6. They used to bear them on poles.12 If the foremost [bearers] had come out of the Temple Court but the hinder ones had not come out, the garments of the foremost are unclean but the garments of the hinder ones are not unclean until they have come out. When they both have come out, the garments of them both are unclean. R. Simeon says: The garments of neither become unclean until the fire has caught hold of the greater part of the beasts. Once the flesh has been burnt up the garments of him that burns them are no longer unclean.
13. 1. If a man both slaughtered and offered [an offering] outside [the Temple Court], he is culpable by reason of the slaughtering'3 and culpable by reason of the offering.14 R. Jose the Galilean says: If he slaughtered it inside and offered it outside, he is culpable; but if he both slaughtered and offered it outside he is not culpable,15 since he but offered outside what was [already] invalid. They said to him: Even he that slaughters it inside and offers it outside, once he has brought it out, has rendered it invalid.16 2. If a man that was unclean ate either an unclean or a clean Hallowed 1 Lev. 7®. 2 The same play of words as in 91. 2 See above, i1.
4 By a converse inference. 5 See Eduy. z2. 6 Though the flesh must be buried.
* See 473, nn. 4, 5. 8 See above, s2. 9 Lev. 1628. 10 If they had become invalid.
12 When taking them outside the Temple precincts to the place of ashes. See Yom. 67.
14 Lev. 178’ 9. Each offence if committed wantonly is punishable by Extirpation; if com¬ mitted unwillingly he must offer a Sin-offering on each count.
18 By reason of the offering, but only by reason of the slaughtering.
16 And yet is culpable on each count.
Thing he is culpable.1 R. Jose the Galilean says: If a man that was unclean ate a clean Hallowed Thing he is culpable, but if an unclean Hallowed Thing he is not culpable, since he but ate a thing that was unclean. They said to him: Even if a man that was unclean ate what is clean, once he has touched it he has rendered it unclean. If a man that was clean ate what was unclean he is not culpable, since a man becomes culpable only by reason of the uncleanness of his own person.2 3. Greater stringency may apply to slaughtering than to offering, and [greater stringency may apply] to offering than to slaughtering. Greater stringency may apply to slaughtering, since if a man slaughtered [an offer¬ ing outside the Temple Court] for a common person,3 he is culpable; but if he offered it for a common person4 he is not culpable.5 Greater strin¬ gency may apply to offering, since if two seized a knife and slaughtered [an offering outside the Temple Court] they are not culpable,6 but if two seized a member [of a slaughtered beast] and offered it, they are culpable.7 If a man offered [a member of the slaughtered beast] and then again [offered another member], and then offered yet a third time, he is culpable on each count. So R. Simeon. R. Jose says: He is culpable only on one count. None is culpable unless he offers it on an altar. R. Simeon says: Even if he offered it on a rock or a stone he is culpable.
4. It is all one whether the Hallowed Things are valid or whether they are invalid (but became invalid while in the Temple): if a man offered them outside he is culpable. If he offered outside an olive’s bulk of a Whole offering and of sacrificial portions,8 he is culpable. He is culpable if he offered outside an olive’s bulk of the Handful,9 or of the frankincense, or of the Incense-offering, or of the Meal-offering of the Priests, or of the Meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, or of the Meal- offering offered with drink-offerings. But R. Eleazar declares him exempt unless he offered the whole thereof. If he offered any among them within, but left over an olive’s bulk of them and offered it outside, he is culpable. But if of any of them aught soever was lacking,10 and he offered this outside, he is not culpable.
5. If he offered outside [the Temple Court] Hallowed Things together with their [unsevered] sacrificial portions, he is culpable. If he offered outside a Meal-offering from which the Handful had not been taken, he is not culpable; but if the Handful had been taken and then put back, and he offered it outside, he is culpable.
6. If he offered either the Handful or the frankincense outside, he is culpable. R. Eleazar declares him not culpable unless he offers the second also. If he offered the one inside and the other outside, he is culpable. If a man offered either of the two dishes” of frankincense outside, he is culpable. R. Eleazar declares him not culpable unless he offers the second also. If he offered the one inside and the other outside, he is culpable.
1 Punishable by Extirpation. Lev. 720, “.
2 See Lev. 720, ‘having his uncleanness upon him’.
J For common use as food. * In his honour.
s Since Lev. 17“ prescribes Extirpation only where the intention was ‘to sacrifice it unto the Lord’.
6 Lev. 174, 'blood shall be imputed to that man’; the law applies to one person only.
8 When both together make up an olive’s bulk.
9 See above, 43, for this and the other items here specified.
10 So that in the Temple it would not have been valid.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM If he sprinkled a part of the blood outside, he is culpable. R. Eleazar says: If he poured out the Water-libation* of the Feast [of Tabernacles] outside, during the Feast, he is culpable. R. Nehemiah says: Even if he offered the residue of the blood1 2 outside, he is culpable.
7. If a man wrung off the head of a Bird-offering inside and offered it outside, he is culpable; if he wrung off its head outside and offered it out¬ side, he is not culpable. If he slaughtered the Bird-offering inside and offered it outside, he is not culpable; but if he slaughtered it outside and offered it outside he is culpable. Thus what renders the offering valid inside3 renders a man exempt from penalty outside;4 and what renders the offering valid outside,5 renders a man exempt from penalty inside.6 R. Simeon says: For whatsoever a man becomes culpable if he did it outside, he becomes culpable for the like act if he did it inside and then offered it outside, save only when he slaughters [a Bird-offering] inside and offers it outside.
8. If a man received the blood of a Sin-offering in a single bowl and [first] sprinkled part of it outside and then sprinkled part inside, or first sprinkled part of it inside and then sprinkled part outside, he is culpable, since all of it was prescribed to be sprinkled inside. If he received its blood in two bouds, and sprinkled both inside, he is not culpable; if he sprinkled both outside he is culpable; if he sprinkled one inside and [then] one outside, he is not culpable;7 but if one outside and [then] one inside, he is culpable by reason of the outer one, but that [sprinkled] within makes atonement. To what is it like? It is as if a man set apart his Sin-offering and it was lost, and he then set apart another in its stead, and then the first was found again, and thus there were two. If he slaughtered them both inside [the Temple Court] he is not culpable. If he slaughtered them both outside he is culpable; if he slaughtered one within and [then] one outside, he is not culpable; if [he slaughtered] one outside and [then] one inside, he is culpable by reason of the one [slaughtered] outside, but the one [slaughtered] within makes atonement. Like as the [sprinkling of the] blood of an offering renders its flesh free [from the law of Sacrilege]8 so it renders free the flesh of the other offering.9 14. 1. If a man burnt10 the Sin-offering of the [Red] Heifer11 outside its pit — so, too, if he offered the scape-goat12 outside — he is not culpable, for it is written, And hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting:u none can become culpable by reason of any offering for which it is not prescribed that it must be brought unto the door of the tent of meeting.
2. If a man offered outside a beast14 that had committed or suffered an unnatural crime, or that had been set apart [for idolatry], or that had been 1 Sukk. 4*. 2 That had been poured out on the ground.
7 Namely, the wringing off of the neck. If he wrings off its neck inside it is valid as an offering, so that if he offers it outside he is culpable.
* If he wrings off its neck outside and offers it outside he is not culpable.
s Namely slaughtering. If he slaughtered it outside it is valid as an offering, so that if he offers it outside he is culpable.
6 If it was slaughtered inside and offered outside he is not culpable.
7 It was destined in any case to be poured out into the Temple gutter, the first bowlful sufficing for the prescribed sprinkling and pouring out by the Altar-base. See above, 5s.
* Lev. su. See Meil. 1*. It is then free to be eaten by the priest.
* That had been set apart in this one’s stead.
10 Rashi gives the variant ’slaughtered’. See Par. 3‘*-4*. 11 Num. 19**.
worshipped, or that was cross-bred or terefah, or born from the side [of the mother-beast], he is not culpable, for it is written, Before the tabernacle of the Lord:1 none can become culpable by reason of what is not fit to be brought before the tabernacle of the Lord. If he offered outside beasts that had a lasting or a passing blemish, he is not culpable. R. Simeon says: If a lasting blemish, he is not culpable; but if a passing blemish he thereby transgresses a prohibition.3 If a man offered outside turtle-doves whose time was not yet come or young pigeons whose time was passed,3 he is not culpable. R. Simeon says: If they were young pigeons whose time was passed, he is not culpable; but if they were turtle-doves whose time was not yet come, [he transgresses] a prohibition. [If he had offered outside] a beast and its young,4 or a beast whose time had not yet come, he is not culpable. R. Simeon says: In this case he transgresses a prohibition. For R. Simeon used to say: If an offering is fitted to be offered at a later time, the prohibition applies to it, but punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. But the Sages say: Whensoever punishment by Extirpation is not incurred, the prohibition does not apply.
3. An offering whose time w’as not yet come [may be such] either by virtue of itself or of its owner. Which is an offering whose time is not yet come by virtue of its owner? If the owner was a man or a woman that had a flux or a woman after childbirth or a leper, and they offered their Sin- offering or their Guilt-offering outside [before its appointed time]5 they are not culpable. If they offered their Whole-offerings or their Peace- offerings outside, they are culpable.6 None is culpable if, outside, he offers aught7 of the flesh of a Sin-offering or of a Guilt-offering, or of the flesh of the Most Holy Things,8 or of the flesh of the Lesser Holy Things, or aught of the residue of the Omerf or of the Two Loaves,10 or of the Shewbread,11 or of the residues of the Meal-offerings,12 or if [outside] he poured out [oil over the Meal-offering], or mixed [the meal with the oil], or broke it in pieces, or salted,13 or waved, or brought near,14 or set in order the table [of the Shewbread], or trimmed the lamps, or took the Handful, or received the blood. Moreover none can become culpable by reason of these things:15 because of being non-priests and because of uncleanness and because of not wearing the [proper] priestly raiment and because of the washing of the hands and feet.
4. Before the tabernacle16 was set up, the high places were permitted and the [Altar-]service was fulfilled by the first born.17 But after the taber¬ nacle was set up, the high places were forbidden,18 and the [Altar-]service was fulfilled by the priests; the Most Holy Things19 were consumed within the Curtains,20 and the lesser Holy Things throughout the camp of Israel.
5. After they came to Gilgal21 the high places were again permitted; the 6 Since these are, as Freewill-offerings, permissible and valid before the appointed time.
7 Of things which were not destined for the Altar.
8 The Peace-offerings of the congregation. See above, 5’.
14 Cf. Lev. 25"8. The last items do not render the man culpable who performs them out¬ side, since they are but preparations for an offering.
15 Which count only as preparations for an offering.
16 In the wilderness. 37 Cf. Ex. 24*. 18 Cf. Lev. 17s1. 3& See above, slff.
20 Of the tabernacle or tent of meeting; cf. Lev. 626. See p. 474, n. 6.
21 After crossing the Jordan the tabernacle remained fourteen years at Gilgal until the Temple was set up at Shiloh.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASH1M Most Holy Things could be eaten only within the Curtains but the Lesser Holy Things in any place.
6. After they came to Shiloh1 the high places were forbidden. There was no roof-beam there, but below was a house of stone2 and above were hangings, and this was the ‘resting place’.3 The Most Holy Things were consumed within the Curtains, and the Lesser Holy Things and the Second Tithe4 in any place within sight [of Shiloh].
7. After they came to Nob5 and to Gibeon6 the high places were per¬ mitted; the Most Holy Things were consumed within the Curtain's and the Lesser Holy Things throughout the cities of Israel.
8. After they came to Jerusalem the high places were forbidden and never again permitted; and this was the ‘inheritance’.7 The Most Holy Things were consumed within the Curtains and the Lesser Holy Things and the Second Tithe within the wall [of Jerusalem].
9. By reason of any of the offerings dedicated8 in the time when the high places were forbidden, and offered outside in the time when the high places were forbidden, a man transgressed both a positive0 and a negative10 com¬ mand, and thereby incurred punishment by Extirpation. 11 If they were dedicated in the time when the high places were permitted and offered in the time when the high places were forbidden, a man transgressed both a positive and a negative command, but he did not thereby incur punish¬ ment by Extirpation. If they were dedicated in the time when the high places were forbidden and offered in the time when the high places were permitted, by reason of them a man transgressed a positive but not a negative command.
10. These Hallowed Things were [always] offered in the tabernacle: Hallowed Things that were dedicated to the tabernacle: [namely] the offer¬ ings of the congregation were offered in the tabernacle, but the offerings of individuals on any high place; the offerings of individuals which were dedicated to the tabernacle were offered in the tabernacle, but if a man offered them on a high place he was not culpable. How did a private high place differ from a public high place? 1 2 In the laying on of hands,1 3 slaughter¬ ing on the north side,14 sprinkling the blood around15 [the Altar], the wav¬ ing,16 the bringing near17 (R. Judah says: There was no Meal-offering on a high place), the priestly service,18 the garments of ministry,10 the vessels of ministry,20 the sweet-smelling savour, the dividing-line for [the sprinkling of] the blood,21 and the washing of hands and feet.22 But they were alike in what concerned the time [of consuming the offerings], and the laws of Remnant23 and of uncleanness.24 5 In 1 Sam. i*4 the Temple is referred to as a ‘house’ (i.e. of stonework) as distinct from a tent or tabernacle. 1 See Deut. 12*. 4 Deut. 14“.
* Set apart to be brought to the Temple as an offering.
11 Such as Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon. 0 Cf. Lev. i>(.
14 Cf Lev. i». is Cf. Lev 1*. '» Cf. Lev. 14”. 17 Cf. Lev. 2*.
*» Cf. Lev. 174. I? Cf. Ex. 284’. »« Cf. Num. 41*. " Cf. Ex. 27*.
1. 1. All Meal-offerings from which the Handful1 was taken under some other name2 remain valid3 (but they do not count to their owner in ful¬ filment of his obligation)4 excepting the Sinner’s Meal-offerings and the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal-offering.6 The Sinner’s Meal-offering and the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal-offering — if the Handful was taken from them under some other name, or if they were put into the vessel, conveyed, and burnt under some other name, or under their own and [then] under another name, or under another and [then] under their own name, they become invalid. How [can they be treated] ‘under their own and [then] under another name’? If [they were treated first] under the name of a Sinner’s Meal-offering and [then] under the name of a freewill Meal¬ offering. And how [can they be treated] ‘under another name and [then] under their own name’? If [they were treated first] under the name of a freewill Meal-offering and [then] under the name of a Sinner’s Meal¬ offering.
2. It is all one whether it is a Sinner’s Meal-offering or any other Meal¬ offering: they become invalid if the Handful was taken from them by one that is not7 a priest or by a priest that is mourning his near of kin or that had immersed himself [because of uncleanness] the selfsame day, or that is not clothed [in proper raiment], or whose atonement is yet incomplete, or that has not washed his hands and feet, or that is uncircumcised, or unclean, or that ministers while sitting, or while standing on any article, or on the back of a beast, or on his fellow’s feet. If he took the Handful in his left hand it becomes invalid. Ben Bathyra says: He may put it back and take it again with his right hand. It becomes invalid if, on taking the Handful, he took up also a small stone or a piece of salt or a grain of frank¬ incense; for they have said: The Handful that is too much or too little is invalid. When is it too much? If he took an overflowing handful. And too little? If he took the Handful with the tips of his fingers only. How should he take it? He should stretch his fingers over the palm of his hand.
3. If he put in too much oil or if he put in too little oil,8 or if he put in too little frankincense,9 it becomes invalid. If he took the Handful from the Meal-offering [purposing] to eat the residue outside10 [the Temple Court], or [to eat] outside an olive’s bulk of the residue, or to bum the Handful thereof outside, or an olive’s bulk of the Handful thereof out¬ side, or to bum the frankincense thereof outside, it becomes invalid but punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. [If he intended] to eat the residue on the morrow, or [to eat] an olive’s bulk of the residue on the morrow, or to bum the Handful thereof on the morrow, or to bum 1 Lev. 2*. From most Meal-offerings the priest took up a handful and burnt it on the Altar; the residue was a perquisite of the priests. The fixed routine in making the Meal¬ offering was; taking the Handful from the Meal-offering as brought by the giver, putting it into a vessel of ministry, conveying it up to the Altar, and burning it.
* For the varieties of Meal-offering from which the Handful was taken see below, 6*. Besides not counting to its giver if, e.g., the Meal-offering of the Baking-pan was offered under some other name, it was also invalid if it was offered on behalf of some other than its actual giver.
J So that the Handful may be burnt on the Altar and the residue consumed by the priests.
* A log of oil was the prescribed quantity for each Tenth of an Ephah of fine flour. Cf.
* The prescribed quantity was one handful, however much the Meal-offering, FIFTH DIVISION: KODASH1M an olive’s bulk of the Handful thereof on the morrow, or to burn the frank¬ incense thereof on the morrow, it becomes Refuse* and punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred. This the general rule: if he took the Handful or put it into the vessel or conveyed it or burnt it [purposing] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat, or to burn a thing that it is usual to burn, outside its proper place, it becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpa¬ tion is not thereby incurred; but if [he purposed the like] outside its proper time, it becomes Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is thereby in¬ curred, provided that what makes [the offering] permissible1 is offered according to its prescribed rite. How is ‘what makes [the offering] per¬ missible’ offered according to its prescribed rite? If he took the Handful in silence,3 and put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it [while pur¬ posing an act] outside its proper time; or if he took the Handful [while purposing an act] outside its proper time, but put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it in silence; or if he took the Handful and put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it [while purposing an act] out¬ side its proper time — such is a case where ‘what makes [the offering] per¬ missible’ is offered according to its prescribed rite.
4. How is ‘what makes [the offering] permissible’ offered not according to its prescribed rite? If he took the Handful [while purposing an act] outside its proper place, and put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it [while purposing an act] outside its proper time; or if he took the Hand¬ ful [while purposing an act] outside its proper time, and put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it [while purposing an act] outside its proper place; or if he took the Handful and put it into the vessel and con¬ veyed it and burnt it [while purposing an act] outside its proper place; or if it was a Sinner’s Meal-offering or the Suspected Adulteress’s Meal¬ offering and he took the Handful from them under another name and put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it [while purposing an act] outside its proper time; or if he took the Handful from them [while pur¬ posing an act] outside its proper time and put it into the vessel and con¬ veyed it and burnt it under another name; or if he took the Handful from them and put it into the vessel and conveyed it and burnt it under another name, such is a case where ‘what makes [the offering] permissible’ is offered not according to its prescribed rite. [If he purposed] 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, it becomes invalid but punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. R. Judah says: This is the general rule: if the intention about time preceded the intention about place, the offering becomes Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is thereby in¬ curred; 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 and punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. [If he purposed] to eat a half-olive’s bulk and to burn a half-olive’s bulk [outside the proper time or place], the offering remains valid, since eating and burning cannot be included together.
2. 1. If he took the Handful from the Meal-offering [purposing] to eat the residue or to burn the Handful on the morrow, R. Jose agrees that the Handful becomes Refuse and that punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred. [If he purposed] to burn the frankincense thereof on the morrow, R. Jose says: It becomes invalid and punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. But the Sages say: It becomes Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred. They said to him: How does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: With an animal-offering the blood, the flesh, and the sacrificial portions are from the one thing; but the frankincense does not come from the Meal-offering.1 2. If a man slaughtered the two lambs2 [and purposed] to eat one of the [two] loaves3 on the morrow, or if he offered the two dishes4 [of frankin¬ cense, purposing] to eat one of the rows [of Shewbread] on the morrow, R. Jose says: That loaf and that row about which he purposed become Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is thereby incurred, while the other becomes invalid and punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred. But the Sages say: Both alike become Refuse and punishment by Extirpa¬ tion is thereby incurred. If one of the loaves or one of the rows contracted uncleaness, R. Judah says: They must both be taken to the place of burning, since an offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the Sages say: The unclean [must be treated] as unclean, but what is clean may be eaten.
3. The Thank-offering can make the bread5 to become Refuse but the bread cannot make the Thank-offering to become Refuse. Thus if a man slaughtered the Thank-offering [purposing] to eat of it on the morrow, both it and the bread become Refuse; [but if he purposed] to eat of the bread on the morrow, the bread becomes Refuse but the Thank-offering does not become Refuse. The lambs can make the bread6 to become Refuse, but the bread cannot make the lambs to become Refuse. Thus if a man slaughtered the lambs [purposing] to eat of them on the morrow, they and the bread become Refuse; [but if he purposed] to eat of the bread on the morrow, the bread becomes Refuse, but the lambs do not become Refuse.
4. An animal-offering can make the drink-offerings7 to become Refuse after they have been consecrated in the vessel. So R. Meir. But the drink- offerings cannot make an animal-offering to become Refuse. Thus if a man slaughtered the animal-offering [purposing] to eat of it on the morrow, both it and the drink-offerings thereof become Refuse; [but if he purposed] to offer the drink-offerings on the morrow, they become Refuse but the animal-offering does not become Refuse.
5. If he purposed an act such that would make the Handful to become Refuse but not the frankincense, or the frankincense but not the Handful, R. Meir says: The offering becomes Refuse and punishment by Extirpa¬ tion is thereby incurred. But the Sages say: Punishment by Extirpation is not thereby incurred unless he made all that8 to become Refuse which 1 And the frankincense, as well as the Handful, is needful to render the offering per¬ missible and valid.
* The Peace-offering at Pentecost; Lev. 231’. 3 Lev. 23*’.
* Lev. 24’; one dish to each row of the Shewbread.
s Brought as an adjunct to the Thank-offering. See Lev. 71*.
7 Meal-offerings are also to be understood as included within the term.
8 Both the frankincense and the Handful.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM