השוחט –[He who ritually slaughters] Holy Things outside [of the Temple courtyard] and offered them up outside [the Temple courtyard]. In one act of forgetfulness [inadvertently]. He is liable [for a sin-offering] for the ritual slaughtering and he is liable [for a sin-offering] on the offering up, for they are two essential parts of the sin for both of them are written [in the Torah] (Leviticus 17:3): “[if anyone of the house of Israel] אשר ישחט/slaughters [an ox or sheep of goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp],” and (Leviticus 17:8): “[If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them] אשר – יעלה /offers [a burnt offering or a sacrifice].”

כיון שהוציאו פסלו –[because he took it outside, he has invalidated it] but nevertheless, he is liable. And the same law applies to the individual who slaughters it outside [the Temple courtyard] and offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard]. And Rabbi Yossi Haglili said to you, just as the person who slaughters it inside [the Temple courtyard] and offered up outside [the Temple courtyard] for he had a period of time when it was fit for use, shall you say to the person who slaughters it outside [the Temple courtyard] and offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard] that he didn’t have a period of time when it was fit for use? But the Halakah is not according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili.

טמא שאכל כו' – because Rabbi Yossi Haglili and the Rabbis disagree on both of them and these two disputes are similar to each other, they taught them [in the Mishnah] together.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר וכו' – when the body became ritually defiled and afterwards the meat became ritually defiled, no one disagrees that he is liable for extirpation. What they do dispute is when the meat [first] becomes ritually defiled and afterwards the body becomes defiled. The Rabbis have an inclusive prohibition (i.e., an exception to the principle that one prohibition does not take effect upon another; the second prohibition takes effect if it is a more comprehensive prohibition), for since the prohibition of the Levitical uncleanness of the body occurs upon it, it also prohibits the pure meat that was permitted from the outside, it also occurs even on the ritually impure meat, and even though it was continually prohibited, in order to make him liable even because of the Levitical uncleanness of the body. But Rabbi Yossi Haglili does not hold that one prohibition can take a legal hold where another prohibition already exists (i.e., you can punish, or impose sacrificial expiation only for the first one) with a comprehensive prohibition, and the prohibition of ritual defilement of the body does not occur on the prohibition of the ritual defilement of the meat. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili.

והטהור שאכל טמא פטור – from extirpation. But he endures forty [minus one] lashes because of (Leviticus 7:19): “Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; [it shall be consumed in fire. As for other flesh, only he who is pure may eat such flesh].”

שאינו חייב אלא על טומאת הגוף – as it is written (Leviticus 7:20): “ [But the person who], in a state of impurity, [eats flesh from the LOD’s sacrifice of well-being,] that person shall be cut off from his kin,” This verse is speaking of Levitical uncleanness of the body.

שהשוחט להדיוט כו' - a person who ritually slaughters Holy Things outside [the Temple courtyard] for consumption by an ordinary person [as opposed to for God alone], is liable.

המעלה בחוץ – for the needs of an ordinary person, is exempt because of offering it up outside [the Temple courtyard]. For regarding ritual slaughter, it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “[And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle,] bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man, [he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people],” even a person who does ritual slaughter for a person. And regarding offering it up, it is written (Leviticus 17:9): “[and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting] to offer it to the LORD, [that person shall be cut off from his people],” he is not liable when he offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard] until he should intend it to be for God.

ושחטו פטורים – as it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “ דם יחשב לאיש ההוא/bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man – האיש ההוא" ,” one person and not two.

והעלוהו חייבין – as it is written (Leviticus 17:8): “[Say to them further:] If anyone/איש איש of the house of Israel ]or of the strangers who reside among them[ אשר יעלה/offers a burnt offering or sacrifice,” for the inference does not teach us "איש איש"/if anyone – other than to include two who took hold of a limb and offered it up, that they are liable.

העלה – and it became known to him.

וחזר והעלה – from the same animal itself, he is liable [for a sin offering] for each and every time.

עד שיעלה לראש המזבח – as it is written (Genesis 8:20): “Then Noah built an altar to the LORD [and, taking of every pure animal and of every pure bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar],” so we see even the temporary altar of an individual that is outside is not offering up without an altar.

אפילו העלה על הסלע – as it is written (Leviticus 17:6): “that the priest may dash the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [to offer it to the LORD, that person shall be cut off from his people],” but not at the altar of a temporary personal altar. And it is written in the portion of one offering outside [the Temple courtyard]. But the Halakha is according is according to Rabbi Yossi.

שהיה פסולן בקדש – as for example (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 2), a sacrifice kept overnight or goes forth [from its proper bounds or it was slaughtered [with the intention to burn the sacrificial parts or to eat the flesh] outside of its proper time or outside of its proper place, since inside , if they were inside [the Temple courtyard], if it went up, it should not go down, we call it that that has been accepted inside but he is liable for it outside, as it is written (Leviticus 17:9): “[And does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting] to offer it to the LORD/לעשות אתו לה', [that person shall be cut off from his people],”all that is offered/done for God, we are liable for outside [of the Temple courtyard], but all that is not offered/done for God, we are not liable for it outside [the Temple courtyard].

המעלה כזין מן העולה ומאימורין – half an olive’s bulk from this (i.e., the burnt offering) and half an olive’s bulk from that (i.e., the sacrificial parts offered on the altar).

חייב – for all of it is a sacrifice burned entirely.

הלבונה – of the meal-offering of the free-will offering.

והקטורת – of each day, half of it in the morning and half of it at twilight.

ומנחת כהנים – a sacrifice which is burned entirely and appropriate for offering up like a fistful of the meal-offering of an Israelite. But the remnants of the meal-offering of an Israelite are not liable on their being brought up outside [the Temple courtyard].

מנחת כהן משיח – one-tenth of an Ephah which he brings on each day.

כזית – which is the measurement of the incense.

עד שיקריב את כולו – because he (i.e., Rabbi Eliezer) holds that all which make the sacrifice permissible for enjoyment invalidate that which is lacking/wanting, and all the time that all of them were not offered the incense does not fulfill their owners’ spiritual obligation. But according to the Rabbis, these also is their burning on the altar/rising in smoke with an olive’s bulk, where all of it exists and they were not lacking prior to the burning on the altar.

ושייר מהן וכו' חייב – for behold through this the burning on the altar/letting rise in smoke is completed/

שחסרו כל שהן – prior to the burning on the altar through loss or burning, they were invalidated by their missing parts, as it is written (Leviticus 2:3): “And the remainder of the grain offering [shall be for Aaron and his sons, a most holy portion from the LORD’s gifts],” except for that which was missing, or that a handful was missing prior to the burning on the altar.

המקריב קדשים ואימוריהן – that he sacrificed the meat and those [unsevered] portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar attached to it, he is liable because of the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar. But we don’t say that the meat interposes between the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar and the fire, and that what he intended to be inside is not offering on the altar, for he All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 1:8): “[And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the sections, with the head and the suet,] on the wood that is on the fire,” and the person who offers it outside [the Temple courtyard] would not be liable. We did not say this because something that is one type mixed with something of the same type does not interpose.

מנחה שלא נקמצה – is not appropriate inside. Therefore, the person who offers it up outside is exempt.

קמצה וחזר קומצה לתוכה. והקריבה בחוץ חייב – and in a similar manner to it inside, it is fit/appropriate, as it is taught in [the chapter] “He who takes a handful of meal-offering/הקומץ את המנחה” (i.e., Tractate Menahot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3): “[If] the handful was mixed up with residue, or with the residue of his fellow, he should not offer it up/נתערב קומצה בשיריה לא יקטיר,” but if he did offer it up, it is acceptable.

הקומץ והלבונה – of the free-will meal offering. Both of them (i.e., the fistful of the meal offering and the frankincense) permit the residue for consumption, therefore Rabbi Eleazar exempts for he requires the burning on the altar everything that is permitted.

אחד בפנים – first and afterwards the second outside, he is liable, for this completed it, and through it everything was dependent.

שני בזיכי לבונה – permits the [twelve] shewbread [loaves].

מי החג – that were filled for the sake of the water libations on the holiday of Sukkot, if he offered up the libation outside, he is liable for he (i.e., Rabbi Eleazar) holds that the water libations on the Festival [of Sukkot] is according to the Torah, therefore, he is liable by making the offering outside, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar in this entire Mishnah and the water libation on the Festival [of Sukkot] is not from the Torah, but rather it is a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai (i.e., a traditional interpretation of a written law).

שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ חייב (of sin-offerings of the inner altar) – we are speaking of the residue of the blood of the inside, and he (i.e., Rabbi Nehemiah) holds that the residue of the blood prevent them, therefore, it is an act of Divine service that one is liable for outside [the Temple courtyard], but with the residue of the blood of the outer altar, Rabbi Nehemiah agrees that there are no other than for the Mitzvah, but not to be indispensable, therefore, he who sprinkles them outside is certainly exempt. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Nehemiah.

מלק בחוץ – it is an un-slaughtered animal carcass, for there is no pinching of the head other than inside [the Temple courtyard], therefore he exempt on his offering/bringing it up on the altar outside, and if you should say, but aren’t all that are offered up outside are disqualified through their being taken outside, and similar a person who performs a ritual slaughter outside [of the Temple courtyard] is invalid and they are liable on its being offered on the altar, there the All-Merciful includes it but regarding the matter of the rest of invalid things, we require that it is accepted inside.

שחט בחוץ והעלה בחוץ חייב – even on the bringing up/offering on the altar. For all who are liable on its ritual slaughter outside [of the Temple courtyard] if he went back in and he or someone else brought them up/offered them, he is liable [on the ritual slaughter and on offering it up].

נמצא דרך הכשרו בפנים – In the Gemara it states (i.e., Tractate Zevakhim 111b, that it teaches that the manner of his liability by performing it inside [i.e., the Temple courtyard] exempts him outside [the Temple courtyard], and the manner of his liability by performing it outside, exempts him inside [the Temple courtyard. As for example, if he slaughtered the bird/fowl inside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt. If he slaughtered it outside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard], he is liable. If he pinched the head [of the bird] inside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up outside, he is liable. If he pinched the head [of the bird] outside [the Temple courtyard] and offered it up inside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt. It is found, that the place where he is made liable on his offering it up, if the first Divine service was performed in side, as for example with the pinching of the head that was done inside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt for his offering it up, if the pinching of the head was done outside [the Temple courtyard]. But a person who becomes liable on his offering up, if the first Divine service was performed outside, like with the ritual slaughtering, he is exempted inside, if the animal was slaughtered inside and offered up outside.

רבי שמעון אומר כו' – the matter of the first Tanna/teacher is deficient and should be read as follows: And similarly, a person who slaughters an animal at night inside [the Temple courtyard] and offers it up outside [the Temple courtyard] is exempt, that it is not accepted inside, as it is written (Leviticus 19:6): “It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice/ביום זבחכם,” but not at night, and it is found that the animal offering is invalid, and therefore he is not liable for his offering it up But if he did not slaughter outside [the Temple courtyard] at night but offered it up outside at night, he is liable, because since the ritual slaughter was at night outside the Temple courtyard, it was kosher/fit, therefore, he is liable for two things – on the ritual slaughter and on the offering up. But Rabbi Shimon disputes this and states: “Any act for which they are liable [when it is done] outside, for the like act are they liable [when it is done] inside and when one offered it up outside, except for him who slaughters inside and offers up [the bird offering] outside.” כל שחייבין עליו בחוץ חייבין על כיוצא בו בפנים שהעלהו בחוץ – that is to say, just as when the person who performs the ritual slaughter outside at night and the one who offers it up outside is liable, so also if he performed the ritual slaughter inside at night and offered it up outside, he is liable for the offering up [of the sacrifice], except for one who slaughters the bird/fowl inside and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard] that he is exempt even though that if he performed the ritual slaughter and offered it up outside [the Temple courtyard], he is liable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

נתן בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפני חייב – it is a simple matter, and because of the concluding clause [of the Mishnah], it brought it, if he [first] placed it outside [the Temple courtyard] and then in return placed it inside [the Temple courtyard], he does not place outside [the Temple courtyard] anything other than the residue of the blood, he is liable. But our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Nehemiah who holds that the residue is indispensable/invalidates an act by omission. But it is not the Halakha.

שניהן בחוץ חייב – the first, if he didn’t have any knowledge of it in the meantime [by fact that he sprinkled the blood from two cups from outside the Temple courtyard], he is liable for two [violations].

אחד בפנים – and afterwards, the second [sprinkling] was done outside, he is exempt. For even according to Rabbi Nehemiah who held that one cup removes its fellow consecrated cup from its purpose to be spilled a cubit, therefore, even that is not residue.

הפנימי מכפר – to make the animal sacrifice fit. For the blood that is sprinkled outside [the Temple courtyard] first did not make what had remained something similar to it.

שתיהן בחוץ חייב – on each of them, for at the time of the ritual slaughter, each one was appropriate [to be offered] inside [the Temple courtyard].

אחת בפנים – and the second afterwards outside [the Temple courtyard], he is exempt, for this is a sin-offering where its owners had been expiated , but for death it (i.e., the second one) goes and is not accepted inside [the Temple courtyard].

חייב על החיצונה – for it is appropriate [only] inside [the Temple courtyard] and he offers up whichever of them that he wishes.

כשם שדמה פוטר את כשרה – from [the law of] religious sacrilege, [for the sprinkling/tossing of the blood removes the meat of the Holy of Holies from religious sacrilege that gave it] a time of permission for the Kohanim [to consume it].

כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה (so it renders the meat of its fellow free) – and even though it is invalidated [and it refers to when I slaughter both of them inside the Temple courtyard]. And it comes to ell us here that where both of them are placed, and someone comes first and sprinkles the blood of the first one, he renders the meat of its fellow free because of the sin-offering through which its owners were expiated, for we hold that the sin-offerings left to die we don’t benefit from nor commit religious sacrilege.