meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Zevachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: Mishnah Zevachim
  משנה זבחים
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  Mishnah Zevachim
  
  
  
  
  
  All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name.
  Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid.
  A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.
  A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name, Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified. What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim. ‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah. For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles. Rabbi Elazar says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].
  
  
  
  All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified. If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified. If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet.
  One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.
  This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.
  How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.
  [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.
  
  
  
  All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood.
  If a fit person received [the blood] and gave [it] to an unfit person, he must return it to the fit one. If he received [the blood] in his right hand and transferred [it] to his left, he must return it to his right. If he received [it] in a sacred vessel and poured it into a secular [non-sacred] vessel, he must return it to the sacred vessel. If he spilled it from the vessel on to the pavement and then collected it, it is fit. If [the priest] applied it on the ascent [or on the altar], [but] not against [the altar’s] base; [or] if he applied what should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it], or what should be applied above, below; or what should be applied within [he applied] without, or what should be applied without, within1 and life-blood is [still] available, a fit [priest] must receive [blood] anew.
  If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.
  One who slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat as much as an olive of the skin, or of the juice, or of the jelly, or of the hardened meat, or of the bones, or of the tendons, or of the horns, or of the hoofs, either after time or out of bounds, it is valid, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.
  If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.
  If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.
  
  
  
  Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet.
  With regard to any [blood] which is sprinkled on the inner altar, if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has not atoned; therefore if he applied all in the proper manner but one in an improper manner, it [the sacrifice] is invalid, but does not involve karet.
  These are the things for which one is not liable on account of piggul:The fistful, The incense, The frankincense, The priests’ meal-offering, The anointed priest's meal-offering, The minhah with libation The blood, The libations that are brought separately, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: also those that are brought with an animal [sacrifice]. The log  of oil brought by the metzora: Rabbi Shimon says: one is not liable on account of piggul; But Rabbi Meir says: one is liable on account of piggul, because the blood of the asham makes it permitted and whatever has something else that makes it permitted,  whether for man or for the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul.
  [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.
  The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable. The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood. Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.
  The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:For the sake of the sacrifice, For the sake of the sacrificer, For the sake of the [Divine] Name, For the sake of fire-offerings, For the sake of fragrance, For the sake of pleasing; And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper.
  
  
  
  Which is the place [for the offering] of the sacrifices?Most holy sacrifices are slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. The bullock and the goat of Yom Kippur are [done] at the north, and the receiving of their blood is [performed] with ministering vessels at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the poles [of the ark], on the curtain, and on the golden altar. [The omission of] a single application of [the blood] invalidates [them]. He [the priest] would pour out the remainders of the blood on the western base of the outer altar, but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice].
  As for the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, their slaughtering is [done] at the north, and the reception of their blood is [done] at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling on the veil, and on the golden altar; [The omission of] a single one of these applications invalidates [the sacrifice]. He [the priest] pours the remainder of the blood on the western base of the altar; but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice]. Both of these were burnt at the ash pit.
  [Concerning] public and private hatats: (These are the public hatats: the goats of new moons and festivals) They are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in ministering vessels in the north, and their blood requires four applications on the four corners [of the altar]. How was it done? He went up the ascent, turned to the surrounding walkway, and came to the south-east corner, then the north-east, then the north-west, and then the south-west. He would pour the residue of the blood out at the southern base. They were eaten within the hangings [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any fashion, the same day and night, until midnight.
  The olah is a most holy sacrifice. It is slaughtered in the north, and its blood is received in a ministering vessel in the north; and its blood requires two applications, which are four. It had to be flayed, dismembered, and completely consumed by the fire.
  The shelamim of the public and the ashams: These are the[different types of] ashams: The asham for robbery; The asham or illegal use of holy property; The asham for a betrothed maidservant; A nazirite's asham; A leper's asham; And the suspended asham. These are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in a service vessel in the north, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten within the curtains [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any manner, the same day and night, until midnight.
  The todah and the nazirite's ram are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four; And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any manner, the same day and the night following, until midnight. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.
  The shelamim is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity. It may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and its blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any way, during two days and one night. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.
  The first-born animal, tithe and the pesah are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and their blood requires one sprinkling, provided that he applies it against the base [of the altar]. They differ in the [rules governing] their eating: The first-born animal is eaten by priests [only], the tithe is eaten by anyone and they can be eaten in any part of the city, prepared in any manner, during two days and one night. The pesah can be eaten only at night, only until midnight, and it can be eaten only by those registered for it, and it can be eaten only when roasted.
  
  
  
  Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the top of the altar: Rabbi Yose says: it is as though they were slaughtered in the north. Rabbi Yose son of Rabb Judah says: from the middle of the altar southward is as south, from the middle of the altar northward is as the north. The fistfuls of meal-offerings were taken in any part of the Temple court, and they [the minhah-offerings] were eaten within the curtains, by male priests, prepared in any manner, on the same day and night, until midnight.
  The hatat of a bird was sacrificed by the southwest horn [of the altar]. It is valid [if done] in any place, but this was its [particular] place. That horn served for three things below, and three things above: Below: for the hatat of the bird, For the presenting [of meal-offerings]. And for the residue of the blood. Above: for the pouring out of wine and water, and for the olah of a bird when there was too much on the east.
  All who ascended the altar, ascended by the right, then they went round [the altar] and descended by the left, except for these three, who ascended and descended by retracing their steps.
  How was the hatat of a bird sacrificed?He pinches off its head behind its neck, but he did not sever it. And he would sprinkle its blood on the wall of the altar. The residue of the blood was drained out on the base. Only the blood belonged to the altar, while the rest of it belonged to the priests.
  How was the olah of a bird sacrificed? He [the priest] ascended the ramp, and turned to the surrounding walkway, and made his way to the southeast horn. There he pinched its head at the back of the neck, and severed it, and drained out its blood on the wall of the altar. He took the head, turned the part where it was nipped to the altar, saturated it with salt, and threw it on to the fires [of the altar]. Then he came to the body, and removed the crop, the feathers, and the entrails that came out of it, and threw them on to the burning place. He tore [the body], but did not sever it in half, but if he did sever it, it is still valid. Then he saturated it [the body] with salt, and threw it on to the fires of the altar.
  If he did not remove the crop or the feathers or the entrails which came out of it, or did not dry it with salt, or made any other deviation after he had drained the blood out, it is still valid. If he severed the [head of the] hatat or did not sever the olah, it is unfit. If he drained out the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body, it is unfit; The blood of the body, but not the blood of the head, it is fit.
  If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. [If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. [If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine.
  
  
  
  If a hatat of a bird is offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] for the sake of a hatat, it is fit. [If it is offered] with the rites of a hatat, [but] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a hatat; Or with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of an olah, it is unfit. If he offers it above [the red line] [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.
  If an olah of a bird is offered above [the red line], with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a olah, it is fit. With the rites of an olah [but] in the name of a hatat, it is fit, but does not count for its owner’s obligation. [If he offers it] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a olah; [Or] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat, it is unfit. If he offers it below, [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.
  And all of these do not defile in the gullet And they involve trespass, except the hatat of a bird which was offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat.
  If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted?
  If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off,   [all these] defile in the gullet. This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet.
  If one performed melikah, and he found it [the bird] to be a terefah: Rabbi Meir said: it does not defile in the gullet; Rabbi Judah said: it does defile in the gullet. Rabbi Meir said: if with regard to a beast, when it is carrion (a nevelah) it defiles through contact or carrying, yet slaughtering it purifies its terefah from defiling, when it comes to carrion (nevelah) of a bird which does not defile through contact or carriage, is it not logical that slaughtering would cleanse its terefah? Now, just as we have found that slaughtering, which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah from its uncleanness; so melikah (nipping), which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah. Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient for it to be like the nevelah of a beast, which is cleansed by slaughtering, but not by melikah (nipping).
  
  
  
  All sacrifices which became mixed up with hatats that must be left to die, or with an ox that is to be stoned, even one in ten thousand, all must be left to die. If they were mixed up with: an ox with which a transgression had been committed [for instance]: one that had killed a man on the testimony of one witness or of its owner; or [an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, [In all of these cases] they must graze until they become defected, then they are sold, and one brings [a sacrifice] of the same kind at the price of the better of them. If they were mixed up with unblemished [animals] of hullin, the hullin must be sold to those who need that kind [for a sacrifice].
  A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with another sacrifice, both being of the same kind: this one is offered in the name of whoever is its owner, and the other is offered in the name of whoever is its owner. A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with a sacrifice, both being of different kinds: they must graze until they become unfit, and then he purchases at the price of the better of them [an animal] of each kind, and he pays the loss of the excess out of his own pocket. If they were mixed up with a firstling or tithe, they must graze until they become unfit, and then they are eaten as firstling or tithe. All [sacrifices] can be mixed up, except the hatat and the asham.
  An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.
  Limbs of a hatat which were mixed up with limbs from an olah: Rabbi Eliezer says: he must place [them all] on the top [of the altar], and regard the flesh of the hatat on top as though it were wood. But the sages say: they must become disfigured, and then go out to the place of burning.
  Limbs of [unblemished olahs which were mixed up] with the limbs of blemished [olahs]: Rabbi Eliezer says: if [the priest] offered the head of one of them, all the heads are to be offered; the legs of one of them, all the legs are to be offered. But the sages say: even if they had offered all except one of them, it goes forth to the place of burning.
  If blood was mixed with water, if it retains the appearance of blood, it is fit [to be sprinkled on the altar]. If it was mixed with wine, we regard it as though it were water. If it was mixed with the blood of a beast or wild animal, we regard it as though it were water. Rabbi Judah said: blood cannot nullify blood.
  If it was mixed with the blood of unfit [animals], it must be poured out into the duct. [If it was mixed] with the blood that came out after death, it must be poured out into the duct. Rabbi Eliezer declares it fit. If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid.
  [If] blood of unblemished animals [was mixed] with blood of blemished animals, it must be poured out into the duct. [If] a goblet [of valid blood was mixed up] with other goblets [of invalid blood]: Rabbi Eliezer said: if he [the priest] offered [sprinkled] one goblet, all the goblets can be offered; But the sages say: even if they offered all of them save one, it must be poured out into the duct.
  If [blood] that is to be sprinkled below [the red line on the altar] was mixed with blood that is sprinkled above: Rabbi Eliezer says: he must sprinkle [it] above, and I regard the lower [blood which was sprinkled] above as though it were water, and then he sprinkles again below. But the sages say: he must pour it out into the duct. If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid.
  [If blood] which requires one application [was mixed] with blood [also] requiring one application, it [the mixture] should be presented with one application. [If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood requiring four applications, they should be presented with four applications. [If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood which requires one application: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [the mixture] should be presented with four applications. Rabbi Joshua says: it should be presented with one application. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, he transgresses the [injunction] not to diminish [from God’s commandment]! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Behold, he transgresses the injunction not to add [to God’s commandments]. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The injunction not to add applies only where it is by itself. Rabbi Joshua said to him: The injunction not to diminish applies only where it is by itself. Moreover, Rabbi Joshua said: when you make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to add, and perform an action with your own hands; whereas when you do not make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to diminish, but do not perform an action with your own hands.
  If [blood] which is to be sprinkled inside [the Sanctuary] was mixed with [blood] that is to be sprinkled outside, it must be poured out into the duct. If [the priest] sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. [If he sprinkled] inside and then went back and sprinkled outside: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, But the sages declare it fit. For Rabbi Akiva says: all blood which entered the Sanctuary to make atonement is unfit; But the sages say: the hatat alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: the asham too, for it says, “As is the hatat, so is the asham” (Leviticus 7:7).
  If the blood of a hatat was received in two goblets and one of them went outside [the Temple courtyard], the inside one is fit. If one of them entered within [the Sanctuary]: Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares the outer one fit. The sages disqualify it. Rabbi Yose the Galilean: if the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies, i.e. without, you do not treat what is left [inside] as what went out; then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify, i.e. within, is it not logical that we do not treat what is left [outside] as what entered within? If it entered within to make atonement, even if he [the priest] did not make atonement, it is unfit, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon said: [it is not unfit] unless he makes atonement. Rabbi Judah said: if he took it in unwittingly, it is fit. For all unfit blood which was put on the altar, the head plate [of the high priest] does not propitiate, save for the unclean, for the headplate propitiates for that which is unclean, but does not propitiate for what goes out.
  
  
  
  The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabbi Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi  Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit,   the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend.
  The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.
  Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar.
  Just as they do not descend once they have ascended, so they do not ascend if they have descended. And all of these, if they ascended alive to the top of the altar, they must descend. An olah which ascended live to the top of the altar, it must descend. If one slaughtered it on the top of the altar, he must skin it and dismember it where it lies.
  The following if they ascended are taken down:The flesh of most sacred sacrifices The flesh of lesser sacrifices; The remnants of the omer; The two loaves; The showbread; The remnants of meal-offerings; And the incense. The wool on the heads of lambs, the hair of he-goats’ beards, the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs if they are attached, go up, because it is said, “And the priest shall turn it all into smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they were severed [from the animal], they do not go up, for it is said, “And You shall offer your olah, the flesh and the blood, [upon the altar of the Lord your God]” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
  And if any of these sprang off from the altar they are not replaced. Similarly, if a coal sprang off from the altar, it is not replaced. Limbs that sprang off from the altar: if before midnight, must be replaced, and they involve trespass; after midnight, they are not replaced and do not involve trespass.
  Just as the altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it, so does the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for it; And just as the altar and the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for them, so do vessels sanctify. Vessels for liquids sanctify liquids, And the measures sanctify dry material. A liquid vessel does not sanctify dry matter, nor does a dry [measure] sanctify a liquid. If holy vessels were perforated and they can be used for the same purpose as when whole, they sanctify [what is placed in them]; if not, they do not sanctify. And all these sanctify only in the holy place.
  
  
  
  Whatever is more frequent than another, takes precedence over the other. The daily offerings precede the additional offerings; The additional offerings of Shabbat precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh; The additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hashanah. As it is said, “You shall present these in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt offering” (Numbers 28:23).
  Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh.
  A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards.
  Birds precede meal-offerings (minhah), because they are blood sacrifices. A sinner’s meal-offering precedes a voluntary meal-offering, because it comes on account of sin. A hatat of a bird precedes an olah of a bird. And it is likewise when he dedicates them.
  All hatats in the Torah precede ashams, except the asham of a metzora (one with a skin affliction), because it comes to make [a person] fit. All ashams of the Torah must be two-year olds and [two] silver shekels in value, except a nazirite’s asham and the asham of a metzorah, for they are a year old, and need not be [two] silver shekels in value.
  Just as they take precedence in being offered, so they take precedence in being eaten. Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s shelamim, yesterday’s takes precedence. Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s hatat and asham, yesterday's shelamim takes precedence, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the hatat takes precedence, because it is a most sacred sacrifice.
  And in all of these, the priests may deviate in how they eat, and eat them roasted, stewed or boiled. And one may season them with hullin spices or terumah spices, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: one should not season them with terumah spices, so as not to bring terumah to unfitness.
  Rabbi Shimon said: if you see oil being divided in the Temple courtyard, you don’t need to ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of oil of the wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offerings, or of the metzora’s log of oil. If you see oil being poured on to the fires, you don’t need not ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of the oil of the wafers of priests’ meal-offerings, or of the anointed priest's meal-offering; for one cannot voluntarily offer offer oil [alone]. Rabbi Tarfon say: oil can be voluntarily offered [alone].
  
  
  
  If the blood of a hatat spurted on to a garment, it must be washed. Though scripture speaks only of [hatats] which are eaten, for it is said, “In the holy place shall it be eaten,” (Leviticus 6:19), yet both those which may be eaten and the inner [sacrifices] necessitate washing, for it is said, “[This is] the law of the hatat” (Leviticus 6:18), there is one law for all hatats.
  The blood of a disqualified hatat does not necessitate washing, whether it had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness. Which had a period of fitness? One [whose blood] was kept overnight, or was defiled, or was taken out [of the Temple courtyard]. Which did not have a period of fitness? One which was slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate bounds; or whose blood was received by unfit persons, and sprinkled by them.
  If [blood] spurted [direct] from the [animal's] throat onto a garment, it does not require washing. From the horn or from the base [of the altar], it does not require washing. If it spilled out on to the floor [of the Temple] and [the priest] collected it, [and then it splattered onto a garment] it does not require washing. Only blood which was received in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires washing. If [the blood] spurted on to the hide, before it was flayed, it does not require washing. [If it spurted] after it was flayed, it requires washing, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Elazar says: even [if it spurted on the skin] after it was flayed [it does not require washing]. Only the place of the blood requires washing. And whatever is eligible to contract uncleanness, And whatever is fit for washing.
  Whether a garment, a sack, or a hide, it requires washing in a holy place. The breaking of an earthen vessel must be in a holy place. And the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be in a holy place. In this the hatat is more stringent than [other] sacrifices of higher sanctity.
  If a garment was carried outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle], it must re-enter, and is washed it in the holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, one must tear it, then it re-enters, and is washed in the holy place. If an earthen vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the curtains, a hole is made in it, then it re-enters and is broken in a holy place.
  If a copper vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place. If it was defiled outside the hangings, it must be broken through, then it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place.
  Whether one boiled in it or poured boiling [sacrificial flesh] into it, whether most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices, [the pot] requires scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says: lesser sacrifices do not require scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Tarfon says: if one boiled [sacrifices in a pot] at the beginning of a festival, he can boil in it during the whole festival. But the sages say: until the time of eating, scouring and rinsing. Scouring is done as the scouring of a goblet; and rinsing is as the rinsing of a goblet, Scouring [in hot water] and rinsing in cold [water]. The spit and the grill are cleansed with hot water.
  If one boiled sacrifices and hullin in it [the copper pot], or most holy sacrifices and lesser sacrifices, if they were sufficient to impart their flavor, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them; But they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing; And they do not disqualify by touch. If [an unfit] wafer touched a [fit] wafer, or an [unfit] piece of meat touched a [fit] piece of meat, not the whole wafer or the whole piece of meat is forbidden; only the part that absorbed [of the unfit] is forbidden.
  
  
  
  A tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not share in sacrifices for consumption in the evening. An onen may handle [sacrifices], but he may not offer them, and he does not receive a share for consumption in the evening. Priests with blemishes, whether permanent or passing, receive a share and may eat [of the sacrifices] but they may not offer them. Whoever is not eligible for service does not share in the flesh. And he who does not share in the flesh does not share in the hides. Even if one was unclean when the blood was sprinkled but clean when the fats were burned [on the altar], he does not share in the flesh, for it is said: “he among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the shelamim, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33).
  Whenever the altar does not acquire its flesh, the priests do not acquire the hide, for it is said, “[And the priest that offers] any man’s olah [the priest shall have … the hide]” (Leviticus 7:8), [this means,] an olah which went up on the altar on behalf a man. If an olah was slaughtered under a different designation, although it does not count for its owner, its hide belongs to the priests. Whether [it be] a man’s olah or a woman's olah, the hide belong to the priests.
  The hides of less holy sacrifices belong to their owners. The hides of most holy sacrifices belong to the priest. This is a kal vehomer: if with an olah, even though they do not acquire its flesh they do acquire its hide, is it not logical that they acquire the hides of most holy sacrifices, when they do acquire their flesh? The altar does not refute [this argument], for it does not acquire the hide in any instance.
  All sacrifices which became disqualified, before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests. After they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. Rabbi Hanina vice-chief of the priests said: Never in my life have I seen a hide go out to the place of burning. Rabbi Akiva said: we learn from his words that if one flays a firstling and it is found to be terefah, the priests have a right to its hide. But the sages say: “I have never seen” is not proof: rather, it [the hide] must go forth to the place of burning.
  Bullocks which are burned and goats which are burned: when they are burned in fulfillment of their prescribed commandment, they are burned in the ash depository (bet hadeshen), and they defile garments. But when they are not burned in fulfillment of their commandment, they are burned in the bet habirah and they do not defile garments.
  They would carry them on staves [out of the Temple courtyard]. If those in front had passed outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but those in the back had not [yet] gone out, those in front defile their garments, while those in the back do not defile their garments, until they go out. When they both go out, both defile their garments. Rabbi Shimon says: neither defile [their garments] until the fire is burning in the greater part of them. When the flesh is dissolved, he who burns [it] does not defile his garments.
  
  
  
  He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.
  An unclean [person] who eats [of sacrifices], whether unclean sacrifices or clean sacrifices, is liable. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: an unclean person who eats clean [sacrifices] is liable, but an unclean person who eats unclean [sacrifices] is not liable because he ate only that which is unclean. They said to him: even when an unclean person eats clean [sacrifices], when he touches it, he defiles it. A clean person who eats unclean [sacrifices] is not liable, because one is liable only on account of bodily uncleanness.
  Slaughtering [outside the Temple] is more stringent than offering up [outside], and offering up [is more stringent] than slaughtering. Slaughtering is more stringent, for he who slaughters [a sacrifice] to a man is liable, whereas he who offers up to a man is not liable. Offering up is more stringent: two who hold a knife and slaughter are not liable, [whereas] if two take hold of a limb and offer it up, they are liable. If one offered up, then offered up again, then offered up again, he is liable in respect of each [act of] offering up, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yose says: he is liable for only one. He is liable only when he offers up on the top of an altar. Rabbi Shimon says: he is liable even if he offers up on the top of a rock or a stone.
  In regard to both valid sacrifices or invalid sacrifices which had become unfit within [the Temple]: if one offers them outside, he is liable. If one offers up outside [the Temple] as much as an olive’s worth of an olah and its innards [combined], he is liable. As for the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, and the meal offering of libations, if [one] offered up as much as an olive of one of these outside, he is liable. But Rabbi Elazar exempts him unless he offers up the whole of them. In all of these cases, if they offered them within, and left over an olive’s worth and one offered it outside, he is liable. In all of these cases, if they became lacking something, and one offered them outside, he is not liable.
  One who offers sacrifices together with the innards outside the Temple, is liable. If a minhah had not had its fistful removed and one offered it outside, he is exempt. If one took out the fistful, and then the fistful went back into the minhah, and he offered it outside, he is liable.
  As for the fistful and the frankincense, if one offered one of them [without the other] outside [the Temple], he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: he is exempt unless he offers the second too. [If one offered] one inside and the other outside, he is liable. As for the two dishes of frankincense, if one offered one of them outside, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: he is exempt unless he offers the second too. [If one offered] one inside and the other outside, he is liable. If one sprinkles part of the blood outside, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: also one who makes a libation of the water of the Festival [of  Sukkot] on the festival, outside is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah says: if one offered the residue of the blood outside, he is liable.
  If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.
  As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal].
  
  
  
  If one slaughtered the hatat cow [the red heifer] outside its appointed place, and likewise if one offered the scapegoat [of Yom Kippur] outside, he is not liable, because it says, “And has not brought it unto the door of the Tent of Meeting,” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account.
  [As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. [As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. [As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. [One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment.
  “Before time” applies both to [the animal] itself and to its owner. What is “before time” as applied to its owner? If a zav or a zavah, a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, offered their hatat or their asham outside [before the time in which they were obligated], they are exempt; [If they offered] their olah or their shelamims outside [before their time], they are liable. One who offers up flesh of a hatat, or flesh of an asham, or flesh of most holy sacrifices, or flesh of less holy sacrifices; or the remainder of the omer, or the two loaves, or the showbread, or the remainder of meal-offerings; Or if he pours [the oil on to the meal-offering], or mingles [it with flour], or breaks up [the meal-offering cakes], or salts [the meal-offering], or waves it, or presents it; or sets the table [with the showbread], or trims the lamps, or takes out the fistful, or receives the blood; [If he does any of these] outside, he is exempt. One is also not liable for any of these acts on account of not being a priest, or uncleanness, or lack of [priestly] vestments, or the non-washing of hands and feet.
  Before the Tabernacle was set up bamot (local altars) were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. After the Tabernacle was set up bamot were forbidden and the service was performed by priests. Most holy sacrifices were [then] eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere in the camp of the Israelites.
  When they came to Gilgal, bamot (local altars) were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere.
  When they came to Shiloh, bamot were forbidden. [The Tabernacle] there had no roof, but [consisted of] a base of stones with a ceiling of curtains, and that was the “resting place” [referred to in the Torah]. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe   [were eaten] wherever [Shiloh] could be seen.
  When they came to Nov and to Givon, bamot were [again] permitted. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices in all of the cities of Israel.
  When they came to Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden and were never again permitted, and that was the ‘inheritance’. Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe within the walls [of Jerusalem].
  All sacrifices consecrated while bamot were forbidden and offered outside while bamot were forbidden involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable for karet on their account. If one consecrated them while bamot were permitted, but offered them without when bamot were forbidden, they involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, but one is not liable for karet on their account. If one consecrated them when bamot were forbidden, and offered them when bamot were permitted, they involve the transgression of a positive commandment, but they do not involve the transgression of a negative commandment.
  The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah); priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both.