[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?

[If] he performed melikah with the left hand, or at night, or he slaughtered a non-sacred [bird] inside [the Courtyard], or offerings outside [it] — [these] do not contaminate with tumah via the throat. [If] he performed melikah with a knife, [or] he performed melikah on a non-sacred [bird] inside, [or on] offerings outside, [or on] turtledoves whose time has not arrived, or young pigeons whose time has passed, [or on a bird] whose wing has atrophied, or whose eye was blinded, or whose foot was cut off — [they] contaminate with tumah via the throat. This is the rule: Anything whose disqualification is in the Holy does not contaminate with tumah via the throat; [but] if its disqualification is not in the Holy, it contaminates with tumah via the throat. All disqualified persons who perform melikah, their melikah is not valid, but [the birds] do not contaminate with tumah via the throat.

[If] he performed melikah and it was found to be a tereifah — R’ Meir says: It does not contaminate with tumah via the throat; R’ Yehudah says: It contaminates with tumah via the throat. Said R’ Meir: If the carcass of an animal, which transmits tumah through touching and carrying, [yet] its slaughter rids its tereifah of any tumah, [then] the carcass of a bird, which does not transmit tumah through touching and carrying, does it not follow that its shechitah should surely rid its tereifah of any tumah! [Thus,] just as we find regarding shechitah that it renders permissible for eating, and it [also] rids its tereifah of tumah, so too its melikah, which renders permissible for eating, should [also] rid its tereifah of tumah. R’ Yose says: It suffices that it be like an animal carcass, whose shechitah cleanses it [of tumah], but not its melikah.