All minchah-offerings whose kemitzah was performed for [the sake of] a designation other than their own are valid, but they are not credited to the owner as fulfillment of [his] obligation; except for the sinner’s minchah-offering and the jealousy minchah-offering. [If] one performed the kemitzah of the sinner’s minchah-offering or the jealousy minchah-offering for [the sake of] a designation other than their own, [or] he placed [them] in a vessel, or carried [them], or burnt [them] on the Altar for a designation other than their own, or for their own designation and a designation other than their own, or for a designation other than their own as well as their own designation — they are invalid. What is [an example of] ‘‘for their own designation and a designation other than their own’’? For the sake of a sinner’s minchah-offering and for the sake of a voluntary minchah-offering. [What is an example of] ‘‘for a designation other than their own as well as their own designation’’? For the sake of a voluntary minchah-offering as well as for the sake of a sinner’s minchah-offering.

The sinner’s minchah-offering, as well as any other minchah-offering, whose kemitzah was performed by a non-Kohen, [or] an onein, [or] a tevul yom, [or] who lacks vestments, [or] who lacks atonement, [or] whose hands and feet have not been washed, [or] who is uncircumcised, [or] who is tamei, [or] who is sitting, [or] standing upon utensils, [or] an animal, [or] on his colleague’s feet — is invalid. [If] one performed kemitzah with the left hand, he has invalidated [it]. Ben Beseira says: He should replace [it] and perform kemitzah again with the right hand. [If] he performed kemitzah, and a pebble came into his hand, or a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, he has invalidated [it]. Because they said: The kometz which is excessive or deficient is invalid. Which is excessive ? [One in which] he removed a heaped kometz. [Which is] deficient? [One in which] he performed kemitzah with his fingertips. How does he do [it]? He extends his fingers over the palm of his hand.

[If] he increased its oil, or reduced its oil, [or] he reduced its frankincense — it is invalid. [If] one performed kemitzah on a minchahoffering [intending] to eat its remainder outside, or an olive’s volume of its remainder outside; [or] to burn its kometz outside, or an olive’s volume of its kometz outside; or to burn its frankincense outside — it is invalid, but it carries no [penalty of] kares. [If he did so intending] to eat its remainder tomorrow, or an olive’s volume of its remainder tomorrow; [or] to burn its kometz [on the Altar] tomorrow, or an olive’s volume of its kometz tomorrow; or to burn its frankincense [on the Altar] tomorrow — it is piggul, and one is liable to kares over it. This is the rule: Anyone who performs kemitzah, or places [the kometz] in a vessel, or conveys [it], or burns [it on the Altar], [intending] to eat something which is meant to be eaten, or to burn [on the Altar] something which is meant to be burnt [on the Altar] — [if the intent was for] outside its area, it is invalid but it carries no [penalty of] kares; [if it was for] beyond its time, it is piggul, and one is liable to kares over it — provided that the part which makes it permissible is offered as required. In what manner is the part which makes it permissible [considered to have been] offered as required? [If] he performed kemitzah in silence but placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], or burnt [it on the Altar for] beyond its time; or he performed kemitzah [with intent for] beyond its time, but placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar] in silence; or he performed kemitzah, placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar for] beyond its time — these are [the cases in which] the part which makes it permissible has 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 kemitzah [with intent for] outside its area, but he placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], or burnt [it on the Altar for] beyond its time; or he performed kemitzah [for] beyond its time, but he placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it] outside its place; or he performed kemitzah, placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], or burnt [it for] outside its area; [or] the sinner’s minchah-offering or jealousy minchah-offering whose kemitzah he performed for a designation other than its own, and placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar for] beyond its time; [or] he performed kemitzah [for] beyond its time, and placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar] for a designation other than its own; or he performed kemitzah, placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar] for a designation other than its own; these are [cases in which] the part which makes it permissible was not 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] 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 carries no kares [penalty]. 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 over it; but if the intent of the place preceded the intent of time, it is invalid, but carries no kares [penalty]. However, the Sages say: In either case it is invalid, but it carries no kares [penalty]. [If he intended] to eat half an olive’s volume and to burn half an olive’s volume [on the Altar], it is valid — because eating and Altar-burning cannot be combined. 

[If] one performs kemitzah on a minchahoffering [intending] to eat its remainder or to burn its kometz tomorrow — R’ Yose agrees in this case that it is piggul and that one is liable to kares over it. [If his intention was] to burn its frankincense tomorrow — R’ Yose says: It is invalid, but it carries no kares [penalty]; but the Sages say: [It is] piggul and one is liable to kares over it. They said to him: How is this different from an animal sacrifice? He said to them: Because [with] an animal sacrifice the blood, meat, and sacrificial parts are one, whereas the frankincense is not from the minchah-offering.

[If] he slaughtered [the] two lambs [intending] to eat one of the loaves tomorrow; [or] he burnt the two spoonfuls [of frankincense intending] to eat one of the arrangements tomorrow — R’ Yose says: That loaf or that arrangement about which he [expressed his] intention is piggul, and one is liable to kares over it; and the second one is invalid but carries no [penalty of] kares. But the Sages say: Both are piggul, and one is liable to kares over them. [If] one of the loaves or one of the arrangements became tamei — R’ Yehudah says: They should both go out to the place of burning, because a communal offering is not divisible; but the Sages say: The one which is tamei [remains] in its [state of] tumah, but the one which is tahor is eaten.

The todah-offering renders the bread piggul, but the bread does not render the todahoffering piggul. How so? [If] one slaughters the todah-offering [intending] to eat from it tomorrow, [both] it and the bread become piggul. [However, if he intended] to eat from the bread tomorrow, the bread becomes piggul, but the todah-offering does not become piggul. The lambs render the bread piggul, but the bread does not render the lambs piggul. How so? [If] one slaughters the lambs [intending] to eat from them tomorrow, [both] they and the bread become piggul. [However, if he intended] to eat from the bread tomorrow, the bread becomes piggul, but the lambs do not become piggul.

. The sacrifice renders the libations piggul, once they have been consecrated in a vessel; [these are] the words of R’ Meir. But the libations do not render the sacrifice piggul. How so? [If] one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat from it tomorrow, [both] it and its libations become piggul. [However, if he intended] to offer the libations tomorrow, the libations become piggul, but the sacrifice does not become piggul.