[If] one slaughters a sacrifice [with the intent] to eat an olive’s volume of the hide, the gravy, the sediment, the flayed-off shreds, the bones, the gidim, the hooves, or the horns — beyond its time or outside its place — it is valid; and one is not liable in regard to them for piggul, nossar, and tamei.

[If] one slaughters consecrated [animals] with the intent to eat its fetus or afterbirth, outside — he has not rendered [it] piggul. [If] one performs melikah on turtledoves within [the Courtyard] in order to eat their eggs outside, he has not rendered it piggul. The milk of consecrated [animals] and the eggs of turtledoves — one is not liable in regard to them for piggul, nossar, or tamei.

[If] he slaughtered it with the intent to leave its blood or its sacrificial parts until the next day, or to take them outside [the Courtyard] — R’ Yehudah invalidates [the offering]; but the Sages validate [it]. [If] he slaughtered it with the intent to apply it to the ramp, [or] not opposite the [Altar] base, [or] to apply that which should be applied to the lower [part of the Altar] above, [or] to apply that which should be applied to the upper [part of the Altar] below, [or to apply] that which should be applied within [the Sanctuary] on the outside, or that which should be applied outside [the Sanctuary] within [it], [or] so that people who are tamei should eat it, [or] so that people who are tamei should offer it up [on the Altar], [or] so that uncircumcised persons should eat it, [or] so that uncircumcised persons should offer it up, [or] to break the bones of a pesach-offering, or to eat of it half raw, [or] to mix its blood with blood that is disqualified — it is valid; for intent does not invalidate except for [the intent to consume] beyond its time and outside its area, and [the intention to slaughter] the pesach and chatas offerings for a designation other than their own.

Beis Shammai say: All [offerings] whose [blood] is applied to the outer Altar, if he made [just] one application, he has effected atonement; but with the chatas-offering, two applications. But Beis Hillel say: Even [with] the chatas-offering, if he made [just] one application, he has effected atonement. Therefore, if one applied the first one properly, and the second one [with an intent for] beyond its time — he has effected atonement. [If] he applied the first one [with intent for] beyond its time, and the second one [with intent for] outside its area — it is piggul, and one is liable to kares for it.