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].