♦ The offering in each case becomes ‘Refuse’, and the second part of the general rule of par. 3 applies. 5 While purposing an act outside its proper time.
In both cases the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not incurred [by them that eat thereof]. [If he purposed] to eat a half¬ olive’s bulk and to bum a half-olive’s bulk [outside the proper time or place], the offering remains valid, since eating and burning cannot be included together.1 3. 1. If any man slaughtered that was ineligible, his slaughtering is none the less valid, since slaughtering is valid if it is done by them that are not priests, or by women or by bondservants or by them that are unclean, even the [slaughtering of the] Most Holy Things,2 provided that none that is unclean touches the flesh. Therefore also they render [the offering] invalid through [awrongful] intention, but if any of them received the blood3 [while purposing an act] outside the proper time or outside the proper place, and its life-blood yet remained,4 he that is eligible may come and receive it.
2. If he that was eligible received the blood and gave it to one that was not eligible, he must give it back to him that was eligible. If he received it with his right hand and gave it into his left hand, he must return it to his right hand. If he received it in a sacred vessel and put it into an un¬ hallowed vessel, he must put it back into a sacred vessel. If it was poured out from the vessel on to the pavement, and gathered up again, it remains valid.5 If it was sprinkled on the Ramp and not by the [Altar-]base, or if what should have been sprinkled below was sprinkled above, or if what should have been sprinkled above was sprinkled below, or if what should have been sprinkled within was sprinkled outside, or if what should have been sprinkled outside was sprinkled within, and its life-blood yet remained, he that is eligible may come and receive it.
3. If a man slaughtered the offering purposing to eat a thing that it is not usual to eat, or to burn a thing that it is not usual to bum [outside its proper time or place], the offering remains valid. R. Eliezer declares it invalid. If [he purposed] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat and to burn a thing that it is usual to burn, and it was less than an olive’s bulk, the offering remains valid; or if [he purposed] to eat a half-olive’s bulk and to burn a half-olive’s bulk, it remains valid, since eating and burning cannot be included together.
4. If a man slaughtered the offering purposing to eat an olive’s bulk of the hide or grease or sediment or flayed-off flesh6 or bones or sinews or hoofs or horns outside the proper time or outside the proper place, the offering remains valid, and none becomes liable7 thereby8 through [trans¬ gression of the laws of] Refuse7 or Remnant10 or uncleanness.11 5. If a man slaughtered consecrated beasts [purposing] to eat the foetus or the afterbirth outside [the proper place or time], he does not thereby transgress the law concerning Refuse. If he wrung the necks of the turtle¬ doves [purposing] to eat their eggs outside [the proper time or place], he 1 The forbidden quantity of an olive’s bulk is neither eaten nor burnt.
* See above, p. 468, n. 7. 3 Which they were ineligible to do. See 21.
♦ See Lev. 17“, from which it is inferred that that blood which issues at the moment of death (which is what the Mishnah means by ‘life-blood’) is the blood that makes atonement.
5 But not if it had not been put in the sacred vessel. See above, z1. Cf. below, g1.
b Flesh that is torn off with the hide. 7 To Extirpation.
8 Through eating such inedible portions. * See above, p. 470, n. 1.
10 Ex. 29”; Lev. 71’; an offering that remains after the time prescribed for eating it, and that must be destroyed by burning.
11 See Lev. 7M; 221; uncleanness in him that eats of the offering.
472 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM does not thereby transgress the law concerning Refuse. Because of milk from consecrated beasts or eggs from turtle-doves none becomes liable through [transgression of the laws of] Refuse or uncleanness.
6. If a man slaughtered it and intended to leave its blood or its sacrificial portions for the morrow or to take them outside, R. Judah declares the offering invalid, but the Sages declare it valid. If he slaughtered it and intended to sprinkle it on the Ramp and not by the [Altar-]base, or to sprinkle above what should be sprinkled below, or to sprinkle below what should be sprinkled above, or to sprinkle outside what should be sprinkled within, or to sprinkle within what should be sprinkled outside, or [if he intended] that such as were unclean should eat it, or that such as were unclean should offer it, or that such as were uncircumcised should eat it, or that such as were uncircumcised should offer it, or [if he intended] to break the bones of the Passover-offering1 or to eat of it raw,2 or to mingle its blood with the blood of invalid [offerings],3 it still remains valid, since no other intention can render the offering invalid save that which concerns [an act] outside the proper time or place, or, if it is a Passover-offering or Sin-offering, slaughtering it under another name.
4. i. The School of Shammai say: Any offering whose blood must be sprinkled4 on the outer Altar makes atonement even if it is sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling, or, if it is a Sin-offering, with two acts of sprink¬ ling. And the School of Hillel say: Even if it is a Sin-offering it makes atonement if it is sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling. Therefore if the first act of sprinkling was done in the manner ordained, but the second out¬ side the proper time, it still makes atonement; but if the first act of sprink¬ ling was done outside its proper time, and the second outside its proper place, the offering is rendered Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred.
2. Any offering whose blood must be sprinkled on the inner Altar, if it lacks but one of the acts of sprinkling, will not make atonement. Therefore if all the acts of sprinkling were done in the manner ordained and one only in a manner not ordained, the offering is invalid, but punishment by Extirpa¬ tion is not thereby incurred.
3. Because of these things none can become liable5 through [transgression of the law of] Refuse: [namely], the Handful,6 the frankincense,7 the Incense-offering,8 the Meal-offering of the priests,9 the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest,10 and the Meal-offering offered with drink-offer¬ ings,11 and the blood, and the drink-offerings offered by themselves. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Those, too, that are offered together with a beast. Of the leper’s log of oil12 R. Simeon says: None becomes thereby liable through [transgression of the law of] Refuse. But R. Meir says: They may become liable through [transgression of the law of] Refuse, since it is offered together with the blood of the Guilt-offering which it is that renders [the offering] permissible;13 and whatsoever has that which renders [the offering] permissible, whether for the man14 or for the Altar,15 they 1 Cf. Ex. i24(i. 3 Cf. Ex. i29. 3 See below, 87. 4 See below, 5lff.
1 1 Some texts omit this item. Meal-offerings and libations were brought with the Daily Whole-offerings and with the Additional-offerings on New Moons and Festival-days.
14 The priest or owner by whom portions of the animal-offering are consumed.
13 On which the prescribed sacrificial portions are burnt.
may become liable thereby through [transgression of the law of] Re¬ fuse.
4. Of the Whole-offering,1 it is the blood thereof that renders permissible the flesh for the Altar and the hide for the priests. Of the Whole-offering of a bird,2 it is the blood thereof that renders the flesh permissible for the Altar. Of the Sin-offering of a bird3 it is the blood thereof that renders the flesh thereof permissible for the priests. Of the bullocks which are to be burnt4 and the he-goats5 which are to be burnt, it is the blood thereof that renders permissible their sacrificial portions so that they may be offered [on the Altar]. R. Simeon says: Because of any [offering of which the blood] is not [sprinkled] on the outer Altar, as with a Peace-offering, none be¬ comes liable through [transgression of the law of] Refuse.
5. Because of offerings made by the gentiles none can become liable through [transgression of the laws of] Refuse, Remnant, or uncleanness; and he that slaughters them outside [their proper place or outside their proper time] is not culpable. So R. Meir.6 But R. Jose declares him culpable. Where none may become liable through [transgression of the law of] Refuse, they may still become liable through [transgression of the laws of] Remnant or uncleanness, but not by reason of the blood.7 R. Simeon says: [This applies only] to aught that it is usual to eat; but because of the like of the wood, the frankincense, or the incense-offering, none can become liable through [transgression of the law of] uncleanness.
6. An offering must be slaughtered while mindful of six things: of the offerings,8 of the offerer, of God, of the altar-fires, of the odour, and of the sweet savour; and, if it is a Sin-offering or a Guilt-offering, also of the sin. R. Jose said: Even if a man was not mindful in his heart of one of these things, the offering is valid; for it is a condition enjoined by the court that the intention [which invalidates an offering] is dependent on him alone that performs the act.9 5. 1. Which was the place appointed for the animal-offerings? The Most Holy Things were slaughtered on the north side [of the Altar]. The bullock and the he-goat offered on the Day of Atonement were slaughtered on the north side, and their blood was received in a vessel of ministry on the north side, and their blood required to be sprinkled10 over the space between the bars and upon the veil [of the Holy of Holies] and upon the Golden Altar.11 [Lack of] one of these acts of sprinkling impaired [the atonement]. The residue of the blood was poured over the western base of the outer Altar, but if such was not done it did not impair [the atonement].
2. The bullocks which were to be burnt and the he-goats which were to be burnt12 were slaughtered on the north side and their blood was received in a vessel of ministry on the north side, and their blood required to be sprinkled on the veil and on the Golden Altar. [Lack of] one of these acts of sprinkling impaired [the atonement]. The residue of the blood was 7 i.e. if a man consumed blood left over after the first day, or if he consumed it while he was unclean, he is not culpable under the laws of Remnant and uncleanness; he is already culpable under the law of Lev. i7it)f.
8 That it may not be slaughtered under the name of some other category of offering.
9 And the court has enjoined that that intention be unspoken, to prevent occasion for error. Cf. Hul. ah 10 Or tossed. Cf. Pes. 5s See above, p. 468, n. 15. The term employed throughout this chapter is, literally, ‘be given’, ‘applied’. 11 See Yom. sl£i. 12 See above, nn, 4, 5.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM poured over the western base of the outer Altar, but if such was not done it did not impair [the atonement]. These all1 were burnt in the place of ashes.2 3. The Sin-offerings of the congregation and of individuals (these are the Sin-offerings of the congregation: the he-goats offered at the new moons3 and at the set feasts)4 were slaughtered on the north side and their blood was received in a vessel of ministry on the north side, and their blood required to be sprinkled with four acts of sprinkling on the four horns [of the Altar]. After what manner? The priest went up the Ramp and went around the Circuit5 and came to the south-eastern horn, then to the north-eastern, to the north-western, and to the south-western horn. The residue of the blood was poured over the southern base; and the offerings were consumed within the Curtains6 by males of the priestly stock, and cooked for food after any fashion, during that day and night until mid¬ night.7 4. The Whole-offering is of the Most Holy Things; it was slaughtered on the north side and its blood was received in a vessel of ministry on the north side, and its blood required to be sprinkled with two acts of sprink¬ ling (which are, indeed, four);8 and it required to be flayed and to be cut into pieces; and it was burnt whole on the [AItar-]fire.9 I 5. The Peace-offerings of the congregation10 and the Guilt-offerings (these are the Guilt-offerings: the Guilt-offerings because of false dealing,1 1 the Guilt-offerings because of Sacrilege,12 the Guilt-offerings because of [intercourse with] a betrothed bondwoman,13 the Guilt-offering of a Nazi- rite,14 the Guilt-offering of the leper,15 and the Suspensive Guilt-offering)16 were slaughtered on the north side and their blood was received in a vessel of ministry on the north side and their blood required to be sprinkled with two acts of sprinkling (which are, indeed, four); and they were eaten within the curtains by males of the priestly stock,17 and cooked for food after any fashion, during that day and night until midnight.
6. The Thank-offering18 and the ram of the Nazirite19 are of the Lesser Holy Things; they were slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court and their blood required to be sprinkled with two acts of sprinkling (which are, indeed, four); and they could be eaten anywhere in the City, by any man, and cooked for food after any fashion, on that day and night until mid¬ night. So, too, was it with what was taken from them as heave-offering,20 save that it could be eaten only by the priests, their wives, their children, and their bondservants.21 7. The Peace-offerings22 are of the Lesser Holy Things; they were slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court and their blood required to be sprinkled with two acts of sprinkling (which are, indeed, four); and they could be eaten anywhere in the City, by any man, and cooked for food after any fashion, during two days and a night. The same applied to what 1 The rest of the carcase after the sacrificial portions had been burnt on the Altar.
2 Outside the city; see Lev. 6U. 3 Num. 2815.
6 Cf. Meg. iM; Eduy. 8*; cf. u*' *. The meaning is ‘within the Temple Court’.
7 Cf. Ber. i’. * On the four horns. Inferred from Lev. i*.
22 Excluding those of the congregation; cf. above, par. 5.
was taken from it as heave-offering, save that it could be eaten only by the priests, their wives, their children, and their bondservants.
8. The Firstling,1 the Tithe [of Cattle],2 and the Passover-offering are of the Lesser Holy Things; they were slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court and their blood required to be sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling, provided that it was sprinkled against the [Altar-]base. There is a differ¬ ence in their manner of eating: the Firstling was eaten only by the priests,3 and the Tithe [of Cattle] by any man; they could be eaten anywhere in the City, and cooked for food after any fashion, during two days and a night; but the Passover-offering could be eaten only during that night4 and only until midnight, and it could be eaten only by the number that were assigned to it,5 and it could only be eaten roast.6 6. 1. If the Most Holy Things were slaughtered above7 the Altar, R. Jose says: It is as though they were slaughtered on the north side. R. Jose b. R. Judah says: From midway on the Altar northwards counts as the north side; and from midway southwards counts as the south. The Handfuls8 from the Meal-offerings could be taken anywhere in the Temple Court, and they were eaten within the curtains by males of the priestly stock, and cooked for food after any fashion, on that day and night until midnight.
2. The Sin-offering of a bird was made ready at the south-western comer. It was valid [if it was made ready] in any other place, but this was its proper place. That corner served three purposes below, and three above: below — for the Sin-offering of a bird, for the bringing near9 [of the Meal-offerings], and [for pouring away] the residue of the blood; above — for the Water Libation,10 for the Wine-offering, and for the Whole-offerings of a bird, if these were too many for the [south-] eastern [corner].11 3. All that went up to the Altar went up on the right side [of the Ramp], and went round the Altar and came down on the left side, excepting him that went up for these three things,12 when they used to go up and return back in their own track.
4. How was the Sin-offering of a bird made ready? [The priest] used to wring off its head from its neck but he did not divide it asunder, and he sprinkled of the blood thereof upon the side of the Altar, and the residue of the blood was drained out at the [Altar-]base.13 The Altar received but the blood thereof and the whole of the offering fell to the priests.
5. How was the Whole-offering of a bird made ready? The priest went up the Ramp and went around the Circuit; when he came to the south¬ eastern corner he used to wring off its head from its neck and divide it asunder and drain out its blood at the side of the Altar. He took the head and pressed the place where it was severed against the Altar and strewed it with salt14 and threw it on the [Altar-]fire. He came then to the body and removed the crop and the plumage and the entrails that came forth with the crop and cast them on the place of ashes.15 Then he slit open the body but did not divide it asunder (but if he did do so the offering re¬ mained valid) and he strewed it with salt and threw it on the [Altar-]fire.
6 Ex. 12*. 7 And not, as enjoined in 51, at the north aide. s Lev. 2*.
9 To the priest before he took the Handful. 10 See Sukk. 4’.
,l They were then offered at the south-western comer.
12 Prescribed to be made ready above, at the south-western comer.
476 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM 6. If he did not remove the crop or the plumage or the entrails that came forth with the crop, or strew it with salt, or if he did aught in different fashion after he had drained out its blood, the offering remains valid. If he divided asunder the head of the Sin-offering but not that of the Whole¬ offering, it becomes invalid. If he drained out the blood of the head but not that of the body, it becomes invalid. But if he drained out the blood of the body but not that of the head, it remains valid.
7. If he wrung off the head of the Sin-offering of a bird under some other name, or drained out its blood under some other name, or under its own and [then] under some other name; or under some other name and [then] under its own name, it becomes invalid. But if it was the Whole-offering of a bird it remains valid, yet it does not count to its owner [in fulfilment of his obligation]. It is all one whether it is the Sin-offering of a bird or the Whole-offering of a bird: if he wrung off their heads or drained out their blood [purposing] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat, or to bum a thing that it is usual to bum, outside its proper place, it becomes invalid, but punishment -bv Extirpation is not incurred; but if [he so purposed] outside its proper time, it becomes Refuse,' but punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred, provided that what renders [the offering] permissible-1 is offered according to its prescribed rite. How is 'what renders [the offer¬ ing] permissible’ offered according to its prescribed rite? If he had wrung off its head in silence and drained out its blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper time; or if he had wrung off its head [while purposing an act] outside its proper time, and had drained out the blood in silence; or if he had wrung off its head and drained out its blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper time, such is a case where ‘what renders [the offering] permissible’ is offered according to its prescribed rite. How is ‘what renders [the offering] permissible’ not offered according to its pre¬ scribed rite? If he had wrung off its head [while purposing an act] outside its proper place, and drained out its blood [while purposing an act] out¬ side its proper time; or if he had wrung off its head [while purposing an act] outside its proper time and had drained out its blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper place; or if he had wrung off its head and drained out its blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper place; or, if it was a Sin-offering, if he had wrung off its head under another name and drained out its blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper time; or if he had wrung off its neck [while purposing an act] outside its proper time; or if he had wrung off its neck [while purposing an act] outside its proper time and had drained out its blood under some other name; or wrung off its head and drained out its blood under another name, such is a case where ‘what renders [the offering] permissible’ is offered not according to its prescribed rite. [If he intended] to eat an olive’s bulk outside and an olive’s bulk on the morrow, or an olive’s bulk on the morrow and an olive’s bulk outside; or a half-olive’s bulk outside and a half-olive’s bulk on the morrow; or a half-olive’s bulk on the morrow and a half-olive’s bulk outside; the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. R. Judah said: This is the general rule: if the intention about time preceded the intention about place, the offering becomes Refuse, and 2 See above, 23; 4* It is the draining out of the blood that renders the body fit for burning on the Altar or eating by the priest.
punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred; but if the intention about place preceded the intention about time, the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. But the Sages say: In both cases the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. [If he intended] to eat a half-olive’s bulk and to burn a half-olive’s bulk, the offering remains valid, since eating and burning cannot be included together.
7. 1. The Sin-offering of a bird is valid [only] if it is offered below [the red line]1 after the manner of a Sin-offering and under the name of a Sin- offering. It is invalid if it is offered after the manner of a Sin-offering and under the name of a Whole-offering; or after the manner of a Whole- iffering and under the name of a Sin-offering; or after the manner of a Whole-offering and under the name of a Whole-offering. If it was offered above in a manner like to any of them, it is invalid.
2. The Whole-offering of a bird is valid if it is offered above, after the manner of a Whole-offering and under the name of a Whole-offering; and it remains valid even if it is offered after the manner of a Whole-offering and under the name of a Sin-offering, but it does not count to its owner [in fulfilment of his obligation]. But it becomes invalid if it is offered after the manner of a Sin-offering and under the name of a Whole-offering, or after the manner of a Sin-offering and under the name of a Sin-offering. If it was offered below in a manner like to any of them it is invalid.
3. [Even if they become invalid] none of them conveys uncleanness of the gullet,2 and the law of Sacrilege3 still applies to them, excepting the Sin- offering of a bird that was offered below after the manner of a Sin-offering and under the name of a Sin-offering.
4. If the W’hole-offering of a bird was offered below after the manner of a Sin-offering and under the name of a Sin-offering, R. Eliezer says: The law of Sacrilege still applies4 to it. R. Joshua says: The law of Sacrilege no longer5 applies to it. R. Eliezer said: If the Sin-offering (which is not subject to the law of Sacrilege when it is offered under that name) becomes subject to the law of Sacrilege if it is offered under another name, how much more must the Whole-offering (which is subject to the law of Sacri¬ lege when it is offered under that name) be subject to the law of Sacrilege when it is offered under another name! R. Joshua said to him: No! as thou arguest of a Sin-offering (which, when its name is changed to that of a Whole-offering thereby becomes changed to a thing subject to the law of Sacrilege) wouldest thou also argue of a Whole-offering (which when its name is changed to that of a Sin-offering thereby becomes changed to a thing not subject to the law of Sacrilege)? R. Eliezer said to him: Let Most Holy Things which have been slaughtered on the southern side® and 3 Any clean bird that dies of itself or is improperly slaughtered, although it does not convey uncleanness by contact or carrying like other carrion (Lev. na), still conveys un¬ cleanness to one that eats an olive's bulk of it, even if he did not touch it; this category of unclean contact is styled ‘uncleanness of the gullet’. Wringing off their heads, like the slaughtering of beasts, removes them from the category of ‘carcase’ or ‘carrion’. Cf. Par. 84; Toh. i1, *; Zab. 5*. ) Lev. 51*. Cf. p. 573, n. 2.
♦ On the principle (see Mcil. i!) that its dedication as a Whole-offering still held good, and thus no moment had passed over it during which it was permissible to the priests.
5 It was now a Sin-offering in all respects, and its body was permitted to the priests (see above, 4*). 6 See above, 5’.
478 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM slaughtered under the name of Lesser Holy Things1 provide proof; for their name is thus changed to that of a thing to which the law of Sacrilege does not apply, and yet they still remain subject2 to the law of Sacrilege; so do not thou marvel that, as touching the Whole-offering, although its name is changed to that of a thing not subject to the law of Sacrilege, the law of Sacrilege still applies to it. R. Joshua said to him: No! as thou arguest of Most Holy Things, which have been slaughtered on the southern side and slaughtered under the name of Lesser Holy Things and whose name is thereby changed to one in which there is both what is forbidden and what is permitted,3 wouldest thou also argue of a Whole-offering whose name is changed to one in which the whole is permitted?+ 5. If he had wrung off its head with his left hand, or at night, or if he had slaughtered unconsecrated [birds] within [the Temple Court], or consecrated [birds] outside, they do not convey uncleanness of the gullet.5 If he had wrung off their heads with a knife, or wrung off the heads of unconsecrated [birds] within [the Temple Court], or consecrated [birds] outside, or if they were turtle-doves whose time was not yet come,6 or young pigeons whose time was past, or if a bird’s wings were dried up, or if an eye was blinded, or if its foot was cut off, such a bird conveys unclean¬ ness of the gullet. This is the general rule: if it became invalid while in the Temple it does not convey uncleanness of the gullet; if it became invalid while not in the Temple, it conveys uncleanness of the gullet. If they had wrung off the heads of these invalid [birds], their wringing off is invalid, but they do not convey uncleanness of the gullet.
6. If he had wrung off the head and the bird was found to be terefah,7 R. Meir says: It does not convey uncleanness of the gullet. R. Judah says: It conveys uncleanness of the gullet. R. Meir said: If the slaughtering of a beast (which as carrion would convey uncleanness by contact or carrying)8 renders clean what was terefah, how much more must the slaughtering of a bird (which as carrion does not convey uncleanness by contact or carrying) render clean what was terefah!9 Like as we find that the slaughtering thereof renders it fit for eating and renders clean what was terefah, so too the wringing off of the head thereof, which renders it fit for eating, must render clean what was terefah. R. Jose says: It is enough if the comparison is limited10 to the carcase of a beast: the slaughtering thereof can render clean [what is terefah] but not the wringing off of its head.
8. 1. If animal-offerings were confused with Sin-offerings that had been left to die' 1 or with an ox that was to be stoned,1 1 though it be but one among ten thousand, all must be left to die. If they were confused with an ox