Rabbi Yehoshua says, all sacrifices that were sacrificed not for their own sake are valid -- only that they do not count toward fulfilling their owners’ obligation -- except for the Pesach-offering and the sin-offering (Zev. 1:1).* The Pesach offering [is not valid if is offered] in its proper time [but with an improper intention], and the sin-offering [is disqualified if it is offered with an improper intention] at any time. Rabbi Eliezer says, even the guilt-offering. The Pesach offering in its proper time, and the sin-offering and the guilt-offering at any time. Said Rabbi Eliezer: "A sin-offering is brought on account of a sin, and a guilt-offering is brought on account of guilt. Just as a sin-offering offered not for its own sake is disqualified, so too a guilt-offering offered not for its own sake is disqualified." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "No. If you hold that regarding a sin-offering, that since its blood is applied above (i.e., on the corners of the Altar), thus if it was slaughtered not for its own sake it is disqualified, must you not hold that regarding a guilt-offering, whose blood is applied below (i.e., below the red line on the Altar), that if it was slaughtered not for its own sake, it is valid?" [Rabbi Eliezer said to him, "The Pesach-offering will prove it, for its blood is applied below, but if it is offered not for its own sake, it is disqualified. Thus, I too can cite a proof that] even a guilt-offering whose blood was applied below, if it was slaughtered not for its own sake, it is disqualified." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "No. If you hold thus regarding a Pesach-offering that has a fixed time, that if it was slaughtered not for its own sake, it is disqualified, must you not hold that regarding a guilt-offering that has no fixed time, that if it was slaughtered not for its own sake, it is valid?" And Rabbi Eliezer said to him, "A sin-offering will prove it, for it has no fixed time, and if it was slaughtered not for its own sake, it is disqualified. [Thus, as to] a guilt-offering as well, which has no fixed time, if it is slaughtered not for its own sake, it would be disqualified." Said Rabbi Yehoshua, "We are going around in circles." Rabbi Eliezer came back and said, "[The verse says,] 'Like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering' (Lev. 6:10). Just as a sin-offering is disqualified if it is not for its own sake, so too a guilt offering is disqualified if it is not for its own sake." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "Regarding a sin-offering, it is says, 'And it is to be slaughtered as a sin-offering' (Lev. 4:33), so that its slaughter should be for the sake of a sin-offering. Regarding a Pesach-offering, it says, 'It is a Passover sacrifice to God' (Ex. 12:27), [*so that it should be a sacrifice for the sake of Passover. But regarding a guilt-offering] it only says 'It is a guilt-offering' when the fats are burned on the Altar (Lev. 7:5); but as to [the guilt-offering] itself, even if he did not burn the fats [at all], it is [nonetheless] valid."

[One who is obligated to bring] a one year-old [lamb as a] guilt-offering, who [instead] brought a two year-old, or [one who is obligated to bring] a two year-old and who [instead] brought a one year-old, or who slaughtered it when the time of its owners was lacking*: [In all these cases,] its form is allowed to decay (i.e., left to die) and it is taken out to the house of burning. The burnt offering of a nazirite, and the burnt offering of a mother of a newborn, and the burnt offering of a leper that were slaughtered at twelve months and one day, or that were slaughtered when the time of their owners was lacking: They are fully burnt on top of the Altar, and they require a libation-offering; however, they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation. This is the general rule of the matter: Anything that does not disqualify a freewill burnt offering does not disqualify an obligatory burnt-offering, and anything that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering, except for a guilt-offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake.

Lambs that were slaughtered for the sake of [an offering that required] lambs, and they turned out to be rams (i.e., two years old): The community [is nonetheless considered to have] fulfilled [its obligation] for the sake [of an offering that requires] lambs. Rams for communal [offerings] that were slaughtered for the sake of [an offering that required] rams, and they turned out to be lambs: The community [is nonetheless considered to have] fulfilled [its obligation] for the sake [of an offering that requires] lambs. And the remainder are fully burnt on top of the Altar, and they require a libation offering.

[If] he sacrificed it for its own sake but [its blood was] sprinkled not for its own sake, it is fit, for it was already made fit through its slaughter. [If] it was slaughtered outside its designated place, it is disqualified, and it does not cause excision. [If he slaughtered it] outside of its designated time, it is piggul (Lev. 7:18), and it causes excision. Outside of its designated place, and outside of its designated time: It is disqualified, and it does not cause excision, and Rabbi Shimon renders it fit [if the improper intent occurred] while conveying [the blood to the Altar]. Said Rabbi Shimon: I found Yosei the son of Rabbi Tzidin*, and he said to me, "The conveyance that Rabbi Meir would render disqualified -- what is the ruling?" I said to him, "I render it fit." He said to me, "What is your reasoning?" I said to him, "Because it is impossible to perform the priestly service without slaughter, or without receiving [the blood], and without sprinkling, but it is possible to perform it without conveyance, [for] he can slaughter it on the side of the Altar [and fling the blood on top of the Altar]. Rabbi Eliezer* says, any conveyance that the priestly service requires disqualifies the service [with an improper intention]; and any conveyance that the priestly service does not require does not disqualify the service [with an improper intention]. What is a "conveyance that the priestly service requires"? [If] he slaughtered it and received [its blood] in order to convey it and sprinkle it on top of the Altar, and at the time that he was conveying it he reconsidered [his intention] about it -- that is a conveyance that the priestly service requires. But if he slaughtered and received [the blood] to convey it and to set it down in another place, and at the time that he was conveying it he reconsidered [his intention] about it -- that is a conveyance that the priestly service does not require.

And so too would Rabbi Eliezer say, even if one leg [of the priest] was on the pavement, [the service] is disqualified. One leg on the pavement and one leg on the bricks, [or] one leg on the pavement and one leg on a vessel (see Zev. 2:1): If the vessel was removed and he could stand on his own, [the service] is fit, and if not, it is disqualified. [If] he received [the blood] in his left and right hands at the same time, it is disqualified, [but] Rabbi Shimon renders it fit. [If] his left hand was supporting his right hand, all agree that it is fit. Rabbi Shimon would say, whenever [Scripture] says "hand," the right hand is required, and whenever it does not say "hand," the right hand is not required. [Similarly,] whenever it says "finger," the right finger is required, and whenever it does not say "finger," the right finger is not required. Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon says, whenever it says "the gift of his hand" (e.g., Deut. 16:17), if he makes a modification in the gift [after it is designated], it is disqualified, [but if he makes a modification] in receiving it, it is fit. And whenever it says "receiving of the hand," if he makes a modification in receiving it, it is disqualified, but in giving it, is fit. [If] the priest received, the act of receiving is fit. [If] he received it in his right hand, [or] he received it in a consecrated vessel, the act of receiving is fit. [If] he went back and received, it is disqualified. [If] he received with his left hand, or with a profane vessel, it is disqualified. [If] he received the fit and sprinkled the disqualified, [or] he received the disqualified and sprinkled the disqualified, [the service is] disqualified.

Rabbi Akiva expounded: From where is it derived that the blood can only be received by an unblemished priest, and with a service vessel? The verse states, "And the sons of Aaron [the priests] shall bring near the blood" (Lev. 1:5). You might think this (i.e., "bring near") refers to sprinkling. [However, only] when [Scripture] says "and he shall sprinkle it," that is "sprinkling." But this verse does not say "sprinkle"; rather, it says, "bring near," in order to juxtapose "bringing near" with "sprinkling." Just as sprinkling must be performed by an unblemished priest, and with a service vessel, so too bringing near must be performed by an unblemished priest, and with a service vessel. And elsewhere it says, "And you are to anoint them ... and they shall serve as priests for me" (Ex. 40:15). Just as the priest mentioned over there is an unblemished priest, and [the ritual is performed] with a service vessel, so too the priest mentioned here is an unblemished priest, and [the ritual is performed] with a service vessel. Rabbi Tarfon said to him, "Akiva! How long will you pile up words against us?! I will bury my sons if I did not hear [a teaching] distinguishing between 'receiving' and 'sprinkling,' yet you equate receiving with sprinkling!" He said to him, "Allow me to say one thing that you yourself have taught me." He said to him, "Speak." He said to him, "Receiving is not performed with intention-like-action, [but] the act of sprinkling is performed with intention-like-action. One who receives inside [the Temple] is fit, [and] one who sprinkles outside [the Temple] is disqualified. [If] those who are disqualified receive it, they are not liable on its account, [but] if those who are disqualified sprinkle it, they are liable on its account." He said to him, "[I swear] by the Holy Service that you have not deviated to the right or to the left that which I heard [from my teachers], yet I was not able to explain (lif'rosh) [their teachings]. And you have expounded it and reconciled [the exposition] with tradition. Therefore, anyone who separates (ha'poresh) from you is like one who separates from his own life."

The blood of the heifer of purification (the red heifer): He slaughters it with his right hand and receives the blood with his left hand, and sprinkles with the finger of his right hand, and if he deviated, it is disqualified. Rabbi Yehuda says, he would slaughter with his right hand and place the knife in front of him or to the one who stood at his side, and he would collect [the blood] with his right hand, and transfer it to his left hand, and sprinkle with the finger of his right hand, and if he deviated, it is disqualified. The sprinklings that are [performed] with [the blood of] the heifer: [If] he sprinkled them not for their sake, or [if] they did not have the [requisite] intention, or if one [sprinkling] was lacking, [or if] he immersed [the hyssop] once and sprinkled twice, [or if] he immersed [the hyssop] twice and sprinkled once -- behold, they are [all] disqualified. The sprinklings that are [performed] for the leper: [If] he sprinkled them not for their sake, [or if] they did not have the [requisite] intention, behold, they are [nonetheless] valid. The blood of the leper's guilt-offering: He receives it in his right hand and pours it out with his left hand, and sprinkles with the finger of his right hand, and if he deviated, it is disqualified. [If] he turned from left to right, or poured it into [the cup in] his left hand, and went back and sprinkled with his right hand, it is disqualified. It is not disqualified because he deviated; rather, because [as a result of the deviation] the log-measure was lacking the smallest drop.

[Regarding the sprinkling of] blood, all that are [required to be] applied above [the red line], [but] which are not applied in their typical manner, or which are not [applied] with the [requisite] intention -- behold, they are [nonetheless] valid.