sages

[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 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 [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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else; 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. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half 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, [The sacrifice] is unfit, 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.

If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. [If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah.

If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for karet for it. But the sages say, both are piggul and he is liable for karet for both of them. If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the showbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten.

If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for karet for it. But the sages say, both are piggul and he is liable for karet for both of them. If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the showbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten.

If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.

If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.

If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.

All menahot that are prepared in a vessel require three applications of oil: pouring, mixing and putting oil in the vessel, before they are completed. The [baked] cakes were mixed [with oil], the words of Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi]. But the sages say: the fine flour [was mixed with oil]. The loaves were mixed and the wafers anointed. How did he anoint them? In the form of a “chi.” And the rest of the oil was eaten by the priests.

One who slaughtered the todah within [the Temple court] while its bread was outside the wall, the bread has not been sanctified. If he slaughtered it before [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven, even if all except one had become crusted, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered the todah [intending to eat it] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is sanctified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish: Rabbi Eliezer says: the bread is sanctified. But the sages say: it is not sanctified. If he slaughtered it under another name, and so, too, if the ram of the consecration-offering or the two lambs offered at Shavuot were slaughtered under another name, the bread is not sanctified.

From where did they bring the wine? Keruhim and Attulim rank are alpha their wine. Second to them are Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan on the mountain and Kefar Signa in the valley. [Wine of the] whole land was valid but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from vines planted in a field sown with seeds; but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring wine from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring it, it was valid. One may not bring old wine, the words of Rabbi. But the sages permit it. One may not bring sweet wine or smoked wine or cooked wine, and if one did bring it, it was invalid. One may not bring wine from grapes suspended [on reeds], but only from the vines growing close to the ground and from well-cultivated vineyards.

Rabbi Ishmael says: On Shabbat the omer was taken out of three seahs [of barley] and on a weekday out of five. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was taken out of three seahs. Rabbi Hanina the vice-high priest says: on Shabbat it was reaped by one man with one sickle into one basket, and on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles.

Rabbi Ishmael says: On Shabbat the omer was taken out of three seahs [of barley] and on a weekday out of five. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was taken out of three seahs. Rabbi Hanina the vice-high priest says: on Shabbat it was reaped by one man with one sickle into one basket, and on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles.

They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

[Before the omer] one may reap [grain] in irrigated fields in the valley, but one may not stack it. The people of Jericho used to reap [before the omer] with the approval of the sages, and used to stack it without the approval of the sages, but the sages did not protest. One may reap the unripe grain for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? If one had begun to reap it before it had reached a third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon says: one may reap it and feed [his cattle with it] even after it has reached a third of its growth.

[Before the omer] one may reap [grain] in irrigated fields in the valley, but one may not stack it. The people of Jericho used to reap [before the omer] with the approval of the sages, and used to stack it without the approval of the sages, but the sages did not protest. One may reap the unripe grain for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? If one had begun to reap it before it had reached a third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon says: one may reap it and feed [his cattle with it] even after it has reached a third of its growth.

[Before the omer] one may reap [grain] in irrigated fields in the valley, but one may not stack it. The people of Jericho used to reap [before the omer] with the approval of the sages, and used to stack it without the approval of the sages, but the sages did not protest. One may reap the unripe grain for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? If one had begun to reap it before it had reached a third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon says: one may reap it and feed [his cattle with it] even after it has reached a third of its growth.

A man may offer a minhah consisting of sixty tenths and bring them in one vessel. If one said, “I take upon myself to offer sixty-one tenths,” he must bring sixty in one vessel and the one in another vessel, since the congregation brings on the first day of the festival [of Sukkot] when it falls on Shabbat sixty-one tenths [as a minhah], it is enough for an individual that [his minhah] should be one tenth less than that of the congregation. Rabbi Shimon said: but some of these [sixty-one tenths] are for the bullocks and some for the lambs, and they may not be mixed one with the other! Rather sixty tenths mingles [in one vessel]. They said to him: can sixty be mingled [in one vessel] and not sixty-one? He answered, so it is with all the measures prescribed by the sages: a man may immerse himself in forty seahs of water, but he may not immerse himself in forty seahs less one kortob. One may not offer one [log], two, or five [logs], but one may offer three, four, six, or anything above six.

One who slaughtered a dying animal: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked its foreleg and its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is enough if it spurted [the blood]. Rabbi Shimon said: even if one slaughtered [a dying animal] by night and the following morning he got up early and found the sides [of the throat] full of blood, the slaughtering is valid, for this proves that it spurted [the blood], as is Rabbi Eliezer's measure. The sages say: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked either its foreleg or its hind leg, or it moved its tail to and fro. This is the test both with regard to large and small animals. If a small animal stretched out its foreleg [at the end of the slaughtering] but did not withdraw it, [the slaughtering] is invalid, for this was just an indication of the expiration of its life. When do these rules apply? To case of an animal which was believed to be dying. But if it was believed to be sound, even though it did not show any of these signs, the slaughtering is valid.

The characteristics of cattle and of wild animals are stated in the Torah. The characteristics of birds are not stated, but the sages said: every bird that seizes its prey is unclean. Every bird that has an extra toe, or a crop and a gizzard that can be peeled, is clean. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: every bird that parts its toes is unclean.

If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, for just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months’ fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eight years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months’ fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.

If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; but the sages make him liable. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they: on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day.

If a person slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered that which was unconsecrated inside the sanctuary or that which was consecrated outside, or if he slaughtered a wild animal or a bird that was condemned to be stoned: Rabbi Meir makes him liable to cover up the blood; but the sages make him exempt. If he slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he is exempt from covering up [the blood].

[The prohibition of] the sciatic nerve is in force both within the land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated [animals]. It applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right and left hip. But it does not apply to a bird because it does not have a socket [on its hip]. It applies to a fetus. Rabbi Judah says: it does not apply to a fetus. And its [forbidden] fat is permitted. Butchers are not trustworthy with regard to the [removal of the] sciatic nerve, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: they are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the [forbidden] fat.

One who was flaying cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large: In order to use the hide for a covering, if he stripped as can be taken hold of [the hide is no longer considered as connected to the flesh.] In order to make a water-skin, until the breast has been flayed. If he was flaying from the feet upwards, until the whole hide [has been flayed]. [All of these measures apply] for both conveying uncleanness and becoming unclean. As for the skin that is on the neck: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: it is not connected. But the sages say it is connected until the whole hide has been flayed.

How much is “many”? Bet Shammai say: [at least] two sheep, as it is said, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep (tzon)” (Isaiah 7:21). Bet Hillel say: five, as it is said, “Five dressed sheep (tzon)” (I Samuel 28:18). Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: five sheep, which each produce [a fleece which weighs] a maneh and a half, are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the sages say: five sheep, whatever their fleeces weigh. And how much should one give him? The weight of five selas in Judah, which is equal to ten selas in Galilee. Bleached wool and not dirty wool, sufficient to make from it a small garment, for it is written, “Give him,” when there is enough to be considered a gift. If the owner did not manage to give [the fleece to the priest] until he dyed it, he is exempt. If he bleached it but did not dye it, he is still liable. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a non-Jew, he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to his neighbor: If the seller kept some back, the seller is liable, But if he did not withhold anything, the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds of wool, grey and white, and he sold the grey but not the white, or [if he sold the wool] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.

An unclean bird one is not obligated to let it go. If an unclean bird was sitting on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird on the eggs of an unclean bird, one is not obligated to let it go. As to a male partridge: Rabbi Eliezer obligates [one to let it go]. But the sages exempt.

If one took the mother with the young: Rabbi Judah says: he has incurred [forty] lashes and he need not now let her go. But the sages say: he must let her go, and he does not incur lashes. This is the general rule: [For the transgression of] any negative commandment which has of a remedy by the subsequent fulfillment of a positive commandment one does not incur lashes.

If one sets aside [a lamb] for the redemption of the first-birth of a donkey and it died: Rabbi Eliezer says: he is responsible as is the case with the five selas for the redemption of the first-born. But the sages say: he is not responsible, as is the case with the redemption of the second tithe. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption of the first-born of a donkey which died that the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. If the first-born of a donkey died [after the lamb for redemption had been set aside]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be buried, but the lamb may be used. But the sages say: it does not need to be buried and the lamb belongs to the priest.

If one sets aside [a lamb] for the redemption of the first-birth of a donkey and it died: Rabbi Eliezer says: he is responsible as is the case with the five selas for the redemption of the first-born. But the sages say: he is not responsible, as is the case with the redemption of the second tithe. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the redemption of the first-born of a donkey which died that the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances]. If the first-born of a donkey died [after the lamb for redemption had been set aside]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be buried, but the lamb may be used. But the sages say: it does not need to be buried and the lamb belongs to the priest.

If a ewe which never before had given birth bore two males and both heads came forth simultaneously: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: both belong to the priest for scripture says: “The males shall be the Lord’s” (Exodus 13:12). But the sages say: it is impossible, therefore one remains [with the Israelite] and the other is for the priest. Rabbi Tarfon says: the priest chooses the better one. Rabbi Akiva says: we compromise between them. The second one [in the Israelite's possession] is left to pasture until it becomes blemished and the owner is liable for the [priest's] gifts. Rabbi Yose exempts him. If one of them died: Rabbi Tarfon says: they divide [the living one]. Rabbi Akiva says: the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If it gave birth to a male and a female, the priest receives nothing [in such circumstances].

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

If [a portion of] the hair of a blemished first born fell out and he placed it in the window, and then he slaughtered the animal, Akavya ben Mahalalel allows it. But the sages forbid it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him: Akavya ben Mahalalel did not allow [only] in this case, but [even] in the case where the hair of a blemished first born which fell out and he placed it in the window, and the animal died subsequently, [even] in this case Akavya ben Mahalalel allows, but the sages forbid. If the wool of a first born is hanging loose, that part which appears [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is permitted, whereas that which does not appear [on a level] with [the rest of] the wool is forbidden.

If one who is not an expert sees a first born and it was slaughtered by his instructions, in such a case it shall be buried and he shall make reparation from his own pocket. If a [non-expert] judge gave a judgment and declared innocent a person who was really liable or made liable a person who was really innocent, declared unclean a thing which was clean or declared clean a thing which was really unclean, his decision stands but he has to make reparation from his own pocket. If the judge was an expert [sanctioned by the] court, he is exempt from making reparation. It happened once that a cow's womb was removed and Rabbi Tarfon gave it [the cow] to the dogs to eat. The matter came before the sages at Yavneh and they permitted the animal. Todos the physician said: no cow or pig leaves Alexandria of Egypt before its womb is removed in order that it may not breed. Rabbi Tarfon said: “There goes your donkey, Tarfon.” Rabbi Akiva said to him: you are exempt, for you are an expert and whoever is an expert sanctioned by the court is exempt from reparation.

If one takes payment for seeing first borns, they must not be slaughtered by his instructions unless he was an expert like Ila in Yavneh whom the sages permitted to accept four isars for small cattle and six as for large cattle, whether unblemished or blemished.

Bet Shammai says: An Israelite must not be invited to share [a blemished first born] with a priest. But Bet Hillel permits this, even in the case of a non-Jew. If a first born has a blood attack, even if it is going to die, its blood may not be let, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: he may let its blood, as long as he does not make a blemish. And if he made a blemish, he must not slaughter it on account of this. Rabbi Shimon says: he may let blood, even though he makes a blemish.

If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. It happened that a quaestor (a Roman official) saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted.

If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. It happened that a quaestor (a Roman official) saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted.

If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. It happened that a quaestor (a Roman official) saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted.

If one makes a slit in the ear of a firstborn animal, he may never slaughter it, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: when another blemish appears, he may slaughter it on account of it. It happened that a quaestor (a Roman official) saw an old male lamb with its long wool hanging down and asked: what is the meaning of this? They replied: “It is a first born and is not to be slaughtered until it has a blemish,” [The quaestor] took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the sages and they permitted it. After they had permitted, he went and sliced the ears of other [first borns]. The [sages] forbade them. Once children were once playing in a field. They tied the tails of sheep one to the other and one tail which belonged to a first born was severed. The matter came before the rabbis and they permitted [the first born]. When the children saw that they had permitted [the first born to be slaughtered], they proceeded to tie the tails of other first borns. The [sages] forbade [the other first borns]. This is the rule: wherever the blemish is caused with the knowledge and consent [of the owner] it is forbidden, but, if it is not with his knowledge and consent, it is permitted.

If the bone of the fore-leg or of its hind-leg is broken, even though it is not noticeable, [this is a blemish]. These blemishes Ila enumerated in Yavneh and the sages agreed with him. He also added another three cases [of blemishes]. They said to him: we have only heard these [already mentioned previously]. [The three added by Ila were]: one whose eyeball is round like that of a human or whose mouth is like that of a pig or if the greater part of the speaking part of the tongue has been removed. A subsequent court ruled however: each of these cases is a [disqualifying] blemish.

It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish.

It happened that the lower jaw [of a first born] was larger than the upper jaw. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel asked the sages [for a ruling] and they said: this is a blemish. The ear of a kid which was doubled: the sages ruled: if it is all one bone, it is a blemish, but if it is not all one bone, it is not a blemish. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: if the tail of a kid is like that of a pig, or if the tail does not possess three vertebrae, this is a blemish.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: if [a first born] has a wart in its eye or if a bone of its fore-leg or hind-leg is defective, or if the bone of the mouth split, or one eye is large and the other small, or one ear is large and the other small, being visibly so and not merely in measurement [all of these are blemishes]. Rabbi Judah says: if one testicle is as large as two of the other [this is a blemish]. But the sages didn’t agree with him.

If the tail of a calf does not reach the joint, [it is a blemish]. The sages said: the growth of all calves is in this manner, as long as [the animals] grow, the tails also extend [below]. To which joint does this refer? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: the joint in the middle of the hip. In consequence of these blemishes we may slaughter a firstborn animal, and consecrated animals rendered unfit [for the altar] in consequence of these blemishes may be redeemed.

And in consequence of the following blemishes one may not slaughter a first born either in the Temple or in the rest of the state: White spots on the cornea and water [dripping from the eye] which are not permanent, Or molars which have been broken but not torn out [completely]; Or [an animal] affected with garav, a wart, or hazazit. An old [animal] or a sick one, [an animal] of offensive smell; Or [an animal] which with a transgression has been committed or an animal which is known to have killed a human being on the testimony of one witness or of the owners. A tumtum or a hermaphrodite cannot be slaughtered, neither in the Temple or in the rest of the state. Rabbi Ishmael however says: there is no greater blemish than that [of a hermaphrodite]. But the sages say: it is not considered a first-born and it may be shorn and worked with.

These blemishes [named above], whether permanent or transitory, make human beings unfit [to serve in the Temple]. There are more than this concerning human beings: kilon, liftan, makkaban, one whose head is angular or shekifas . A hunchback: Rabbi Judah considers him fit, Whereas the sages consider him unfit.

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together. If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose. Or if his fingers lie one above the other. If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit. If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit. If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit. One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit. A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.

If one knocks his ankles [against each other, in walking] or rubs his legs [against each other]; a ba’al pikah and an ikkel. What is an ikkel? One whose knees do not touch each other when he puts his feet together. If he has a lump protruding from his thumb, or if his heel projects backward, or if his feet are wide like those of a goose. Or if his fingers lie one above the other. If they are webbed up to the joint, he is fit, if below the root, if he cuts it, he is also fit. If he has an additional finger and he cut it off, if there was a bone in it, he is unfit, but if not, he is fit. If he has additional fingers and additional toes, on each hand and foot six fingers and six toes, [making altogether] twenty-four [fingers and toes]: Rabbi Judah declares him fit, But the sages declare him unfit. One who has equal strength in both hands: Rabbi declares him unfit; But the sages declare him fit. A kushi, a gihur, a lavkan, a kippeah, a dwarf, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, one intoxicated, or afflicted with plague marks which are clean – [these defects] disqualify in human beings but not in animals. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a mad animal is not a choice sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: also those afflicted with dangling warts they are unfit in human beings but are fit in animals.

There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Or if she converted when pregnant, or if she was freed when pregnant, and she gave birth; If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest.

The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: The share of the first-born, [The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] [And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. Rabbi Eliezer says: all of these return in the Jubilee. R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money.

There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. How so? If one paid a sela and became rich, he need not give any [more]. But if he gave less than a sela and became rich, he must pay fifty selas. If he had five selas in his possession: Rabbi Meir says: he need not give more than one; The sages say he must give them all. There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days. No signs of leprosy are shut up for less than one week and none more than three weeks.

Things proscribed for [the use of] the priests cannot be redeemed but are to be given to the priests. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: things proscribed without specification fall to [the fund for] Temple repairs, as it was said: “Every proscribed thing is most holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:25). But the sages say: things proscribed without specification go to the priests, as it is said: “As a field proscribed: its possession belongs to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). If so, why is it said: “Every proscribed thing is most holy to the Lord”? This teaches that it applies to most holy and less holy things.

If an Israelite inherited from his mother's father who was a Levite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here. Also if a Levite inherited from his mother's father who was an Israelite, he cannot redeem it according to the order prescribed here, As it says, “As for the houses of the cities of the Levites” (Leviticus 25:32) [this order does not apply] unless he is a Levite and in the cities of the Levites, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: these things apply to the cities of the Levites. One may not turn a field into pasture land, nor pasture land into a field, nor pasture land into a city, nor a city into pasture land. Rabbi Eliezer said: When is this so? When it comes to the cities of the Levites, but when it comes to cities of Israelites one may turn a field into pasture land, pasture land into a field, pasture land into a city, but not a city into pasture land, in order that they should not destroy the cities of Israel. Priests and Levites may sell [a house] at any time and redeem it at any time, as it is said: “The Levites shall forever have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32).

The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them: The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified regarding the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. Rabbi Papias said: I testify that we had a cow of a shelamim and we ate it on Pesah and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Sukkot].

The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them: The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder. Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered. Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testified regarding the offspring of a shelamim that it is offered as a shelamim. Rabbi Papias said: I testify that we had a cow of a shelamim and we ate it on Pesah and we ate its offspring as a shelamim on the festival [of Sukkot].

But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages? Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him. Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.

What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”? If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar]. If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.

With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar. The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Eliezer says it may not be offered on the altar. But the sages say it may be offered. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar. Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.

For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action.

Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. These bring an offering which is eaten: If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.

Rabbi Akiva declares one liable to an asham talui for sacrilege; But the sages declare him exempt. Rabbi Akiba admits that he does not bring his restitution money until he becomes aware [of his trespass], when he must bring with it a certain asham. Rabbi Tarfon: Why should he bring two ashams? Rather, let him set aside the principal with an added fifth, and bring an asham the value of two sela's and stipulate: “If I did commit sacrilege, here is my restitution and this my asham; and if the sacrilege was doubtful, let the money be a freewill gift and the [offering an] asham talui;” since the same type of sacrifice he brings for a case where he doesn’t know, he brings for one where he does know.

If a person brought an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin: If it was before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is then sold, and the money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be offered up, for if it does not expiate this sin, it will expiate another sin. If he learns of it after it was slaughtered, the blood shall be spilled out and the flesh is removed to the place of burning. If the blood had already been tossed [onto the altar], the flesh may be eaten. Rabbi Yose says: even if the blood is still in the vessel, it should be tossed and the flesh then eaten.

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.

If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.

If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag. Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.

A torch is susceptible to impurity. And the reservoir of a lamp contracts impurity through its air-space. The comb of a tzartzur: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is susceptible.

One who lines a sound vessel: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: [the lining] contracts impurity. But the sages say: a lining over a sound vessel is not susceptible to impurity, and only one over a cracked vessel is susceptible. And the same dispute applies to the hoop of a pumpkin shell.

A potsherd that cannot stand unsupported on account of its handle, or a potsherd whose bottom is pointed and that point causes it to overbalance, is clean. If the handle was removed or the point was broken off it is still clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. If a jar was broken but is still capable of holding something in its sides, or if it was split into a kind of two troughs: Rabbi Judah says it is clean But the sages say it is unclean.

An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.

A baking oven originally must be no less than four handbreadths [high] and what is left of it four handbreadths, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: this applies only to a large oven but in the case of a small one it originally can be [any height] and what is left is the greater part of it. [Its susceptibility to impurity begins] as soon as its manufacture is completed. What is regarded as the completion of its manufacture? When it is heated to a degree that suffices for the baking of spongy cakes. Rabbi Judah says: when a new oven has been heated to a degree that sufficed for the baking of spongy cakes in an old one.

If an oven was half filled with earth, the part from the earth downwards contracts impurity by contact only while the part from the earth upwards contracts impurity [also] from its air-space. If he put the oven over the mouth of a cistern or over that of a cellar and he put a stone at its side: Rabbi Judah says: if when heated below it becomes also heated above it is susceptible to impurity. But the sages say: since it was heated, no matter how, it is susceptible to impurity.

If he cut the oven up into rings, and then he put sand between each pair of rings, Rabbi Eliezer says: it is clean. But the sages say: it is unclean. This is the oven of Akhnai. As regards Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to impurity; Otherwise it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai.

If a sheretz was found in the [place in a stove] where wood is put: Rabbi Judah says: if it was within the outer edge, [the stove] becomes unclean. But the sages say: if it was outside the inner edge [the stove] remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: if it was found beneath the spot where the pot is placed and inwards, the stove becomes unclean, but if beneath the spot where the pot is set and outwards, it remains clean. If it was found on the place where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-boilers sit, the stove remains clean. It only becomes unclean only [when the sheretz] is found in the enclosed part and inwards.

A stopper of a jar that is loose but does not fall out: Rabbi Judah says: it protects. But the sages say: it does not protect. If its finger-hold was sunk within the jar and a sheretz was in it, the jar becomes unclean. If the sheretz was in the jar, any food in it, become unclean.

If [the outer layer] a jar had been peeled off but its pitch [lining] remained intact, And similarly if pots of fish brine were sealed up with gypsum at a level with the brim: Rabbi Judah says: they do not protect. But the sages say: they do protect.

The scorpion [-shaped] bit of a bridle is susceptible to impurity, but the cheek-pieces are clean. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cheek-pieces are susceptible to impurity. But the sages says that the scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to impurity, When they are joined together it is all susceptible to impurity.

A metal spindle-knob: Rabbi Akiva says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is not susceptible. If it was only plated [with metal] it is clean. A spindle, a distaff, a rod, a double flute and a pipe are susceptible to impurity if they are of metal, but if they are only plated [with metal] they are clean. If a double flute has a receptacle for the wings it is susceptible to impurity in either case.

A curved horn is susceptible to impurity but a straight one is clean. If its mouthpiece was covered with metal it is unclean. If its broad side [is covered with metal]: Rabbi Tarfon says it is susceptible to impurity But the sages say it is clean. While they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity. Similarly: the branches of a candlestick are clean. And the cups and the base are susceptible to impurity, But while they are joined together the whole is susceptible to impurity.

The metal cover of a basket of householders: Rabban Gamaliel says: it is susceptible to impurity, The sages say that it is clean. But that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. The door of a cupboard of householders is clean but that of physicians is susceptible to impurity. Tongs are susceptible to impurity but stove-tongs are clean. The scorpion [-shaped] hook in an olive-press is susceptible to impurity but the hooks for the walls are clean.

A blood-letters’ nail is susceptible to impurity. But [the nail] of a sundial is clean. Rabbi Zadok says that it is susceptible to impurity. A weaver's nail is susceptible to impurity. The chest of a grist-dealer: Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean. If its wagon was made of metal it is susceptible to impurity.

A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. But one used for guarding is clean. A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.

A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. But one used for guarding is clean. A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.

A nail which he adapted to be able to open or to shut a lock is susceptible to impurity. But one used for guarding is clean. A nail which he adapted to open a jar: Rabbi Akiva says that it is susceptible to impurity, But the sages say that it is clean unless he forges it. A money-changer's nail is clean, But Rabbi Zadok says: it is susceptible to impurity. There are three things which Rabbi Zadok holds to be susceptible to impurity and the sages hold clean: The nail of a money-changer, The chest of a grist-dealer And the nail of a sundial. Rabbi Zadok rules that these are susceptible to impurity and the sages rule that they are clean.

There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity. The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; And the hanger of a strigil; And metal vessels which are still unshaped; And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.

There are four things which Rabban Gamaliel says are susceptible to impurity, and the sages say are not susceptible to impurity. The covering of a metal basket, if it belongs to householders; And the hanger of a strigil; And metal vessels which are still unshaped; And a plate that is divided into two [equal] parts. And the sages agree with Rabban Gamaliel in the case of a plate that was divided into two parts, one large and one small, that the large one is susceptible to impurity and the small one is not susceptible to impurity.

The sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-sickle, harvest-sickle, clipper, and barbers’ whose component parts were separated, are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says: the part that is near the hand is susceptible to impurity, but that which is near the top is clean. The two parts of shears which were separated: Rabbi Judah says: they are still susceptible to impurity; But the sages say that they are clean.

An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.

A metal basket-cover which was turned into a mirror: Rabbi Judah rules that it is clean. And the sages rule that it is susceptible to impurity. A broken mirror, if it does not reflect the greater part of the face, is clean.