We begin a new chapter, the final chapter of the tractate, Perek Parat Chatat. We start with a lengthy Mishnah that spans an entire page and part of the next, focusing on the laws of the Parat Chatat.
The Parat Chatat is the red heifer that purifies. The law for the Parat Chatat dictates that it must be slaughtered outside the area of the Temple, specifically at a designated spot on the Mount of Olives. This location was meticulously kept pure to avoid any ritual impurity. The heifer would be slaughtered and burned there, and its ashes mixed with water for purification. It is important to note that the Parat Chatat is not brought onto the altar; its slaughter is not for an offering that ends up on the altar. It is burned entirely in its designated spot.
The Mishnah raises a question: What if a Parat Chatat is burned outside its prescribed place? Is this considered "slaughtered outside" (shechutei chutz), a transgression usually applied to sacrifices meant for the Temple courtyard (Azara)? One might argue that since the Parat Chatat never enters the Azara anyway, the prohibition of shechutei chutz might not apply. However, the Mishnah explicitly states that it does apply: "A Parat Chatat that was burned outside its pit (gita)"—meaning away from the designated spot—is invalid. The term "gita" refers to the pit where the heifer was slaughtered, a place checked for purity.
The same principle applies to the goat sent to Azazel (Sa'ir Hamishtale'ach). If it is offered or sent outside its designated place—being thrown off a mountain, not sacrificed—it is invalid. The speaker notes that these cases are mentioned to highlight that the prohibition of "slaughtering consecrated animals outside" (shochet kodashim be'chutz) extends beyond offerings destined for the Azara. The Torah's specific mention of "the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Petach Ohel Moed) for certain offerings might lead one to think the prohibition only applies there. However, the Mishnah clarifies that it applies to anything that is supposed to be done in a specific way, even if not at the Tent of Meeting.
The Mishnah then lists various animals that are inherently disqualified from being offered on the altar. These include an animal that copulated with a human (nidva), an animal designated for idolatry (muktzah), one actually worshipped for idolatry (ne'evedet), one exchanged for a dog (mechir), one used as payment to a prostitute (etnan), a crossbreed (kilayim), or a naturally defective animal (terefah), such as one born via Caesarean section. If any of these are slaughtered outside, one is exempt from punishment. Why? Because, as the verse states, "before the Tabernacle of God"—meaning, any animal not fit to come before the Tabernacle of God incurs no liability if slaughtered outside.
The next category discusses blemished animals (ba'alei mumim), whether their blemishes are permanent (kavu'a) or temporary (over). If these are slaughtered outside, one is exempt. The logic remains the same: they cannot be offered on the altar. Therefore, slaughtering them outside incurs no liability. However, the Beit Shammai school of thought holds a different view regarding temporary blemishes. While there is no karet (excision) for slaughtering such an animal outside, there is a negative commandment (lo ta'aseh) transgression. This is because a temporarily blemished animal could eventually become fit for the altar once its blemish passes, unlike a permanently blemished animal.
The Mishnah continues with birds. A turtle-dove (tor) that has not reached maturity (its wings have not yet turned reddish-yellow) is disqualified. Similarly, young doves (bnei yonah) that have passed their maturity are also disqualified. If these are slaughtered outside, one is exempt, as they are unfit for the altar. However, for a tor that has not yet reached its time, since it is destined to become fit, slaughtering it outside does not incur karet but does incur a negative commandment (lo ta'aseh). This is a lesser transgression because, eventually, it would have been fit.
The law (halakha) also prohibits offering a mother and its offspring (oto ve'et beno) on the same day. Additionally, an animal less than eight days old (mechusar zeman) cannot be offered on the altar. If these are slaughtered outside, one is exempt. The Beit Shammai, however, again differs. For a mechusar zeman animal, since it will become fit after another day, slaughtering it outside incurs a negative commandment. The same applies to oto ve'et beno; waiting another day makes it permissible. Rabbi Shimon states a general principle: "Any item that is fit to be brought later (le'achar zeman), such as these cases where one waits for the eighth day or the next day for oto ve'et beno, incurs a negative commandment if offered outside, but no karet." The Beit Hillel, however, argues that it's "all or nothing": if there's no karet, there's no negative commandment either.
The Mishnah then distinguishes between two types of mechusar zeman: an animal that is mechusar zeman "in its body" (begufo), meaning it is less than seven days old, and an animal that is mechusar zeman "due to its owner" (be'be'alav), meaning the owner has not yet completed the purification process required to bring his offerings. Examples of mechusar zeman be'be'alav include a zav, zavah, yoledet, or metzora. If such individuals bring their obligatory offerings (like a chatat or asham) before their designated time, and they slaughter them outside, they are exempt. This is because these animals would not be accepted as obligatory offerings, nor could they be converted into voluntary offerings (nidavot), as chatat and asham cannot be brought as donations. However, if they were to bring an olah or shelamim—offerings that can be accepted as donations—outside before their time, they would be liable, because these could have been accepted as donations if brought inside.
The Mishnah lists actions related to offerings that, if performed outside, do not incur liability. These include burning the meat of a chatat, asham, or kodshei kodashim (most holy offerings) that is meant to be eaten, not placed on the altar. For example, the leftover portions of the Omer offering after the kimtza (handful) is removed, which the priests eat; or the meat of the Shavuot offering (kivsei atzeret); or various types of meal offerings (menachot) like a yutzak (oil-poured), patut (broken into pieces), bolel (mixed with oil and flour), or shemen (simple oil-based) menachah. All these are meant to be eaten by the priests, not placed on the altar. Therefore, burning them outside does not incur liability, as they do not belong on the altar.
Similarly, actions like salting (molayach) an offering, waving (menif) parts of an offering (like the breast and thigh of a shelamim), bringing (megish) a meal offering to the corner of the altar, or setting up the showbread (lechem hapanim) or cleaning the menorah and setting its candles—none of these, if done outside, incur liability. Why? Firstly, because these items (like the lechem hapanim) are not destined for the altar; they are eaten by the priests. The prohibition of shechutei chutz only applies to actions related to the altar. Secondly, for actions like receiving the blood (kabbalat hadam), which does go on the altar, liability only applies to the final service (avodah tamah), not to an intermediate service that is followed by another, such as sprinkling the blood (zerikah).
The Mishnah further clarifies that if a non-priest (zar) performs any of these actions, they are exempt from karet. This is because these actions are not considered "services" (avodah) in the context of the Temple. Burning the lechem hapanim outside, for example, is not a recognized service. A zar is only liable for performing a final service. Similarly, if a priest who is ritually impure (kohen tamei) performs these actions outside, he is exempt. He is permitted to do these things outside the Temple, as they are not considered a service. The same applies if a priest performs these actions without wearing his priestly garments (bigdei kehunah) or without washing his hands and feet (kiddush yadayim ve'raglayim). A priest without his garments has the status of a zar, and since a zar is exempt for these actions, so is he. The key is that these actions, when performed outside, are not considered a Temple service, and therefore do not incur liability.
The Mishnah then delves into the historical evolution of private altars (bamot). Before the Tabernacle (Mishkan) was built in the desert, private altars were permissible (mutarot). The firstborn sons served as priests. Once the Mishkan was erected, it became the central place of worship, and private altars were forbidden. Priests would eat their portions within the walls of the Mishkan, and the most holy offerings (kodshei kodashim) were eaten within the Mishkan's parameters. Other offerings were eaten by each tribe under their respective flags, within the camping area surrounding the Mishkan.
Upon entering the Land of Israel, during the 14 years of conquest and division of the land, the Mishkan was set up in Gilgal. This was not considered a permanent Mishkan, so private altars again became permissible. During this period, individuals could build private altars in their backyards. However, once they reached Nov and Gibeon, the situation changed. While private altars were still permitted, certain offerings, like communal offerings (korbanot tzibur) and kodshei kodashim, could only be brought on the public altar (bamat tzibur) in Gilgal. Voluntary offerings (nedarim u'nedavot) could be brought on private altars. The meat of kodshei kodashim was eaten within the walls of Gilgal, while kodashim kalim (lighter holy offerings) could be eaten anywhere, as there were no longer tribal flags or formations; people were spread throughout the land.
After the 14 years, the Mishkan moved to Shiloh, where it remained for 369 years. This was considered a permanent Mishkan, and private altars became forbidden. The Torah refers to this as "the resting place" (menuchah). In Shiloh, offerings were eaten within its walls. As long as Shiloh was visible, that area was considered "the camp of Israel" (Mahaneh Yisrael). Shiloh itself had no permanent roof; it was a stone structure with a temporary covering made of Mishkan skins.
When Shiloh was destroyed and the Ark was taken captive during the time of Eli, the Mishkan moved to Nov and Gibeon. These were temporary locations, so private altars once again became permissible. Nov and Gibeon functioned as a public altar (bamat tzibur), where offerings were eaten within their consecrated areas, and kodashim kalim could be eaten anywhere. Finally, when the Temple (Beit HaMikdash) was built in Jerusalem, private altars became permanently forbidden. This is referred to as "the inheritance" (nachalah) in the Torah. Once the Beit HaMikdash was built, private altars were never again permitted, even after its destruction. In Jerusalem, all offerings were eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, which was considered Mahaneh Yisrael.
The Mishnah then discusses the consecration of animals. If an animal was consecrated during a time when private altars were forbidden (bish'at isur bamot), and then brought as an offering during that same forbidden period, this is a severe transgression, incurring both a positive commandment (aseh) to bring it to the Mishkan, a negative commandment (lo ta'aseh) not to bring it outside, and karet. This is the worst-case scenario. However, if an animal was consecrated when private altars were permissible (bish'at heter bamot)—for example, during the 14 years before Shiloh was built—but then brought as an offering when private altars were forbidden (bish'at isur bamot), only a negative commandment is transgressed, with no karet. This is because the initial consecration was valid. Conversely, if an animal was consecrated when private altars were forbidden, but brought when they were permissible (e.g., after Shiloh was destroyed), there is also a negative commandment, as the consecration itself was problematic.
The Mishnah identifies which offerings were brought in the Mishkan. These include communal offerings (korbanot tzibur) and private offerings (korban yachid) that were specifically designated for the Mishkan. If a person intended to bring a private offering in the Mishkan but brought it on a private altar, they transgressed a negative commandment, but without karet, as they broke their word to God. The Mishnah then differentiates between a public altar (bamat tzibur) and a private altar (bamat yachid). On a Bamat Tzibur, actions like leaning hands (semicha) on the animal, slaughtering in the north (shechitat tzafon), sprinkling blood around the altar (matan seviv), and waving (tenufah) of offerings were performed. These were not done on a Bamat Yachid. Rabbi Yehuda states that meal offerings (minchot) were not brought at all on a Bamat Yachid.
Furthermore, there was no requirement for a priest (kohen) to perform the service on a Bamat Yachid; anyone could bring the offering. There were no special priestly garments (bigdei kehunah) required, nor special vessels (keli sharet) for the blood, unlike in the Beit HaMikdash. Also, the prohibition against roasting the meat before placing it on the altar (tzli) did not apply to a Bamat Yachid. On a Bamat Yachid, one could roast the meat first, whereas on a public altar, the aroma had to come from the altar itself. The red line (chuta sikra) on the altar, which indicated where to sprinkle blood (upper or lower half), also did not apply to a Bamat Yachid. Lastly, the ritual washing of hands and feet (kiddush yadayim ve'raglayim) was not required on a Bamat Yachid. If one eats a consecrated animal past its designated time (zeman), it is considered "leftover" (notar) and is forbidden.