The bechor-offering, the maaser-offering, and the pesach-offering [are] offerings of lesser holiness — their slaughter may be anywhere in the Courtyard, and their blood requires one application, but he must apply it opposite the base. They differ in [the manner of] their consumption: The bechor-offering is eaten [only] by Kohanim, and the maaser-offering by anyone; and they may be eaten throughout the city, [by anyone,] prepared in any manner, for two days and one night. The pesach-offering may be eaten only by night, it may be eaten only until midnight, it may be eaten only by those registered for it, and it may be eaten only roasted.

[If] most holy offerings were slaughtered on top of the Altar — R’ Yose says: [It is] as if they had been slaughtered in the north; R’ Yose bar Yehudah says: From the middle of the Altar and northward is as the north; from the middle of the Altar and southward is as the south. The minchah-offerings would have their kometz separated anywhere in the Courtyard, and they are eaten within the curtains, by male Kohanim, prepared in any manner, for a day and a night, until midnight.

The bird chatas would be offered at the southwest corner [of the Altar]. It was valid in any place, but this was its place. That corner served for three things below, and three above. Below: The bird chatas, and the bringing near and the remainder of the blood. Above: The libation of the water, and the wine, and the bird olah when there are too many on the east [side of the Altar].

All who ascend the Altar ascend toward the right, go around [the Altar], and descend toward the left; except for one who ascends for these three things, who would ascend, and retrace their steps.

How was the [service] of the bird chatas performed? He would perform melikah on its head opposite the back of the skull, without separating; and he would sprinkle its blood upon the wall of the Altar. The remainder of the blood would drain upon the base. The Altar receives only its blood, while all of it goes to the Kohanim.

How was the bird olah offered? He ascended the ramp, turned to the surrounding ledge, [and] arrived at the southeast corner. He would perform melikah on its head opposite the back of its skull, and separate, and drain its blood upon the Altar wall. He would [then] take the head and bring its incision up against the Altar, saturate it with salt, and throw it upon the fires. He would [then] come to the body and remove the crop, and the feathers and entrails which were attached to it, and throw them to the place of the ashes. He would rend but not separate [it]; however, if he separated [it], it is valid. He would [then] saturate it with salt and throw it upon the fires.

[If] he did not remove the crop, or the feathers, or the entrails which are attached to it, or he did not saturate it with salt, any deviation which he makes after he drains its blood, [leaves] it valid. [If] he separated the [bird] chatas, or did not separate the [bird] olah, he has invalidated [it]. [If] he drained the blood of the head but did not drain the blood of the body, it is invalid; [but if] he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head, it is valid.

[If] one performed melikah on a bird chatas for a designation other than its own, [or] drained its blood for a designation other than its own, or for its own designation and for a designation other than its own, or for a designation other than its own and for its own designation, it is invalid. A bird olah [under such circumstances] is valid, except that it is not credited to the owner. Both a bird chatas and a bird olah on which one performed melikah or drained their blood, with the intent to eat that which is meant to be eaten, or to burn upon the Altar that which is meant to be burnt upon the Altar — outside their area, they are invalid but there is no kares [punishment]; beyond their time, they are piggul and one is liable to kares for them, provided that the part which makes it permissible has been offered as required. In what manner is the part which makes it permissible [considered to have] been offered as required? [If] he performed melikah in silence but drained the blood [with an intent for] beyond its time; or he performed melikah [with an intent for] beyond its time and drained the blood in silence, or he performed melikah and drained the blood [both with an intent for] beyond its time — these are [cases in] which the part which makes it permissible is [considered to have been] offered as required. In what manner is the part which makes it permissible not [considered to have] been offered as required? [If] he performed melikah [for] outside its place but drained the blood [for] beyond its time; or he performed melikah [for] beyond its time but drained the blood [for] outside its place; or he performed melikah and drained the blood [both for] outside its place; [or] a bird chatas on which he performed melikah for a designation other than its own, and drained its blood [with an intent for] beyond its time; or on which he performed melikah [with an intent for] beyond its time, and drained its blood for a designation other than its own; or he performed melikah on it and drained its blood for a designation other than its own — these are [cases in] which the part which makes it permissible has not been offered as required. [If] he [intended] to eat an olive’s volume outside and an olive’s volume tomorrow, [or] an olive’s volume tomorrow and an olive’s volume outside; [or he intended to eat] half an olive’s volume outside and half an olive’s volume tomorrow, [or] half an olive’s volume tomorrow and half an olive’s volume outside — it is invalid, but it bears no kares [punishment]. Said R’ Yehudah: This is the rule: If the intent of time preceded the intent of place, [it is] piggul and one is liable to kares for it; but if the intent of place preceded the intent of time, it is invalid, but bears no kares [punishment]. But the Sages say: In either case it is invalid, but bears no kares [punishment]. [If the intent was] to eat half an olive’s volume and to burn upon the Altar half an olive’s volume, it is valid, because [intent for] eating and Altar-burning do not combine.

A bird chatas which one made below, in the manner of a chatas-offering, for the designation of chatas, is valid. [If he made it] in the manner of chatas-offering for the designation of olah, [or] in the manner of an olah-offering for the designation of chatas, [or] in the manner of an olah-offering for the designation of olah — it is invalid. [If] he made it above in any of these manners, it is invalid.

A bird olah which one made above, in the manner of an olah-offering, for the designation of olah, is valid. [If he made it] in the manner of an olah-offering for the designation of chatas, it is valid; but it is not credited to the owner. In the manner of a chatas-offering for the designation of olah, [or] in the manner of a chatas-offering for the designation of chatas, it is invalid. [If] he made it below in any of these manners, it is invalid.

And all of them do not contaminate with tumah via the throat; but one is subject to the laws of me’ilah on their account, except for the bird chatas which was made below in the manner of a chatas offering for the designation of chatas.

[If] a bird olah was made below, in the manner of a chatas-offering, for the designation of chatas — R’ Eliezer says: One is subject to me’ilah on its account; [but] R’ Yehoshua says: One is not subject to me’ilah on its account. Said R’ Eliezer: If a chatas-offering, which is not subject to me’ilah [when it has been offered] for its own designation, is [nevertheless] subject to me’ilah [when] one changed its designation; [then] an olah-offering, which is subject to me’ilah [when it is offered] for its own designation, should surely be subject to me’ilah when he changed its designation! Said R’ Yehoshua to him: Not so. If this can be said of a chatas-offering whose designation one changed to an olah, [it is] because he has changed its designation to something which is subject to me’ilah. Can [the same] be said of an olah-offering whose designation one changed to a chatas — in which case he has changed its designation to something which is not subject to me’ilah? Said R’ Eliezer to him: Let most holy offerings which one slaughtered in the southern [part of the Courtyard], and which he slaughtered for the lesser holiness designation, serve as proof — in that he has changed their designation to something not subject to me’ilah, and [yet] they are subject to me’ilah! So too you should not wonder at an olah-offering, that even when one changed its designation to something not subject to me’ilah, it [nevertheless] remains subject to me’ilah. Said R’ Yehoshua to him: Not so. If this can be said of most holy offerings which one slaughtered in the southern [part of the Courtyard], and which he slaughtered for lesser holiness designation, [it is] because he changed their designation to something which has forbidden [parts] and permissible [parts]. Can you say [the same] for an olah-offering whose designation one changed to something which is entirely permissible?