, or the chavitin offering of the High Priest. They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.

[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.

When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering, it should not be offered. If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot], the showbread, and the omer that is waved, they are disqualified.

With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering and the cakes of a nazirite that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if they lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

And with regard to the showbread, if they lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were already placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.

With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].

[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered. If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward, the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner]. What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]? If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire. When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them. [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices. Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.

Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated, the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.

[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it. If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them. When does the above apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering. When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them]. Its offspring does not require bread. [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.

[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it. The third one, however, requires bread. If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it. The first one, however, requires bread. If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.

[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering, but it does not require bread. It does, however, require accompanying offerings. Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money. Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.

[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread." If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering. [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.

When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.

[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering," it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred. [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering. Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.

When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified. If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure, the remainder of the breads are acceptable. If the bread was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified. The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow. If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.

When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated. If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.

When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi, the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.

If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.

If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten] the bread is sanctified. If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah, or it was slaughtered with an improper intent, the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.

There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time. What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"? [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose." What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place. What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.

According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day. The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice. Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition, the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.

When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it, but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained. The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.

We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.

A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services: melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].

The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.

If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar, when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar, or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.

Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all. What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to: a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard, b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion on the upper portion, d) or those to be presented on the outer altar on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber, e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it, f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service, g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood; h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked; i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt outside its proper time or outside its proper place; With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.

We already explained that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified. What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard], having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.

[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence. Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.

The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service. What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service. The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal. If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent. If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has a disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained. They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally, as will be explained. Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent, it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed, there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent, because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time. If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.

These are elements of sacrificial [animals] that are not fit to be eaten, but are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: its blood, its eimorim, the meat of a burnt-offering, and the handful of meal and the frankincense from the meal-offerings from which such a handful is removed.

These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal-offering, the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.

These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard], the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim, the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail. Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices. This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.

A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt. If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services, one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable. What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable. [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt, outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul, as we explained. If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul.

Whenever eating is concerned, it never refers to an amount less than the volume of an olive. So too with burning, it never refers to less than an olive’s volume. Therefore, if one thinks about eating something edible which is less than the bulk of an olive, or of burning something burnable which is less than the size of an olive - whether the thought is [invalid on account of an incorrect] time or place - the sacrifice is valid. If one thought of eating half an olive’s bulk [of the sacrificial animal] outside its correct place [in the Temple] and burning half an olive’s bulk outside of its correct place, or thought to eat half an olive’s bulk [of the animal] after its correct time for eating and burn half an olive’s bulk after its correct time for burning - the sacrifice is valid, because the acts of eating and burning do not combine. However, if one speaks using the language of ‘consuming’, and says that they will consume half an olive’s bulk [of the sacrificial animal] and that the flames [of the altar] will consume half an olive’s bulk, these do combine, because they employ the same language of consumption....

Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable, but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice. If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, at the time he brings it to the altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained. What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon. When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence. Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable, but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable.

Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner and a meal offering of a sotah. If while performing one of the four services one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable. What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained. Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose. Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner. And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to G-d, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto G-d,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner, it is not acceptable. And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering." And with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah, [Numbers 5:15] states: "It is a meal-offering [resulting from] envy." [The implication is that] all of the actions associated with them must be performed for that purpose.

When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.

According to the Oral Tradition, it was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.

If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.

If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering, it is unacceptable.

If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burnt-offering, it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation. [The concept mentioned previously derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.

If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices]. If one slaughtered it for the sake of a person who is not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, not a sin-offering, nor a burnt-offering, nor any other sacrifice, it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] perhaps he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice], but does not know.

If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant]. Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.

A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto G-d,' When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day for a different intent, it is unacceptable. If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable. [If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.

When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.

When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.

When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation, for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.

When a burnt-offering that was brought after the death [of the person who set it aside] was offered for the sake [of that person who set it aside and] not for the sake of its owner, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for there is no conception of ownership after death.

When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams, the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation. If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.

When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from] tzara'at was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement, accompanying offerings are required. For if it was offered without accompanying offerings, it would be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.

When the sheep that is brought together with the omer offering was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering. Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation. Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.

When the sheep offered on Shavout were slaughtered for a different intent or were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar]. If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.

Similarly when the peace-offerings of a nazirite were offered for a different intent, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation, they are eaten for a day and a night and do not require bread. Similarly, when the guilt-offering of a nazirite or the guilt-offering of one [to be purified from] tzara'at were offered for a different intent, they are eaten, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation.

We have already explained that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul. When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the intent concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified. Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified. The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.

When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day; an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten], half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten], the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.

If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.

If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained; if one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day, [an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day, he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul. Since we have explained in these halachot that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained. [There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].

If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul. Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul. If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.

If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating, this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.

When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul. If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.

If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul and thus it is piggul or it was not established and it is not piggul.

Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable. If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance. In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable, even if all the other presentations were made as required.

If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar] and had no specific intent regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.

[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul. What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar].

If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.

What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow," [the offering] is not piggul, because presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.

If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood] on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.

A [disqualifying intent] concerning a thanksgiving-offering causes the bread [that accompanies it] to become piggul, but a [disqualifying intent] concerning the bread does not cause the thanksgiving-offering to become piggul. What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is not piggul.

Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads are piggul and the sheep are not piggul. If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul and the thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul.

When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.

When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.

If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.

If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering- whether before the casting on the altar or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.

If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.

If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul. Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].

If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.

If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.

The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered. What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified. If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified.

When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].

When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent. If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not.

Anyone who has in mind a wrong thought while dealing with sacrifices transgresses a negative commandment. As it is written (Leviticus 7:18), "shall not be considered."

Our tradition has taught that this also includes a prohibition to make sacrifices invalid through one's thoughts, since this is like actively blemishing an a sacrificial animal. Nonetheless, one does not receive corporal punishment for this, since thought is not an action.

Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable - whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent."

According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse was warning solely against [partaking of] sacrificial animals that were disqualified.

Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,] they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained. Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.

Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained, anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet, as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin." If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering.

One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar. If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet. Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved. What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal] intentionally, is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burnt-offering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit the showbread to [be eaten by] the priests. Sacrificial entities that do not have entities that permit them [to be consumed either by the altar or by man], e.g., the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt or the meal-offerings that are burnt, are never deemed as piggul.

These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul: the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine - whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings or wine that is offered independently; and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite. If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place.

It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten, as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices. One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment, as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."

One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet. If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto G-d; [that soul] shall be cut off." From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn. If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day. Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy." This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it.

Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that became piggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].

It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure, for he disqualifies them. One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten." The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity or a derivative of impurity of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct. [Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable for karet for entering the Temple who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure - intentionally is liable for karet, as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for G-d while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering. What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure? [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for G-d while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar. Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement, he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him.

If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food]. Needless to say, he is not liable for karet. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure. This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet. Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar], he is liable for karet.

It was already explained for you, that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notar or because the object contracted ritual impurity? What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances. Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained, one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it.

When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet.

[If an impure person] partook of a Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted, or breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage]. It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul and notar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice. [The rationale is that] piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.

When one combined [different types of sacrificial food that were] piggul, notar, and impure and partook of them, he is liable. Even though there was more of one type of prohibited substance than another, it does not nullify it, because [these] prohibited substances do not nullify each other.

When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight. The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure.

When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], the allal, the murah, from the giddim, the horns, and the hoofs, the nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers, or its eggs, he is not liable for karet. Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.

If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.

[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles. Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained. Similarly, one is not liable for karet for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].

It is a positive commandment to burn all the sacrifices that have become impure, as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the meat that will touch anything that [imparts] impurity may not be eaten. It must be burnt with fire." Similarly, it is a mitzvah to burn notar, as [ibid.:17] states: "What remains from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire." Included in [the category of] notar is piggul and all other sacrifices that were disqualified. They must all be burnt.

When a sacrifice becomes piggul or is [otherwise] disqualified, it should be burnt in the Temple immediately. Whenever there is a doubt whether a sacrifice has been disqualified, it should be left until the next day and then burnt in the Temple.

There is an unresolved doubt with regard to the bulls and the goats which are to be burnt whether leaving them overnight or taking them outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the time to take them out disqualifies their meat as it would their fats and organs or not. Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if they were disqualified and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt if half [such] an animal was taken out [including] the majority of one limb. Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if it was disqualified and it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, if five people carried [such] an animal to take it outside the Temple Courtyard and three departed from [the Courtyard] and two remained, but the three removed half of the animal, [such animals] are disqualified because of the doubt and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard. It appears to me that in such instances, it is not necessary to wait until the following day. [The rationale is that] regardless [such animals] will be burnt, even if they are not disqualified.

[The following laws apply when] meat is found in the Temple Courtyard: [Whole] limbs are [considered as parts of] burnt-offerings. Pieces [of meat] are considered as parts of sin-offerings. Pieces which are found in Jerusalem are considered as parts of peace-offerings. Everything should be left until the following day and then taken out to the place where sacrifices are burnt lest it be notar. [One might ask: If so,] of what benefit will it be that it be considered as [part of] a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering? [To define the law for one] who transgressed and partook of it. Notar is burnt only during the day, as stated: "On the third day, [it] shall be burnt with fire."

Although peace-offerings are forbidden to be eaten from the beginning of the night of the third day, [the remainder] is only burnt during the day, whether [it is burnt] at the appropriate time or not at the appropriate time. Similarly, piggul is burnt only during the day. Burning [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, or piggul does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] festivals. Needless to say, it does not supersede [the prohibition against work on] the Sabbath. It is permitted to burn [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, and piggul together.

When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard]. [This applies] whether it became impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity. The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity - and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree - with meat that contracted impurity from a derivative of impurity, even though this would increase the level of its impurity. For [an entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place. Moreover, even oil that became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day, which is of third degree impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp that was touched by a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of impurity. Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified.

Notar left over from sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness should be burnt by the persons bringing the sacrifice in their homes.

[The following rules apply when a person] left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat in his possession. If he already passed Mt. Scopus, he should burn it where he is. If not and it is the size of an olive-sized portion, he should return and burn it in Jerusalem. If he is a guest who does not have a home, he should burn it before the Temple with wood designated for the arrangement of wood [of the altar].

All of the bones of the sacrifices that do not have marrow need not be burnt with the exception of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. We already explained that when a sacrifice was disqualified after it was skinned, its hide should be given to the priests or to the owners, in the instance of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness. If, however, [a sacrifice] was disqualified before it was skinned, the hide is considered as the meat and it should be burnt in its entirety. Similarly, if a sacrifice was skinned and then it was discovered to be tereifah or it was disqualified because of an improper thought concerning time or place, since the sacrifice was not accepted, the hide should be burnt. [This applies] both to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If, however, a sacrifice was offered for the sake of a different intent, even though the obligation of the owners was not fulfilled, since it is acceptable, the hide is given to the priests or the owners, as explained [above]. When a sacrifice was skinned before the blood was cast [on the altar and the sacrifice was disqualified afterwards, the hide] is not disqualified.

These are the entities that should be burnt: sacrificial meat that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, and also a meal-offering that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, a conditional guilt-offering in an instance when it became known to the transgressor that he definitely did not sin before its blood was cast [on the altar], a sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt, the hair of a nazirite who is ritually pure, and [produce that is] orlah or kilei hakerem. Entities that are not fit to be burnt - e.g., liquids that are orlah or kilei hakerem - should be buried.

These are the entities that should be buried: sacred animals that died, whether they were consecrated to [be offered on] the altar or for the sake of the Temple treasury - when sacred animals miscarry and discharge a fetus or a placenta, it should be buried - an ox that is stoned to death, a calf whose neck is broken, the fowl [used for the purification of] a person afflicted with tzara'at, the hair of a nazirite who became impure, a firstborn donkey [which was not redeemed], a mixture of milk and meat, and ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.

When a person weaves the full length of a sit from the hair of a nazirite or a firstborn donkey with a weave of goatshair, it should be consigned to flames.

[If] any of the entities that must be buried [are burnt], it is forbidden to benefit from their ashes. It is permitted to benefit from the ashes of all of the entities that must be burnt, [even if] they are sacred, with the exception of the ashes of the outer and inner altars and the ashes of the Menorah.

None of the entities to be burnt should be buried and none of the entities to be buried should be burnt. [The rationale for the latter point is that] even though he is stringent by burning it, he is being lenient with regard to its ash, for the ashes of the entities that are buried are forbidden.

If a person was offering sacrifices together with [a priest] and he told him: "[The sacrifices became] piggul," or if he was involved with entities that are ritually pure with a person and he told him, "They became impure," his word is accepted. A Jew is not suspected of lying in such an instance. If, by contrast, he told him: "The sacrifices which I offered for you on this and this day became piggul" or "those pure objects became impure," [different rules apply]. If [the person is one] whom he trusts, he should rely on his word. If not, according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon. One who wishes to be stringent is praiseworthy.