[If] one performs kemitzah on a minchahoffering [intending] to eat its remainder or to burn its kometz tomorrow — R’ Yose agrees in this case that it is piggul and that one is liable to kares over it. [If his intention was] to burn its frankincense tomorrow — R’ Yose says: It is invalid, but it carries no kares [penalty]; but the Sages say: [It is] piggul and one is liable to kares over it. They said to him: How is this different from an animal sacrifice? He said to them: Because [with] an animal sacrifice the blood, meat, and sacrificial parts are one, whereas the frankincense is not from the minchah-offering.

[If] he slaughtered [the] two lambs [intending] to eat one of the loaves tomorrow; [or] he burnt the two spoonfuls [of frankincense intending] to eat one of the arrangements tomorrow — R’ Yose says: That loaf or that arrangement about which he [expressed his] intention is piggul, and one is liable to kares over it; and the second one is invalid but carries no [penalty of] kares. But the Sages say: Both are piggul, and one is liable to kares over them. [If] one of the loaves or one of the arrangements became tamei — R’ Yehudah says: They should both go out to the place of burning, because a communal offering is not divisible; but the Sages say: The one which is tamei [remains] in its [state of] tumah, but the one which is tahor is eaten.

The todah-offering renders the bread piggul, but the bread does not render the todahoffering piggul. How so? [If] one slaughters the todah-offering [intending] to eat from it tomorrow, [both] it and the bread become piggul. [However, if he intended] to eat from the bread tomorrow, the bread becomes piggul, but the todah-offering does not become piggul. The lambs render the bread piggul, but the bread does not render the lambs piggul. How so? [If] one slaughters the lambs [intending] to eat from them tomorrow, [both] they and the bread become piggul. [However, if he intended] to eat from the bread tomorrow, the bread becomes piggul, but the lambs do not become piggul.

. The sacrifice renders the libations piggul, once they have been consecrated in a vessel; [these are] the words of R’ Meir. But the libations do not render the sacrifice piggul. How so? [If] one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat from it tomorrow, [both] it and its libations become piggul. [However, if he intended] to offer the libations tomorrow, the libations become piggul, but the sacrifice does not become piggul.

[If] he intended piggul with the kometz but not with the frankincense; [or] with the frankincense but not with the kometz — R’ Meir says: It is piggul and one is liable to kares over it; but the Sages say: There is no kares for it unless he intends piggul with all that renders it permissible. The Sages concur with R’ Meir concerning the sinner’s minchah-offering and the jealousy minchahoffering, that if he intended piggul with the kometz, it is piggul and one is liable to kares over it, since the kometz is that which renders it permissible. [If] he slaughtered one of the lambs [intending] to eat [the] two loaves tomorrow, [or] he burnt one of the spoonfuls [of frankincense intending] to eat [the] two arrangements tomorrow — R’ Meir says: It is piggul and one is liable to kares over it; but the Sages say: There is no piggul unless he intends piggul with all that renders it permissible. [If] he slaughtered one of the lambs [intending] to eat from it tomorrow, it is piggul but its companion is valid. [However, if he intended] to eat from its companion tomorrow, they are both valid.

[If] one performs kemitzah on a minchahoffering [intending] to eat something which is not meant to be eaten, [or] to burn [upon the Altar] something which is not meant to be burnt — it is valid. R’ Eliezer invalidates [it]. [If his intent was] to eat something which is meant to be eaten, [or] to burn [upon the Altar] something which is meant to be burnt — but less than an olive’s volume — it is valid. [If his intent was] to eat something half an olive’s volume and to burn half an olive’s volume — it is valid, for eating and Altar-burning are not combined.

[If] he did not pour, [or] he did not mix, [or] he did not break [it] into pieces; [or] he did not salt, [or] he did not wave, [or] he did not bring [it] near; or [if] he broke them into large pieces, or he did not anoint them — they are valid. [If] its kometz mixed with the kometz of another, [or] with the minchah-offering of Kohanim, [or] with the minchah-offering of the Anointed Kohen, [or] with the minchah-offering of the libations — it is valid. R’ Yehudah says: In the case of the minchah-offering of the Anointed Kohen and the minchahoffering of libations it is invalid, because this [one’s] mixture is thicker, and this one’s mixture is thinner, and they absorb from each other.

[If] two minchah-offerings in which kemitzah had not been performed mixed together — if it is possible to perform kemitzah in each by itself, they are valid; if not, they are invalid. [If] a kometz mixed with a minchah-offering in which kemitzah had not been performed, it is not burnt [on the Altar]. But if he burnt [it], the one in which kemitzah had been performed is credited to the owner, and the one in which kemitzah had not been performed is not credited to the owner. [If] its kometz mixed with its remainder, or with the remainder of another [minchah-offering], he should not burn [it on the Altar]; but if he did burn [it], it is credited to the owner. [If] the kometz became tamei and he offered it, the tzitz effects acceptance; [if] it went out and he offered it, the tzitz does not effect acceptance; for the tzitz effects acceptance for that which is tamei, but not for that which went out.

If its remainder became tamei, burnt, or lost — according to the rule of R’ Eliezer, it is valid; but according to the rule of R’ Yehoshua, it is invalid. [If it was] not [placed] in a sacred vessel, it is invalid. R’ Shimon validates [it]. [If] he burnt its kometz twice, it is valid.

The kometz — its smaller part is essential to [the validity of] its larger part. [For] the issaron — its smaller part is essential to [the validity of] its larger part. [For] wine — its smaller part is essential to [the validity of] its larger part. [For] oil — its smaller part is essential to [the validity of] its larger part. The flour and the oil are essential to [the validity of] each other. The kometz and the frankincense are essential to [the validity of] each other.

. The two he-goats of Yom Kippur are essential to [the validity of] each other. The two lambs of Shavuos are essential to [the validity of] each other. The two loaves are essential to [the validity of] each other. The two arrangements are essential to [the validity of] each other. The two spoonfuls [of frankincense] are essential to [the validity of] each other. The arrangements and the spoonfuls [of frankincense] are essential to [the validity of] each other. The two kinds [of breads] of the nazir, the three [ingredients added to] the [red] cow, the four [kinds of bread] of the todah-offering, the four [species] of the lulav, and the four [ingredients] of the metzora’s purification are essential to [the validity of] one another. The seven sprinklings of the [red] cow are essential to [the validity of] one another. The seven sprinklings between the poles, and on the Curtain, and on the Golden Altar are essential to [the validity of] one another.