slaughtered

Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid.

Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid.

Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid.

Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid.

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him.

A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name, Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified. What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim. ‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah. For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles. Rabbi Eliezer says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.

All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood.

If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.

If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.

The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things: For the sake of the sacrifice, For the sake of the sacrificer, For the sake of the [Divine] Name, For the sake of fire-offerings, For the sake of fragrance, For the sake of pleasing; And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper.

Which is the place [for the offering] of the sacrifices? Most holy sacrifices are slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. The bullock and the goat of Yom Kippur are [done] at the north, and the receiving of their blood is [performed] with ministering vessels at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the poles [of the ark], on the curtain, and on the golden altar. [The omission of] a single application of [the blood] invalidates [them]. He [the priest] would pour out the remainders of the blood on the western base of the outer altar, but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice].

[Concerning] public and private hatats: (These are the public hatats: the goats of new moons and festivals) They are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in ministering vessels in the north, and their blood requires four applications on the four corners [of the altar]. How was it done? He went up the ascent, turned to the surrounding walkway, and came to the south-east corner, then the north-east, then the north-west, and then the south-west. He would pour the residue of the blood out at the southern base. They were eaten within the hangings [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any fashion, the same day and night, until midnight.

The olah is a most holy sacrifice. It is slaughtered in the north, and its blood is received in a ministering vessel in the north; and its blood requires two applications, which are four. It had to be flayed, dismembered, and completely consumed by the fire.

The shelamim of the public and the ashams: These are the[different types of] ashams: The asham for robbery; The asham or illegal use of holy property; The asham for a betrothed maidservant; A nazirite's asham; A leper's asham; And the suspended asham. These are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in a service vessel in the north, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten within the curtains [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any manner, the same day and night, until midnight.

The todah and the nazirite's ram are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four; And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any manner, the same day and the night following, until midnight. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

The shelamim is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity. It may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and its blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any way, during two days and one night. The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.

The first-born animal, tithe and the pesah are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. They are slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and their blood requires one sprinkling, provided that he applies it against the base [of the altar]. They differ in the [rules governing] their eating: The first-born animal is eaten by priests [only], the tithe is eaten by anyone and they can be eaten in any part of the city, prepared in any manner, during two days and one night. The pesah can be eaten only at night, only until midnight, and it can be eaten only by those registered for it, and it can be eaten only when roasted.

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the top of the altar: Rabbi Yose says: it is as though they were slaughtered in the north. Rabbi Yose son of Rabb Judah says: from the middle of the altar southward is as south, from the middle of the altar northward is as the north. The fistfuls of meal-offerings were taken in any part of the Temple court, and they [the minhah-offerings] were eaten within the curtains, by male priests, prepared in any manner, on the same day and night, until midnight.

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the top of the altar: Rabbi Yose says: it is as though they were slaughtered in the north. Rabbi Yose son of Rabb Judah says: from the middle of the altar southward is as south, from the middle of the altar northward is as the north. The fistfuls of meal-offerings were taken in any part of the Temple court, and they [the minhah-offerings] were eaten within the curtains, by male priests, prepared in any manner, on the same day and night, until midnight.

If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted?

If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted?

If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted?

If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off, [all these] defile in the gullet. This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet.

An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

Just as they do not descend once they have ascended, so they do not ascend if they have descended. And all of these, if they ascended alive to the top of the altar, they must descend. An olah which ascended live to the top of the altar, it must descend. If one slaughtered it on the top of the altar, he must skin it and dismember it where it lies.

A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards.

The blood of a disqualified hatat does not necessitate washing, whether it had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness. Which had a period of fitness? One [whose blood] was kept overnight, or was defiled, or was taken out [of the Temple courtyard]. Which did not have a period of fitness? One which was slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate bounds; or whose blood was received by unfit persons, and sprinkled by them.

Whenever the altar does not acquire its flesh, the priests do not acquire the hide, for it is said, “[And the priest that offers] any man’s olah [the priest shall have … the hide]” (Leviticus 7:8), [this means,] an olah which went up on the altar on behalf a man. If an olah was slaughtered under a different designation, although it does not count for its owner, its hide belongs to the priests. Whether [it be] a man’s olah or a woman's olah, the hide belong to the priests.

He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.

He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.

As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal].

As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal].

If one slaughtered the hatat cow [the red heifer] outside its appointed place, and likewise if one offered the scapegoat [of Yom Kippur] outside, he is not liable, because it says, “And has not brought it unto the door of the Tent of Meeting,” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account.

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.

The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not.

The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.

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.

Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third. And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community and the asham of the leper. The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive. The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands. The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.

Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third. And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community and the asham of the leper. The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive. The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands. The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.

Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third. And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community and the asham of the leper. The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive. The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands. The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.

Laying on of hands is [in certain respects] more stringent than waving and waving is [in other respects] more stringent than laying on of hands. For one may perform the waving on behalf of all the others, but one may not perform the laying on of hands on behalf of all the others. Waving is more stringent, for waving takes place for offerings of the individual and for offerings of the community, for living animals and for slaughtered animals, and for things that have life and for things that do not have life; but it is not so with laying on of the hands.

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.

All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.

If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife.

If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife.

If one slaughtered [by cutting] at the [top] ring [of the trachea] and left a hair's breadth of its entire circumference [towards the head], the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: if there was only left [towards the head] a hair's breadth of the greater part of its circumference, [the slaughtering is valid].

If one slaughtered two animals simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid. If two persons held the knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid.

If one slaughtered two animals simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid. If two persons held the knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid.

If he chopped off the head with one stroke, the slaughtering is invalid. He was slaughtering and he cut through the neck with one stroke, if the knife was as long as the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If he was slaughtering and he cut off two heads at the same time, if the knife is as long as the neck it is valid. When is this so? When the slaughterer moved the knife forward and not backward, or backward and not forward; but if he moved the knife to and fro, however small it was, even if it was a scalpel, the slaughtering is valid. If a knife fell down and slaughtered [an animal], even though it slaughtered it in the proper way, the slaughtering is invalid, for it is said, "And you shall slaughter and eat," that which you slaughter, you may eat. If [while slaughtering] the knife fell and he picked it up, if his clothes fell and he picked them up, if he sharpened the knife, or if he got tired and his friend came and [continued] slaughtering, if he delayed the time that it takes to slaughter, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: if he delayed the time it takes to examine the slaughtering.

If he chopped off the head with one stroke, the slaughtering is invalid. He was slaughtering and he cut through the neck with one stroke, if the knife was as long as the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If he was slaughtering and he cut off two heads at the same time, if the knife is as long as the neck it is valid. When is this so? When the slaughterer moved the knife forward and not backward, or backward and not forward; but if he moved the knife to and fro, however small it was, even if it was a scalpel, the slaughtering is valid. If a knife fell down and slaughtered [an animal], even though it slaughtered it in the proper way, the slaughtering is invalid, for it is said, "And you shall slaughter and eat," that which you slaughter, you may eat. If [while slaughtering] the knife fell and he picked it up, if his clothes fell and he picked them up, if he sharpened the knife, or if he got tired and his friend came and [continued] slaughtering, if he delayed the time that it takes to slaughter, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: if he delayed the time it takes to examine the slaughtering.

If one first sliced the esophagus and then cut away the windpipe, or first cut away the windpipe and then sliced the esophagus; or if he sliced one of these organs and paused until the animal died; or if he thrust the knife underneath the second organ and cut it: [In all these cases] Rabbi Yeshevav says: the animal is nevelah; Rabbi Akiva says: it is terefah. Rabbi Yeshevav stated this general rule in the name of Rabbi Joshua: whenever an animal is rendered invalid by a fault in the slaughtering it is nevelah; whenever an animal has been duly slaughtered but is rendered invalid by some other defect it is terefah. And Rabbi Akiba [ultimately] agreed with him.

If one slaughtered cattle or a wild beast or a bird and no blood came out, they are valid and may be eaten by him whose hands have not been washed, for they have not been rendered susceptible to impurity by blood. Rabbi Shimon says: they have been rendered susceptible to impurity by the slaughtering.

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.

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.

If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!

If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!

If one slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid. If two persons held a knife and slaughtered [an animal], one intending it as a sacrifice to one of these things and the other for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid.

If one slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid. If two persons held a knife and slaughtered [an animal], one intending it as a sacrifice to one of these things and the other for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid.

If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid.

If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid.

If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid.

If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid.

The following [defects] render birds terefah: If the esophagus was pierced, If the windpipe was severed; If a weasel struck [the bird] on the head in such a place as would render it terefah. If the gizzard was pierced, If the intestines were pierced, If it fell into the fire and its innards were scorched: If they turned green, it is invalid, But if they remained red it is valid. If one trod upon it or knocked it against a wall or if an animal trampled upon it, and it still jerks its limbs, and it remained alive after this for twenty-four hours, and it was thereafter slaughtered, it is valid.

If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 found in it an amniotic sac, he who is not fastidious may eat it. It does not contract uncleanness, either food uncleanness or the uncleanness of nevelah. If he intended to eat it, it can contract food uncleanness but not the uncleanness of nevelah. If part of the amniotic sac emerged [before the slaughtering of the mother], it may not be eaten; for it is a sign of birth in a woman and also a sign of birth in an animal. If an animal which was pregnant for the first time miscarried an amniotic sac, it may be thrown to dogs. But in the case of a consecrated animal it must be buried. It may not be buried at cross-roads or hung on a tree, for these are amorite practices.