Meilah 1:1 - 1:2

קדשי קדשים ששחטן בדרום – even though that their law is to be slaughtered in the north [part of the Temple courtyard] (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1), do not say that is like the one that is strangled (see Talmud Meilah 2a) for they were like Holy Things that died when they left the realm of religious sacrilege according to the Written Torah, that it comes to tell us that Holy Things/sacrifices that died are not worthy at all. But the south [part of the Temple courtyard] assuming that it is not appropriate for the Holy of Holies but is appropriate for offerings of lesser sanctity, therefore, they commit religious sacrilege with them, but a person who benefits from them the equivalent of a perutah/penny brings the sacrifice for religious sacrilege. But not only that they were slaughtered in the south and their blood was received In the north that one commits religious sacrilege because the essence of Divine service in the north is [according to law], and from the received tradition and onward, it is the commandment of the priesthood, but even if they were slaughtered in the north and the received their blood in the south, even though tha t the essence of the Divine service is in the south not according to the law, even so, they commit religious sacrilege through them.

וזרק דמו בלילה – even though that night is not the time of offering [of the sacrifice), one commits religious sacrilege with them

בלילה וזרק דמן ביום – his all the more so that one is committing religious sacrilege, because he sprinkled [the blood] during the day, which is the essence of Divine service. But it is taught “this but one doesn’t have to state that.”

או ששחטן – [slaughtered them] in the north , and he thought about eating them outside of their time which is פיגול/an offering disqualified by improper intention which is punishable by extirpation/כרת , or outside of their place which is disqualified which does not have [punishment of] extirpation, one commits religious sacrilege through them.

כלל אמר ר' יהושע כל שהיה לה שעת היתר לכהנים – even though it once again became disqualified and they are not permitted to eat them, nevertheless, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with them.

שלנה – after sprinkling, or that it became defiled or that went outside of the courtyard after the sprinkling [of the blood], even though that it is not appropriate for the Kohanim, since it had one hour of availability to [for use[ prior to being left overnight, we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it, for we don’t call it “God’s holy things,” for it was appropriate for the Kohanim.

ושקבלו פסולים וזרקו את דמה (the blood of which disqualified men have received or tossed) – the ineligible had received its blood, even though that those that sprinkled/tossed it were fit, or that those who sprinkled it were disqualified, even though who received it were fit. But if after the disqualified had received the blood and sprinkled it, the fit [priests] returned and received the rest of the lifeblood (i.e., the last blood that exits before the animal is dead -which is about one-fourth of a LOG – see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1 ) and sprinkled it, thereby the sprinkling by the fit is makes inappropriate use of sacred property, but permits the meat to the Kohanim, there isn’t religious sacrilege. And these words refer to the rest of the disqualified, other than those who are ritually impure, but someone ritually impure who received the blood and sprinkled it, even though the fit returned and received the rest of the lifeblood [of the animal] and sprinkled it, the meat did not have a period of availability [for use by the Kohanim] and one commits religious sacrilege, for the ritually impure, since is appropriate for the Divine Service of the community, as the sacrifice of the community postpones the ritual defilement, when he he tossed the blood, the rest of he blood became remnants, and furthermore, the tossing by the fit of the blood is not an inappropriate use of sacred property to permit the meat, and among the disqualified, you don’t have an individual who makes the blood of the remnants other than the ritually impure alone.

בשר קדשי קדשים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים (beyond the veils of the courtyard) – and afterwards it (i.e., the meat) came in and afterwards tossed/sprinkled the blood.

ר' אליעזר אומר מועלים בו – even though he tossed/sprinkled the blood, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] does not take effect/benefit to [meat] that leaves to exclude something from religious sacrilege.

ואין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for since it (i.e., the meat) left [the courtyard]. For tossing/sprinkling is fit for it establishes פיגול/an offering disqualified by proper intention, but it is not disqualified.

רבי עקיבא – Rabbi Akiva holds that we don’t commit religious sacrilege with it. For he holds that tossing/sprinkling [of the blood] takes effect for [the meat] that goes out to exclude it from religious sacrilege.

אבל חייבין כו' – but, the language of “surely!”/”truly!”- like truthfully. But when Rabbi Akiva said that tossing/sprinkling [the blood] take effect for [the meat] that leaves [from the courtyard], as for example, that part of the meat went out but not all of it, that because it is effective for that part that is inside [the courtyard], it is effective also for that part [of the meat] that left [the courtyard] to the outside. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

אמר ר' עקיבא והרי המפריש חטאתו ואבדה – now he brings a proof to that which he sasid that tossing/sprinkling effects that [meat] which left [the Temple courtyard].

והרי שתיהן עומדות (both of them are available)– are both slaughtered and their blood was received in two cups and he tossed/sprinkled the blood from one of them.

לא כשם שדמה – of that one.

פוטר את בשרה – from religious sacrilege.

כך הוא פוטר את בשר חברתה– whose blood was not tossed/sprinkled, since he was able to sprinkle/toss the blood of which of them that he wanted.

ואם פוטר דמה את בשר חברתה מן המעילה – even though it is disqualified, that it is permitted as a sin-offering. Does it not follow that it will exempt its own flesh, even though it was disqualified when it went out [of the courtyard?” But Rabbi Akiva did not say that just as its blood exempts its flesh, so too it exempts the flesh of its fellow [sacrifice], but rather, when he slaughtered two sin-offerings as one, because if he wanted, he toss/sprinkles from this one, if he wanted, he sprinkles/tosses from that one, but [in the case of] one after another, Rabbi Akiva did not say that the blood would exempt the flesh of its fellow [animal sacrifice].