With regard to the definition of sacrificial animals for which one is not liable for their sacrifice outside the Temple courtyard, the Gemara discusses the case of an animal that is not designated to be sacrificed in the courtyard, referred to by the mishna as: Not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The Gemara determines that if one sacrifices it outside the Temple courtyard he is not liable, neither to receive karet if he sinned intentionally nor to bring a sin offering if he did so unwittingly. This category of animal includes sacrificial animals whose service is to be performed outside the courtyard, i.e., the red heifer of purification and the scapegoat, as well as offerings that were disqualified from sacrifice from the outset. Likewise, with regard to offerings that became disqualified after they were consecrated, and that were therefore fit at some stage to be sacrificed, since they are at present unfit to be brought as offerings, one is not liable for sacrificing them outside the Temple courtyard. But if the disqualification occurred during the sacrificial process, and it is one of those offerings that shall not descend if it already ascended the altar, one who sacrifices it outside the Temple is liable. The category of those offerings that are unfit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and for whose sacrifice outside the Temple one is not liable includes offerings whose time has not yet arrived but which will be fit for sacrifice at a later point. There are two primary types of offerings whose time has not yet arrived: Animals that have not reached the appropriate age for sacrifice and offerings whose owners are as yet unfit to sacrifice them, e.g., a leper whose period of impurity is incomplete. There is an important difference between these two categories: If the reason the offering may not be sacrificed is due to the animal itself, then one who sacrifices it outside is exempt in all cases. In cases where the owner is unready for the sacrifice, potential liability depends on the nature of the offering in question. In the cases of sin offerings and guilt offerings, since at present they may not be sacrificed by that individual at all, one who sacrifices them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt. He is liable in the case of offerings that can be brought as gift offerings, i.e., burnt offerings and peace offerings, as these are fit to be sacrificed at any time. Another important factor with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside the Temple courtyard is that one is liable only for those portions of the offering that are fit for the altar. Concerning the parts designated for consumption, whether by priests or by the Israelite owner, one who sacrifices them outside the Temple courtyard is not liable. Furthermore, one violates this prohibition only for performing the concluding rites of the sacrificial service, such as the sacrifice upon the altar, whereas if the action is not a concluding rite, e.g., pouring oil onto a meal offering, one is not liable. The second section of this chapter dealt at length with the halakhot pertaining to those places, known as private altars, where offerings may be sacrificed outside the Temple and the Tabernacle. The chapter surveyed the various periods relevant to this issue: The period before the construction of the Tabernacle at Sinai, when private altars were permitted; when the Tabernacle was in the wilderness; when the Tabernacle was in Gilgal after the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael until it moved to the “rest” (see Deuteronomy 12:9) in Shiloh; the period when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh, when sacrifice on private altars was prohibited, until the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh; and during the presence of the Tabernacle in Nov and Gibeon, when private altars were again permitted until the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. There are two basic principles: The first is that any place, whether a Tabernacle or the Temple, where the Ark of the Covenant is found, is considered a dwelling place of the Divine Presence, and it is prohibited to sacrifice outside that place. During a period where there was no Ark, private altars were permitted. The second principle relates to the period when private altars were permitted: Even when such altars were permitted, there was still a difference between the great public altar, where there was a Tent of Meeting and where the service was performed in accordance with all the rites of the Tabernacle, including the requirement that it must be performed by priests; and a private altar, where an individual was allowed to sacrifice vow offerings and gift offerings on his own altar, without all the conditions that apply to a Tabernacle. Nevertheless, with regard to the primary halakhot of the offering itself, e.g., the fixed time for its consumption, the prohibition against leaving over any part beyond that time, and the prohibitions of performing the service and partaking of the offering in a state of ritual impurity, a private altar is similar to a public altar. The chapter also discussed at length the question of which offerings are sacrificed on a private altar, which on a public altar, and which may not be sacrificed in either place. It is accepted that only individuals may sacrifice their vow offerings and gift offerings on a private altar, while on a public altar one would sacrifice individual gift offerings, and compulsory public offerings for which there is a set time. There are differences of opinion among the Sages with regard to the other offerings. Although it is agreed that nowadays it is prohibited to sacrifice outside the Temple, this prohibition applies only to Jews, to whom the service of the Tent of Meeting and the Temple was given. It does not apply to gentiles, who are permitted to sacrifice burnt offerings to God in all places. Jews may not assist gentiles or sacrifice on their behalf, although they may instruct them in this regard, as occurred in an incident related by the Gemara. The final section of the chapter dealt with various other aspects of the periods mentioned above. It also cited statements of aggada relating to the place of the Tabernacle and the Temple, and the dwelling of the Divine Presence among the Jewish people.