Kodshei kodashim that one slaughtered in the south [of the Courtyard] are subject to me’ilah. [If] one slaughtered them in the south and received their blood in the north, [or if he slaughtered them] in the north and received their blood in the south, [or if] he slaughtered them by day and threw [their blood on the Altar] at night, [or if he slaughtered them] at night and threw [their blood on the Altar] by day, or [if] he slaugh- tered them [with intent to consume the offer- ings] beyond their time or outside their place, they are subject to me’ilah. R’ Yehoshua stated a general rule: Any [meat] that had a moment of permissibility for the Kohanim is not subject to me’ilah; any [meat] that did not have a moment of permissibility for the Kohanim is subject to me’ilah. Which [meat] is it that had a moment of permissibility for the Kohanim? That which was left past its time, or that which became tamei, or that which went out [of the Court- yard]. Which [meat] is it that did not have a moment of permissibility for the Kohanim? That which was slaughtered [with intent to consume it] beyond its time or outside its place, or that disqualified persons received or threw its blood.

[Regarding] meat of kodshei kodashim that went out [of the Courtyard] before the throwing of the blood [on the Altar], R’ Eliezer says: It is subject to me’ilah, and one is not liable on its account for piggul, nossar, or tamei. R’ Akiva says: It is not subject to me’ilah, [and] indeed one is liable on its account for piggul, nossar, or tamei. R’ Akiva said: Why, [in the case of] one who designated his chatas-offering and it was then lost, and he then designated ano- ther in its place, and afterward the first one was found, and both are now standing, is it not [so] that just as its blood exempts its meat [from me’ilah], so too, does [its blood] exempt the meat of its companion? Now, if its blood exempts the meat of its companion from me’ilah, it is logical that it should exempt its own meat [from me’ilah].

[Regarding] sacrificial parts of kodashim kalim that went out [of the Courtyard] before the throwing of the blood [on the Altar], R’ Eliezer says: They are not subject to me’ilah, and one is not liable on their account for piggul, nossar, or tamei. R’ Akiva says: They are subject to me’ilah, and one is liable on their account for piggul, nossar, or tamei.

The blood service of kodshei kodashim affects [the offering] both leniently and stringently, but [the blood service] of kodashim kalim affects it only stringently. How so? [Regarding] kodshei kodashim, before the throwing of the blood [on the Altar], the sacrificial parts and the meat are subject to me’ilah; after the throwing of the blood, the sacrificial parts are [still] subject to me’ilah but the meat is not subject to me’ilah. For both [the sacrificial parts] and for [the meat], one is [now] liable for piggul, nossar, or tamei. In the case of kodashim kalim, it only affects [the offering] stringently. How so? [Regarding] kodashim kalim before the throwing of the blood, neither the sacrificial parts nor the meat is sub- ject to me’ilah; after the throwing of the blood, the sacrificial parts are [now] subject to me’ilah but the meat is [still] not subject to me’ilah. For both [the sacrificial parts] and for [the meat], one is [now] liable for piggul, nossar, or tamei. It emerges that the blood service of kodshei kodashim affects [the offering] both leniently and stringently, but [the blood service] of kodashim kalim affects it only stringently.

Those liable to chataos or unconditional ashamos, for whom Yom Kippur passed, are liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those liable to conditional ashamos are exempt. One for whom a doubtful situation of sin occurred on Yom Kippur, even at dusk, is exempt, for the entire day atones.

A woman who was obligated to bring a bird chatas of doubt, for whom Yom Kippur passed, is obligated to bring [it] after Yom Kippur since it renders her fit to eat of the offerings. A bird chatas that is brought because of a doubt — if, after its neck was nipped, it became known to her — must be buried.

[If] one sets aside two selaim for an asham, and he purchases with them two rams for an asham: If one of them became worth two selaim, it may be offered for his asham, and the second must graze until it develops a blemish; then it is sold, and its proceeds are deposited for a voluntary offering. [If] he purchased with them two rams for ordinary meat, one became worth two selaim and one became worth ten zuz — the one worth two selaim should be offered for his asham, and the other for his me’ilah. One for his asham and one for ordinary [meat] — if the one for the asham became worth two selaim, it should be offered for his asham, and the second for his me’ilah, and he must bring with it a sela and its fifth.

[If] one sets aside his chatas, then dies, his son may not bring it after him, and he may not bring it from one sin to another, even [if it was set aside] for cheilev that he had eaten yesterday, he may not bring it for the cheilev he ate today, for it is stated (Lev. 4:28): his offering . . . for his sin, that is, his offering shall be for his sin.

From funds consecrated for a ewe lamb we may bring a she-goat; from funds consecrated for a she-goat [we may bring] a ewe lamb; from funds consecrated for a ewe lamb or a she-goat [we may bring] turtledoves or young pigeons; from funds consecrated for turtledoves or young pigeons [we may bring] a tenth of an ephah. How so? [If] he set aside [money] for a ewe lamb or a she-goat, and then became poor, he may bring birds; [if] he became [still] poorer, he may bring a tenth of an ephah. [If] he set aside [money] for a tenth of an ephah, and then became prosperous, he must bring birds. [If] he became [still] more prosperous, he must bring a ewe lamb or a she-goat. [If] he set aside a ewe lamb or a she-goat, and it developed a blemish, if he wishes, he may bring birds from their proceeds. [If] he set aside a bird and it became blemished, he may not bring for its proceeds a tenth of an ephah, for a bird has no redemption.

R’ Shimon says: Everywhere, lambs are mentioned before goats. I would think [that this is] because they are preferable to them. [Therefore,] Scripture states (Lev. 4:32): And if he bring a lamb for a chatas. This teaches [us] that both are equal. Everywhere, turtledoves are mentioned before young pigeons. I would think [that this is] because they are preferable to them. [Therefore,] Scripture states (Lev. 12:6): And a young pigeon or a turtledove for a chatas. This teaches [us] that both are equal. Everywhere, the father is mentioned before the mother. I would think that the father’s honor exceeds the mother’s honor. [Therefore,] Scripture states (Lev. 19:3): Every man shall fear his mother and his father. This teaches [us] that both are equal. But the Sages said: Everywhere, the father takes precedence to the mother, because [both] he and his mother are obligated to honor his father. And so it is with the study of Torah: If the son gained much [while sitting] before the teacher, he precedes the father in all matters, because [both] he and his father are obligated to honor his teacher.