A chatas-offering whose blood was received in one cup — [whether] one applied [the blood] outside [the Temple] and then applied [it] within, [or he applied the blood] within [the Temple] and then applied [it] outside — he is liable, since all of it is fit to be brought inside. [If] one received its blood in two cups — [if] he applied both within [the Temple], he is not liable; if [he applied] both [cups] outside, he is liable; one within and [then] one outside, he is not liable; one outside and [then] one within, he is liable for the outside one but the inner one atones. To what can this matter be compared? To one who consecrates his chatas-offering and it was [later] lost, so that he consecrated another in its place. Afterward, the first one was found, and now both are available. [If] he slaughtered both within [the Temple], he is not liable; [if] he slaughtered both of them outside [the Temple], he is liable; one within and [then] one outside, he is not liable; one outside and [then] one within, he is liable for the outside one and the inner one effects atonement. Just as its blood exempts its meat [from me’ilah], so also does it exempt the meat of its companion.

A chatas cow which one burned outside its pit, and similarly, a he-goat that is sent [to Azazel] which one offered up outside — one is not liable; as it says (Lev. 17:4): And he has not brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting — whatever is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account.

[For] an animal that has committed an act of bestiality, or an animal on which an act of bestiality has been performed, or an [animal] designated [for idolatrous sacrifice], or which has been worshiped, or a [harlot’s] payment, or a [dog’s] exchange, or a mixed breed, or a tereifah, or an animal born by Caesarian section — which one offered up outside [the Temple] — one is not liable; as it says (Lev. 17:4): before the Tabernacle of Hashem — whatever is not fit [to be brought] before the Tabernacle of Hashem, one is not liable on its account. [For] blemished animals — whether those with permanent blemishes or those with passing blemishes — which one offered up outside, one is not liable. R’ Shimon says: [For] permanently blemished animals, one is not liable; but [for] animals with passing blemishes, one transgresses a negative commandment. Turtledoves whose time has not yet arrived, and young pigeons whose time has passed — [if] one offered them up outside, he is not liable. R’ Shimon says: [For] young pigeons whose time has passed, one is not liable; [but for] turtledoves whose time has not [yet] arrived, [one transgresses] a negative commandment. [For] an animal and its offspring, and a premature [offering], one is not liable. R’ Shimon says: This comes under [the ban of] a negative commandment; for R’ Shimon would say: Whatever is fit to be brought later is under the ban of a negative commandment, but it bears no kares [penalty]. But the Sages say: For whatever there is no kares [penalty], there is [also] no negative commandment.

A premature [offering] — [is] whether by [reason of] itself [or] by [reason of] its owners. Which is it that is premature by [reason of] its owners? The zav, zavah, woman who has given birth, and metzora, who offered their chatas- and asham-offerings outside [the Temple] are not liable; [but if they offered] their olah- and shelamimofferings outside [the Temple], they are liable. One who offers up the meat of a chatasoffering, [or] the meat of an asham-offering, [or] the meat of the most holy offerings, [or] the meat of offerings of lesser holiness, or the remainder of the omer-offering, or the two loaves, or the panim bread, or the remainder of minchah-offerings; one who pours [oil on a minchah-offering], [or] who mixes [it], [or] who breaks [it] up, [or] who salts, [or] who performs tenufah, [or] who brings near, [or] who sets the Shulchan, or who prepares the lamps [of the Menorah], or who performs kemitzah, or who receives blood outside — is not liable. One is not liable on its account either because of non-Kohen status, nor because of tumah-contamination, nor because of lack of vestments, nor because of unwashed hands and feet.

Until the Tabernacle was erected, bamos were permitted and the service was [performed] by the firstborns. When the Tabernacle was erected, the bamos became forbidden and the service was [performed] by Kohanim. The most holy offerings were eaten within the curtains; the offerings of lesser holiness throughout the Israelite camp.

They came to Gilgal and the bamos were permitted. The most holy offerings were eaten within the curtains; the offerings of lesser holiness [could be eaten] anywhere.

[When] they came to Shiloh, the bamos were forbidden. There was no roof there, but a stone house beneath and a canopy of cloth above; and it was [the] ‘‘resting place.’’ The most holy offerings were eaten within the curtains; [and] the offerings of lesser holiness and maaser sheni, anywhere within sight.

[When] they came to Nov and to Giveon, the bamos were [again] permitted. The most holy offerings were eaten within the curtains; [and] offerings of lesser holiness in all the cities of Israel.

[When] they came to Jerusalem, the bamos were [again] forbidden, and were never again permitted; and it was [the] inheritance. The most holy offerings are eaten within the curtains; [and] the offerings of lesser holiness and maaser sheni, within the wall [surrounding Jerusalem].

All offerings which were consecrated during a period of bamah prohibition, and which were offered outside during a period of bamah prohibition, are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment, and one incurs kares on their account. [If] they were consecrated during a period of bamah permissibility, but they were offered up during a period of bamah prohibition, they are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment, but one does not incur kares on their account. [If] one consecrated them during a period of bamah prohibition, but offered them during a period of bamah permissibility, they are subject to a positive commandment, but are not subject to a negative commandment.

These are the offerings that must be offered at the Tabernacle: Offerings which were consecrated for the Tabernacle — communal sacrifices — must be offered at the Tabernacle, while an individual’s offerings [may be offered] at a [minor] bamah. An individual’s offerings which were consecrated for the Tabernacle must be offered at the Tabernacle; but if he offered them at a [minor] bamah, he is not liable. What are [the differences between] a private bamah and a communal bamah? Leaning, slaughter [in the] north, application of [the blood] all around [the altar], tenufah, and bringing near — R’ Yehudah says: Minchah-offerings are not [brought] at a bamah — and Kehunah, sacred vestments, sacred vessels, a pleasing aroma, a separation regarding blood, and washing the hands and feet. But [the disqualification due to] time [intent], nossar, and tamei are the same for both.