Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering,1 the offering is disqualified.2Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense,3 the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.

[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4

a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable;

b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil;

c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.

If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5

If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6 and it is acceptable.

If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7

[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:

it was not placed in a sacred utensil,

the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,

it was brought to the altar8 while not in a sacred utensil,9

or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10

All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11 or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12 a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful...." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13 Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.

When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15 of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16 "on all its frankincense."17

If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugim for every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18 it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.

If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19 or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20 If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21 If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].

If one placed oil on the remnants [of such a meal-offering] after the handful was removed, he is not liable for lashes,22 nor does he disqualify the offering,23 for the handful is acceptable.

If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24 on an olive-sized portion25 of the meal-offering,26 he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27 unless he places an olive-sized portion28 [on the offering].

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

If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29 that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.

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

If one offered the handful [of meal30 on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31 for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32 When a meal-offering was lacking33 before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34 not placing it into a sacred vessel.

When a person donates a handful35 of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36 are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.

[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38 If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.

Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40 [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.

When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41 the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42

If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.

If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43 was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44 or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45 If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46

If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47 If one did, it is unacceptable.

If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48

If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49 If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50

If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,51 the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].

If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53 If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].

[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55 and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron].

If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56 The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57 If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58

Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59 may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60 If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61 [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62 For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.

[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63

When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64 the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65 or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66 They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.

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

When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67 If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68 it69 it should not be offered.70 If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],1 the showbread,2 and the omer that is waved,3 they are disqualified.

With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering4 and the cakes of a nazirite5 that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice6 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

And with regard to the showbread, if lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8 it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.

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

[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9 If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11

What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12 If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13 they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14

When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15 [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16 Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.

Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated,17 the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.18

[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19 If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20 need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21

When does the above22 apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23 When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24 Its offspring does not require bread.25 [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26

[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27 and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28 The third one, however, requires bread.29

If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.30 The first one, however, requires bread.31 If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.32

[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving offering, but it does not require bread.33 It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34

Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35 Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36 The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.

[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37 If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38 [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.

When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39

[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40 it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41 [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42 Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43

When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44 If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45 the remainder of the breads are acceptable.

If the bread46 was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47 The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48

If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49 for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.

When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50 If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51

When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,52 the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.53

If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54

If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55 the bread is sanctified.56 If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58 the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59

There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1 for a different purpose,2 the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.

What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3 [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose."

What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4 with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5 These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place.

What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.7

According to the Oral Tradition,8 we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9 The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice.

Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10 the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.

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

The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.

We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12

A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services: melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13

The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14

If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15 when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16 or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.

Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all.

What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17

a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18 or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19

b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20

c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22 on the upper portion,

d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23 on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24 on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber,

e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it,

f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service,

g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood;

h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25

i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt26 outside its proper time or outside its proper place;

With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.

We already explained27 that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.

What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29 having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30