בית שמאי אומרים כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון – there are those from them that require four gifts. And there are those from them that require two [gifts] which are four [gifts]. And are [those] that require one gift as is taught in the Mishnah in the other chapter (i.e., the next chapter, Mishnayot 3-8). But now that it said that for all of them that he did not give anything other than one gift, de facto, he has expiated, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): “and of your other sacrifices, the blood shall be poured out [on the altar of the LORD your God],” one pouring is implied, for it is not written “all around,” that would imply two gifts which are four.

ובחטאת שתי מתנות – three portions wee stated regarding the outer sin offerings in Leviticus, one with the male goat of the chieftain (Leviticus 4:22-26), and two concerning the sin offerings/purification offering of the individual (Leviticus 4:27-35), one with a female lamb (Leviticus 4:32 and following) and one with a female goat (Leviticus 4:28 and following). With two of them, it is written as (Leviticus 4:30,34), the word"קרנת [מזבח]" /”horns [of the altar] is written defectively, and one of them (Leviticus 4:7 – “The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar/קרנות המזבח of aromatic incense,” it is written in full. But the School of Shammai has the tradition of the traditional reading of Scripture (vowels) which must guide us/אם למקרא (as opposed to that of אם למסורת/he traditional Scripture text (without vowels) is authoritative in Biblical interpretation), there are hence, six, but there are only four on the altar [itself], and the two extra were not said other than that Scripture taught them to invalidate an act by omission, but the School of Hillel holds that regarding these of the traditional reading of the vowels/אם למקרא – that implies six and the others are of the אם למסורת –which it implies, four therefore is one more than the traditional Scripture text (without vowels) and one less than from the traditional reading of Scripture, and that would make five, four for the Mitzvah and one to invalidate an act by omission, but if he gave one gift, he has made expiation.

לפיכך – the sin-offering and all of the offerings, according to the School of Hillel, and according to the School of Shammai all of the other offerings outside of the sin-offering, if he placed the first in the proper manner (i.e., in silence) but the second with the intention of eating the flesh outside of its appropriate time, he has atoned, and the sacrifice is fit to be offered through the first gift, for the second does not permit the flesh, as it was permitted through the first gift. Therefore, it is not disregarded.

נתן את הראשונה חוץ לזמנה וכו' פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת – for the intention is not outside of its place and the second removes it from being an offering disqualified by improper intention, it was established with the first [sacrifice] when all who were permitted to it offered it up.

אם חסר אחת מכל המתנות לא כפר – for regarding the bull for the whole community of Israel [that had erred] that the mater escapes the notice of the congregation it is written (Leviticus 4:20): “He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest’s] bull of purification offering; he shall do the same with it,” and this is a verse that is not necessary, for all of his Divine Services are explained in it, but rather it comes to multiply the warning of the sprinklings that are in it. And it means this, and he did for him as I have written for you his Divine Services, and he repeated them to invalidate by an act of omission for if he left out of one of the gifts he did not atone.

לפיכך (אם נתנן כולן כתקנן) – for since all of them permit, this one does not permit without that one, and this one does not invalidate without that one.

ואחת שלא כתקנה – with an intention outside of its [appropriate] time.

פסול – for it was not permitted with the first [sprinklings].

ואין בו כרת – for we don’t have an improper intention that disqualifies with a half that permits.

אלו דברים שאין חייבים עליהם – [not liable on them] for extirpation when consuming them because of offerings disqualified by improper intentions.

הקומץ (Kohen taking a fistful of the meal-offering to be placed on the altar) -if he took a fistful on the condition to eat its remnants the next day (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1), and the meal-offering became rejectable that it is not consumed other than during [that] day and the night [following], the person who eats the fistful [of meal-offering] is not [liable] for extirpation, for the inappropriate intention does not occur other than upon a thing that has (a sacrificial object) which requires another act to make it permissible, for we derive offerings disqualified by inappropriate intention from peace-offering as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being (i.e., peace-offering) [is eaten on the third day; it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing/פגול יהיה, and the person who eats it shall bear his guilt].” Just as peace-offerings/sacrifices of well-being are particular in that they require an act to make it permissible whether for man or for the altar, for the blood permits those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, and the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar permit the meat to man, and they are liable upon them because of an offering disqualified due to inappropriate intention, excluding all of those that are counted in our Mishnah, which do not have any action that makes it permissible for them than they themselves which permit for others, the person who eats from them is not liable because an offering made with an inappropriate intention.

והלבונה (frankincense) – there is nothing else that makes it permissible, but rather it permits the meal-offering, like the fistful of meal-offering.

מנחת נדבת כהנים (free-will meal-offering of the priests) – all of which is burnt entirely (see Leviticus 6:16: “So, too, every grain offering offering of a priest shall be a whole offering: it shall not be eaten.”) and is not grabbed from. Therefore, there is nothing else that permits it.

מנחת כהן משיח – that is the cakes of the High Priest which is offered each day, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening (see Leviticus 6:13: “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer on the occasion of his anointment: a tenth of ephah of choice flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.”).

ומנחת נכסים – we do not have the tradition because they (Rabbi Meir and the Sages further on in our Mishnah) dispute this. And there is a division between it coming with the sacrifice to it coming on its own.

והדם – which permits it.

והנסכים הבאים בפני עצמן – as for example, when he made a free-will meal offering [accompanying] the drink-offering/libation without a sacrifice, as we state in Menahot (see Menahot 15b), a person makes a freewill donation of a meal offering [accompanying a drink-offering/libation on its own. Alternatively, he brought it for the sacrifice, but that he brought his sacrifice today and his libations on the morrow, for the Master stated (Numbers 29:37): “the grain offerings and libations [for the bull, the ram, and the lambs, in he quantities prescribed],” even on the morrow, but if he brought them with his sacrifice and he was disqualified by an improper intention with the sacrifice, the libations were also disqualified by improper intention.

וחכמים אומרים אף הבאים עם הבהמה – for since he can offer up the libations on the morrow, it is found that hat he sacrifice [itself] permits them, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

לוג שמן של מצורע – its remnants are consumed.

אין חייבין עליו משום פגול – if his guilt offering was disqualified due to an improper intention, the LOG was not disqualified due to an improper intention. But even though that the LOG is dependent upon the guilt-offering, as it is written (Leviticus 14:17): “[Some of the oil left in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of he one being purified, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot -] over the blood of the reparation/guilt-offering,” for if he did not place from the blood of the reparation offering first, the placement of the oil is not worth anything, nevertheless since a person brings his reparation offering now and his LOG (of oil) within ten days, it is found that the reparation offering does not permit it, and since it has nothing that permits it, they are not liable for inappropriate intention.

ור"מ אומר – the LOG [of oil) that comes with the sacrifice on that day, one is liable for it because of an inappropriate intention if he had an inappropriate intention with the reparation offering. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

בין לאדם בין למזבח – whether this or that.

העולה דמה מתיר את בשרה למזבח – as it is written (Leviticus 1:6): “dashing the blood [against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” and afterwards (Leviticus 1:8): “[And Aaron’s sons, the priests] shall lay out the sections.”

ואת עורה לכהנים – as it is written (Leviticus 7:8): “[So, too, the priest who offers a man’s burnt offering shall keep] the skin of the burnt offering that he offered,” it is not other than after the tossing/sprinkling [of the blood].

חטאת העוף – which is eaten by the Kohanim. We derive it from what is written (Leviticus 16:16): “whatever their sins,” to conclude the sin-offering of fowl so that you would not say that it died on its own.

פרים הנשרפים – the bull of the anointed priest and the bull for an unwitting communal sin [as a result of an errant Halakhic decision handed down by the Great Sanhedrin] (Talmud Tractate Horayot 2a and Chapter 1, Mishnah 5) and the bull of Yom Kippur.

ושעירים הנשרפים – the goat of Yom Kippur and the goats of the idolaters. All of these require the blood being sprinkled inside, and their portions of the offerings consumed upon the altar offered on the altar of the burnt-offering and the rest of the meat is burned in the place of the ashes [outside of Jerusalem where the ashes from the altar were deposited; the Yom Kippur goat and other public sin-offerings that were not eaten were burned there], But since their blood permits their portions of the offerings consumed upon the altar to be offered up, if he had an inappropriate intention with them, and ate the portions of the offerings that were to be consumed upon the altar, he is liable for them because it was an offering disqualified by improper intention.

כל שאינו על מזבח החיצון כשלמים – an offering disqualified by improper intention, with regard to peace-offerings it is written. Just as peace-offerings are unique in that the blood is given on the outer altar, so also anything where their blood is given on the outer altar, to exclude the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned where their blood requires sprinkling/tossing and the giving of their blood inside. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

קדשי נכרים – that the heathens make vows of votive offerings and free-will offerings like an Israelites as it is written in the [Torah] portion of Emor (Leviticus 22:18): “When any man of the house of Israel [or of the strangers in Israel] presents a burnt-offering as his offering for any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings [that they offer to the LORD],” and we expound the word איש/a person, what does the inference teach us when it says איש איש/when any man? To include the non-Jews who make vows of votive offerings and free-will-offerings like an Israelite.

אין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for the offering disqualified by improper intention is derived by an analogy from that of a remnant (see Talmud Zevakhim 45a), through [the words] "עון" "עון"/”iniquity,” “iniquity,” (see Leviticus 22:18: “or to incur guilt requiring a penalty payment,” and Numbers 18:1: “You and your sons and the ancestral house under your charge shall bear any guilt connected with the sanctuary; you and your sons alone shall bear any guilt connected with your priesthood.”) and remnant is derived from ritually impure in an analogy of "חלול" "חלול"/desecrated, desecrated, (see Leviticus 22:2: “Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelite people consecrate to Me, lest they profane/יחללו My holy name.” and Leviticus 22:15: “But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites to profane/ולא יחללו the sacred donations that they set aside for the LORD,) but regarding the impure, it is written (Leviticus 22:2): “Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelites consecrate to me,” but not the holy things of the heathens. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פגול – as for example, the taking of a fistful of the meal-offering and the incense and everything that is taught in our Mishnah (see Chapter 4, Mishnah 3).

חייבין משום טומאה – a person who eats them while in bodily impurity is liable for extirpation.

חוץ מן הדם – that the Biblical verse excluded it as it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[for the life of the flesh is in the blood,] and I have assigned it to you [for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation],” yours will be like the rest of unconsecrated meat, and not like Holy Thing. And further it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation I have given it, but not for sacrilege. Therefore, he is not liable for it not because of impurity and not because of remnant and not because of improper intention, but rather because of merely consuming blood.

בדבר שדרכן להאכל – that it is the manner of human beings to consume them, and even though it is from that which is offered as incense, as for example, the taking of a fistful of meal-offering and the meal-offering of the priests and things similar to it, but the frankincense and the wood and the incense, we are not obligated for them because of ritual impurity. But the Rabbis argued with this and strengthened it for ritual impurity, from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 7:19): “Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; [it shall be consumed in fire,” and the extra word of הבשר/the flesh [in the verse quoted above]: “As for other flesh, only he who is pure may eat such flesh,” includes the wood and the frankincense. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for the wood and the frankincense also have reason to be ritually impure. But wood does not cause impurity other than the wood of a sacrifice alone, for if something ritually impure touched it, it is prohibited to burn them upon the altar.

לשם זבח – to exclude the change in holiness, as for example, for the sake of another sacrifice.

לשם זובח – to exclude the change in owners as we derived above at the beginning of the first chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1) from (Deuteronomy 23:24): “You must fulfill what has crossed your lips and performed what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD our God, etc.”

לשם אשים – to exclude if he slaughtered it on the condition to make of it roasted pieces on the coals.

לשם ריח – to exclude if he roasted them first outside of the pile of wood on the altar in the Temple, for furthermore, this does not causes its scent to rise.

לשם הנחת ריח – please to the Holy One, Blessed be He who said and we fulfill his will. And all of these we derive them from as it is written (Leviticus 1:9): “a gift of pleasing odor.”

לשם חטא – for the sake of his sin that he brings it upon it.

אף מי שלא היה בלבו לשם אחד מכל אלו – but rather that he merely slaughtered it, it is fit/appropriate.

שהוא תנאי ב"ד – that he should merely slaughter it, but not state its purpose, perhaps he will come to state that it was not for that sake.

שאין המחשבה הולכת אלא אחר העובד – Therefore, if he would say that it was not for their sake, even though the owners stated that it was for their sake, it is not anything, for the matter does not depend upon them, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “it shall not count for him who offered it,”. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.