כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן – as for example, that he vowed a free-will offering of a meal-offering in a deep and covered pan and the Kohen took a fistful of he meal-offering for the sake of a pan [without a covered lid – which is fried on a flat pan] (and what is baked in it is a thick mass, which is different than that of a deep and covered pan deep-fried in oil (see Tractate Menahot 5:8).

כשרות – and he offers the incense of the fistful [of the meal-offering] and its residue is consumed [by the Kohanim]. For the fistful of the meal-offering stands in place of the ritual slaughter of the sacrifice. And just as regarding all of the animal offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake are kosher/fit, as we derive from a Biblical verse at the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim (i.e., see Deuteronomy 23:24), here also, all the meal-offerings that are fistfuls which were gathered not for their own sakes are kosher/fit.

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה – It should have taught: “that it does not go to the owner’s credit for the fulfillment of an obligation/שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה “ (which is how it is phrased at the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim), but that it teaches here]: אלא" /but” – that implies that all of their laws are like kosher meal-offerings but for this thing, to teach us that it is prohibited to teach regarding it another change, that if he transgressed and took a fistful of it that was not for its sake, it is prohibited to give that fistful in sacred vessels that is not for its own sake.

שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובתו – and he did not fulfill his vow and he has to bring another meal-offering for the sake of the deep and covered pan.

חוץ ממנחת חוטא – as for example, a meal-offering that comes on one’s ritual defilement from the Holy of Holies, if he could not afford two turtle-doves.

ומנחת קנאות – of the Sotah/the woman accused of infidelity by her husband. For if they took fistfuls that were not for their sake, as for example, for the purpose of a free-will offering, or he gave the handful in sacred vessels that were not for this purpose, or he walked or offered incense not for its sake/name, or he had in mind one of these forms of Divine Service: “I am serving for their sakes/name or not for their sakes/name.” These meal-offerings are invalid and their residues/remnants are not consumed. And the reason is because the All-Merciful calls the sin’s meal offering a sin-offering, and regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:33): “[He shall lay his hand upon the head of the purification offering,] and it shall be slaughtered as a purification offering (i.e., sin-offering)/ושחט אותה לחטאת [at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughter],” (Leviticus 4:34): “and [the priest] shall take [with his finger] some of the blood of the purification offering,” so that the ritual slaughtering and the taking, that is the receiving of the blood will be for the sake of the sin-offering. But the meal offering of jealousy, since it is written concerning it "עון"/wrongdoing [as in] (Numbers 5:15): “a grain-offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing,” the Rabbis compare it to the sin-offering. And the meal-offering of the Omer, even though it is not a sinner’s meal-offering and is not the meal offering of jealousy, if a handful was taken not for its sake/name, it is invalidated from being offered up as incense, and none of its residue is consumed, since it came to permit the new [grain] crop [that ripened before Passover], and it did not permit it. But all of the meal-offerings that were grasped [from the grain] not for its sake/name are kosher, as is taught in our Mishnah, we are speaking especially with meal-offerings that don’t have a fixed time, but not of the meal-offering of the Omer that [the Torah] established a fixed time for it.

או שלא לשמן ולשמן – that you should not say for their sakes/name and not for their sakes/name that it is invalidated, for the latter language takes effect, but [both] not for their sakes/name and for their sakes/name are kosher/fit, this is what it comes to tell us.

זר ואונן וטבול יום כו' – all of them are explained in the Second Chapter of [Tractate] Zevakhim [Mishnah 1], and we prove them from Scriptural verses that their Divine Service is invalid.

ערל – a Kohen whose brother died on account of ritual circumcision.

יושב – that we require to stand to minister/serve [before God].

על גבי כלים כו' – that we require that there will not be anything that divides/cuts off between him and the floor.

בן בתירא אומר יחזיר – the handful of the meal-offering which the priest takes to be put on the altar into the meal-offering.

ויחזיר ויקמוץ בימין – and same law applies to all of these invalidates that are considered in our Mishnah, Ben Beteyra holds that if someone transgressed one of them and took a fistful, he should return the handful of the meal-offering to its place and a kosher/fit Kohen should take a handful of the meal-offering to be put on the altar into the meal offering. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Beteyra.

עלה בידו צרור – it was found that the handful of meal-offering which the Kohen takes to put on the altar was missing the place of the stone or a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, for prior to taking a fistful of meal-offering he singles out all of the frankincense to one side and takes a handful of meal-offering and afterwards collects it and places with the handful of meal-offering and burns everything. But if he happens upon a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, the handful of meal-offering is missing according to the place of the particle [of frankincense].

מבורץ – full and overflowing.

שקמצו בראשי אצבעותיו – he did not stretch them over the entire palm of his hand.

פושט את אצבעותיו על פס ידו – the sides of his fingers enter into the flour and he brings in the flour into his hand and smooths it with his small finger so that the flour will not go outside of the fistful and he he smooths it with his thumb that the flour would not leave outside of his finger. And this he had to do with meal-offerings prepared in a pan (i.e., fried in a flat pan) or [a meal-offering] prepared in a deep pan (i.e., fried in a container full of oil) that their creations are baked and after they their baking, he crumbles it and takes a fistful. But it is impossible to crumble it so much into thin pieces, for they would not go forth from the fistful, therefore, he smooths them with his thumb from above and with the small finger (i.e., pinky) from below. And these were of the most difficult [acts] of Divine service that were in the Temple. That in this great difficulty one is able to compare that he would not be missing or have too much. And Maimonides wrote, that the words of the one of said that this is a difficult [act] of Divine Service were set aside, and he explains and he takes a fistful of the meal-offering as people would take fistfuls that is mentioned in the Gemara [i.e., Tractate Menahot 11a], that he fills his palm from it in the manner that people fill their hands from what they take in their hands. But I say, that that the explanation is not as how people take a fistful [of meal-offering] but rather, causes the sides of his fingers to enter into the flour that he brings in the flour with the sides of his fingers into his hand, but he doesn’t take the flour but rather fills three of his fingers until the palm of his hand and not further, in order that it will be cutting through from end to end and burst forth and come out, he smooths it from below with his small finger (i.e., pinky) and from above with a thumb. And that the words of the one who said that this is a difficult act from the difficult acts of Divine Service that is in the Temple are not set aside and the method of the Gemara is like m words. And such all of my teachers have explained it.

ריבה שמנה – for the measurement of [olive] oil is a LOG (i.e., the equivalent of six eggs’ bulk) for every Issaron (i.e., Omer = one-tenth of an Ephah). But if he put in too much, that he gave two LOG or more for an Issaron which appears as two meal-offerings, he has disqualified it.

חיסר שמנה – less than a LOG of [olive] oil for an Issaron of sifted fine-flour.

חיסר לבונתה – that he didn’t put in it other than a grain/particle/drop of frankincense. But if it has in it two grains, it is fit/kosher, as it is written (Leviticus 6:8): “with all the frankincense that is on the grain offering,” implying even one drop of frankincense, for [the word] "כל"/all [from the verse in Leviticus 6:8:"את כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה" ] implies a little bit, as it is written (2 Kings 4:2): “”Your maidservant has nothing at all, [except for a jug of oil].” [The word] "את" includes another grain/particle/drop of frankincense, that makes two, whereas if he increased its frankincense, this is not taught [in the Mishnah] , and he did not disqualify/invalidate it other than when he increased it more than two handfuls [of meal-offering] for then he increased it too much.

לאכול שייריה בחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.

או להקטיר קומצה בחוץ – for thought/plan disqualifies whether that he though about the eating of a person whether he thought about the consumption by the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice is eaten/אם אכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו ,” Scripture is speaking about two consumptions: one is for that which a person consumes and another is that which the altar consumes, and this Biblical verse speaks of thought/intention, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): ‘it shall not count for him who offered it/המקריב אתו לא יחשב לו,” and he did not disqualify it other than when he thought about it to consume it on the third day (i.e., see Leviticus 7:18: "ביום השלישי לא ירצה" /”[is eaten] on the third day, it shall not be acceptable”).

פסולה – that the intention/plan outside of its [proper] place invalidates the taking a handful of the meal-offering as it invalidates in the ritual slaughter of the animal offering. And just as one disqualifies an animal offering with ritual slaughter, the receiving of the blood, bring it [to the altar], and sprinkling the blood, one disqualifies the meal-offering through taking a handful, putting it in sacred vessels, and bringing for burning the handful [of meal-offering] and the frankincense on the altar, four [sacred] acts corresponding/parallel to four [sacred acts]. For the taking of a fistful [of grain] and the frankincense themselves are considered concerning the meal-offering like the blood and the sections that are offered on the altar regarding he animal offering. And the residue/remnants of the meal-offering are consumed. And in Chapter two of [Tractate] Zevakhim [the entire chapter] all of these disqualifying factors are explained and there we derive all of them from Scriptural verses.

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול – such as the residue/remnants.

דבר שדרכו להקטיר – such as the priest taking a handful of meal-offering to place on the altar. But, if he intended/thought to eat the handful of meal-offering or to offer the residue as incense on the altar outside of its appropriate time, he did not disqualify it, for his thought was disqualified regarding all other people.

ובלבד שיקרב המתיר – the handful of the meal-offering כהלכתו – as if it was kosher, for there was no disqualification other than the offering disqualified because of inappropriate intention alone. But if there is another disqualification, it is no longer considered disqualified because of an inappropriate intention, and there is no extirpation.

בשתיקה – that he did not think any thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal offering.

ונתן והלך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – that is to say, that in these three acts of Divine service, he thought about consuming the residue outside of the appropriate time [for this act].

קמץ חוץ למקומו – he intended/thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal-offering to consume the residue/remnants outside of the Temple courtyard.

נתן בכלי הילך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – and in one of these three acts of Divine service, he intended to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [proper] time period.

מנחת חוטא וקנאות – there is in them one other invalidation that removes them from being פיגול /an offering disqualified by having an improper intention, such as not for its own sake/name, as we stated at the beginning of our chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), that invalid [meal] offerings, if he took a handful of the meal-offering not for its own sake, and he thought/intended regarding the three other acts of Divine service (i.e., the taking of a handful of the meal-offering to consume its residue outside of the Temple courtyard, and to offer it up at the altar at an inappropriate time and to consume it at an inappropriate time) that they would be performed outside of their [proper] time, or even the first [of the three] outside of its appropriate time, and the rest that were not done for their own sake, he removed it from being an offering disqualified by having an improper intention [and being subject to extirpation].

או קמץ או נתן בכלי או הוליך או הקטיר שלא לשמן – that is to say, whichever of these that he did not for its own sake and the remainder in order to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [appropriate] time , he did not offer that which is permitted in accord with its requirement, but there is no extirpation with its residue/remnants.

כזית בחוץ כזית למחר – he intended/thought with one of the acts of Divine service that two intentions would be done outside of the [appropriate] time period and outside of its [appropriate] place (i.e., the Temple courtyard. But until now, we have been speaking about two acts of Divine service that he intended with one of them outside of its [appropriate] time period and with another outside of its proper place, but now we are speaking about [the case] where he intended both of them with one act of Divine service. But for Rabbi Yehuda, it is necessary, that one does not say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes on two [acts] of Divine service, for we follow after the first [act]. But with one [act] of Divine service, he agrees, but it comes to tell us [that this is not the case].

זית למחר וכזית בחוץ – even though that he intended first [to perform the act] outside of the [appropriate] time period, his second act of taking it outside [the Temple courtyard] makes him [liable] for extirpation.

אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כו' – Rabbi Yehuda disputes with the first Tanna/teacher, whether with one [act] of Divine service or whether with two [acts] of Divine service. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.