ב׳
א׳כָּל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. אִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת בִּלְבַד כִּפֵּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּחַטָּאת מַתָּנָה אַחַת הִיא הָעִקָּר וּשְׁאָר הָאַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת לְמִצְוָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כז) "וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל מִזְבַּח ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ". שְׁפִיכַת הַדָּם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הִיא הָעִקָּר:
1[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated.1Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact, even one presentation of blood is sufficient. Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance.2Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the corners of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement. Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar."3The Kessef Mishneh notes that rather than use the method of exegesis stated in Zevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in several other places in the Mishneh Torah where the Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of Biblical verses even though the traditional Rabbinic approach is to derive the idea from other sources. [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.
ב׳וְכָל הַנִּתָּנִין בִּזְרִיקָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּשְׁפִיכָה יָצָא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כז) "וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ":
2Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it,4Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner. the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."
ג׳כָּל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. אִם חִסֵּר אַחַת מֵהֶן לֹא כִּפֵּר. אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן הֵן עִקַּר הַכַּפָּרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב הִקְפִּיד עַל מִנְיָנָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד ו) (ויקרא ד יז) "שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים":
3With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar,5This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yom Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered. if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."
ד׳חַטָּאת שֶׁנָּתַן מִמֶּנּוּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת וּמֵתוּ הַבְּעָלִים. יַשְׁלִים אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת לְאַחַר הַמִּיתָה:
4If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.6If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of the presentations should also be made.
ה׳אֲבָל אִם נָתַן הָאַחַת בַּיּוֹם לֹא יִתֵּן הַשָּׁלֹשׁ בַּלַּיְלָה:
5If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.7For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Hence, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, the remaining presentations should not be made.
ו׳וְאִם נָתַן אַחַת בִּפְנִים וְהִשְׁלִימָן בַּחוּץ חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ:
6If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.8See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.
ז׳הָיָה מַזֶּה וְנִקְטְעָה יָדוֹ שֶׁל מַזֶּה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ דָּם לַאֲוִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ הַזָּיָה:
7If [a priest] was sprinkling [the blood of a sacrifice9The Torah uses the term haza'ah, "sprinkling," with regard to the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner altar. on the altar] and his hand was cut off before the blood reached the space above the altar, the sprinkling of the blood is not acceptable.10For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant. See Zevachim 15a.
ח׳שִׁנָּה מַתַּן קָרְבָּנוֹת בְּחַטָּאת. בֵּין בְּחַטָּאת הַנַּעֲשֵׂית בִּפְנִים בֵּין בְּחַטָּאת הַנַּעֲשֵׂית בַּחוּץ נִפְסַל. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁרִין:
8If one changed [the order] of corners11Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version. [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar12See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices. or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar13See ibid.:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices. - [the sacrifice] is disqualified.14Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the altar. If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.
ט׳נָתַן הַדָּם מִן הַקֶּרֶן וְלִפְנִים. בֵּין בְּחַטָּאת בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים. בֵּין בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי בֵּין בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. פָּסוּל:
9If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.
י׳דָּם שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לִתֵּן אוֹתוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵחֲצִי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לְמַטָּה. אוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לִתְּנוֹ לְמַטָּה וּנְתָנוֹ לְמַעְלָה. אוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לִתְּנוֹ בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל וּנְתָנוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. אוֹ הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן לִפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל. אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן דַּם הַנִּתָּנִין בַּחוּץ עַל הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד. הֲרֵי בְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נִתְכַּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים בּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ דָּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ לְכַפֵּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה זֶה הַזּוֹרֵק כָּשֵׁר לַעֲבוֹדָה. אֲבָל אִם קִבֵּל הַכָּשֵׁר וְנָתַן לַפָּסוּל וְנָתַן הַפָּסוּל אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה. וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בִּפְנִים בַּחוּץ. וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בַּחוּץ בִּפְנִים. אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן עַל הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד. לֹא נִפְסַל בְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח אִם נִשְׁאַר דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ. אֶלָּא יַחְזֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל שְׁאָר דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְיִזְרֹק הַדָּם בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:
10When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar15As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar. was presented below it;if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar,16This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices. but it was presented above it;if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple]17In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself. and was presented on the outer altar;if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; orif blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],18The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot 57b; Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself.[in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable.19Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if "the blood of life" remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required. Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement.When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],20Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling. the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of life remains.21Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not performed at all. Hence, if more "blood of life" remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened. Instead, an acceptable person should receive the remainder of the blood of life and cast it [on the altar] in its appropriate place.
י״אדְּמֵי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ. בֵּין דָּם בְּדָם. בֵּין כּוֹסוֹת בְּכוֹסוֹת. אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ הַנִּתָּנִין מַתָּנָה אַחַת בַּנִּתָּנִין מַתָּנָה אַחַת. יִתֵּן הַכּל מַתָּנָה אַחַת. וְכֵן הַנִּתָּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בַּנִּתָּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע. יִתֵּן הַכּל מַתַּן אַרְבַּע. נִתְעָרְבוּ הַנִּתָּנִין מַתָּנָה אַחַת בַּנִּתָּנִין מַתַּן שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. יִתֵּן הַכּל מַתָּנָה אַחַת. נִתְעָרְבוּ הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה בַּנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה. יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַכּל לָאַמָּה וְהַזְּבָחִים פְּסוּלִין. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁיָרֵי הַחַטָּאת עִם דַּם הָעוֹלָה שֶׁמְּקוֹם הַכּל לְמַטָּה יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַכּל לָאַמָּה:
11[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood22Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup. or between two cups of blood.23The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained. If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood],24E.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:17. one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations,25Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another. four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four,26I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest corners of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. 5:6. one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture].27The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments (see Zevachim 8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah's commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act when doing so.If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar],28See the notes to Halachah 10. all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel29See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11. and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering30I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar. is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.31For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar's base. It should not be poured on the altar's wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations.
י״בוְאִם לֹא שָׁאַל אֶלָּא נָתַן מִן הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת לְמַעְלָה וּלְמַטָּה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. נָתַן לְמַעְלָה וְשָׁאַל יִתֵּן לְמַטָּה וְאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ:
12If [blood from a sin-offering32Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar. became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering]33Which should be poured on the altar's base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim 81b. and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable.34As an initial preference, he should not have presented the blood on the upper portion of the altar as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there, thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be poured on the base of the altar. If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion.35I.e., on the altar's base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar's base. He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].
י״גנִתְעָרְבוּ הַנִּתָּנִין בִּפְנִים בַּנִּתָּנִין בַּחוּץ. יִשְׁפֹּךְ הַכּל לָאַמָּה. וְאִם לֹא שָׁאַל וְלָקַח דַּם הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת וְנָתַן מִמֶּנּוּ בִּפְנִים וּבַחוּץ. בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן בִּפְנִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בַּחוּץ אוֹ בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים הַכּל כָּשֵׁר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁאָר דָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִים בַּחוּץ חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת. אֲבָל דַּם חַטָּאת הַנַּעֲשֵׂית בַּחוּץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדַם חַטָּאת הַנַּעֲשֵׂית בִּפְנִים. אִם נָתַן בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים כָּשֵׁר. נָתַן בִּפְנִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בַּחוּץ פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁדַּם חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַהֵיכָל אֲפִלּוּ חַטַּאת יָחִיד הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו כג) "וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ" וְגוֹ'. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּבוֹא דֶּרֶךְ שַׁעַר הַהֵיכָל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יוּבָא דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָה. אֲבָל אִם הִכְנִיסוֹ בְּפִשְׁפָּשׁ אוֹ דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹן אוֹ גַּג. אֵינוֹ נִפְסַל:
13If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building36See Halachah 10. became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.37Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary. If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable.38For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner.When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside.39I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner. If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be presented outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten40The Kessef Mishneh notes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text. - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]."41Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten.[The above applies] provided [the blood] is brought in through the gate to the Temple Building, for the prooftext speaks of it being "brought," implying an ordinary manner of entrance.42The term huvah has as its root the word ba which means "come," leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 16:5. If, however, it was brought in through a wicket43See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary. or through a window or the roof, it is not disqualified.44For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.
י״דפַּר הֶעְלֵם וְשָׂעִיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁדָּמָם נִכְנָס לַהֵיכָל. אִם הִכְנִיסוֹ לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים נִפְסַל שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם זֶה פְּנִימָה שֶׁל מְקוֹמָן הוּא. וְכֵן פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁדָּמָם נִכְנָס לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים אִם הִכְנִיס דָּמָם לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַהֵיכָל וְחָזַר וְהִכְנִיסוֹ לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים נִפְסַל וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹמֵר מִמֶּנּוּ הַזָּיוֹת שֶׁבְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא יָצָא. וְכֵן אִם גָּמַר הַזָּיוֹת שֶׁבְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהוֹצִיאָן לַהֵיכָל. וְהִזָּה מִקְצָת הַזָּיוֹת וְהוֹצִיאָן חוּץ לַהֵיכָל וְחָזַר וְהִכְנִיסָן לַהֵיכָל. אֵינוֹ גּוֹמֵר הַזָּיוֹת שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא הַדָּם חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ נִפְסַל:
14When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation of a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship45See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices. which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood.46I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies.Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur47See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1. whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there,48But the required number of sprinklings were not completed. was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified.49Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are completed. [The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed.50Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it.The Ra'avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam's ruling was based and hence, objects. The Kessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam's understanding.Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.51The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable.
ט״וחַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת וְיָצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם לַחוּץ. הַפְּנִימִי כָּשֵׁר וְיַזֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ. נִכְנַס אֶחָד מֵהֶם לַהֵיכָל וְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ שָׁם. אַף הַחִיצוֹן פָּסוּל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו כג) "אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ" אֲפִלּוּ מִקְצָת דָּמָהּ אִם נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ נִפְסְלָה:
15If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering52That should be offered on the outer altar. was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed.53For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains. If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.
ט״זדַּם חַטָּאת שֶׁהִכְנִיסוֹ לְכַפֵּר בּוֹ בִּפְנִים. וְלֹא כִּפֵּר אֶלָּא הוֹצִיאוֹ וְלֹא הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ בִּפְנִים כְּלוּם. אִם הִכְנִיסוֹ בְּשׁוֹגֵג הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר וּמַזֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ בַּחוּץ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא כִּפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. וְאִם הִכְנִיסוֹ בְּמֵזִיד פָּסוּל:
16[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary.54Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified. If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.55Even if it was not sprinkled inside. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradict Zevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that although the Rambam's ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation.
י״זהִכְנִיס הַחַטָּאת עַצְמָהּ לַהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו כג) "אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ" וְלֹא בְּשָׂרָהּ:
17If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary,56Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim 92b). it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].
י״חחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁפִּרְכְּסָה וְנִכְנְסָה לַהֵיכָל כְּשֵׁרָה:
18When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.57This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was "brought into" the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own.
י״טהִכְנִיס דַּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לַהֵיכָל בְּצַוָּארָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם הַצַּוָּאר חָשׁוּב כִּכְלִי:
19If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl was taken into the Sanctuary in its neck,58I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle. there is an unresolved doubt whether its neck is considered a receptacle [which would disqualify the sacrifice].59For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.
כ׳נִשְׁפַּךְ דַּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וַאֲסָפוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם הַכְּלִי פּוֹסֵל בְּדָמָהּ אוֹ אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל. לְפִיכָךְ תִּשָּׂרֵף כְּכָל חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק:
20If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl60With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25. was spilled61Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard. and then collected,62Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal unto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar was that granting permission (but not negating, presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b). there is an unresolved question: Does the receptacle disqualify the blood or not? Therefore the fowl should be burnt63The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19. like all the sin-offerings of fowl concerning which there are unresolved doubts. 64See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
כ״אחַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת. וְנָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִכָּל כּוֹס וְכוֹס. שְׁיָרֵי אַרְבַּעְתָּן נִשְׁפָּךְ עַל הַיְסוֹד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד ל) (ויקרא ד לד) "וְאֶת כָּל דָּמָהּ יִשְׁפֹּך"ְ. נָתַן אַרְבַּע הַמַּתָּנוֹת מִכּוֹס אֶחָד. שְׁיָרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַכּוֹס נִשְׁפָּךְ עַל הַיְסוֹד וּשְׁאָר הַכּוֹסוֹת נִשְׁפָּכִין לָאַמָּה:
21When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.65Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar's base. Yoma 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:30 states: "Its blood should be poured on the altar's base," implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there.
כ״בדָּם שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ דָּמֵי חֻלִּין לֹא יַזֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ וְאִם הִזָּה פָּסוּל. נָפַל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ הַדָּם שֶׁבַּמִּזְרָק. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאֵה דָּם כָּשֵׁר. נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן אוֹ דַּם חֻלִּין. אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ אִלּוּ הָיוּ מַיִם. אִם רְאוּיִין לְבַטֵּל דָּם שֶׁבַּמִּזְרָק עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מַרְאָיו מַרְאֵה דָּם הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַזֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְאִם אֵינָם רְאוּיִין לְבַטֵּל מַרְאָיו יַזֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ:
22When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood,66I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice. it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified.67This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. For every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of blood (Zevachim 77b). When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.68See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.
כ״גדַּם הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדַם פְּסוּלֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אוֹ בְּדַם הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַכּל לָאַמָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרְבוּ כָּל הַכּוֹסוֹת חוּץ מֵאֶחָד יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה וְכָל אוֹתָן הַזְּבָחִים פְּסוּלִים. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַתַּמְצִית יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. וְאִם לֹא שָׁאַל וְנָתַן כָּשֵׁר:
23When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal.69In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh). Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable.If the [life-]blood [of a sacrificial animal] became mixed with blood concentrated [in the limbs],70Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). [the mixture] should be poured into the drainage canal.71Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh). If, [however,] one did not ask and presented [the blood on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.
כ״דהָאֵימוּרִין וְאֵיבְרֵי הָעוֹלוֹת וְהַקְּמָצִים וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וּמְנָחוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשׁוּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. אִם זָרַק אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים בֵּין בְּיָד בֵּין בִּכְלִי בֵּין בְּיָמִין בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:
24If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand72Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam's ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the Rambam's ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced. or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.
כ״ההַיַּיִן וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁנִּסְכָן בֵּין בִּקְעָרָה בֵּין בְּהִין בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר כְּלֵי הַשָּׁרֵת כְּשֵׁרִים. נִסְּכָן בִּכְלִי חֹל אוֹ בְּיָדוֹ פְּסוּלִין:
25When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hin measure,73This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:17-18. or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.
כ״ואֵיבָרִים שֶׁסִּדְּרָן וְכֵן קֹמֶץ שֶׁסִּדְּרוֹ וְסִדֵּר הָעֵצִים שֶׁל מַעֲרָכָה לְמַעְלָה מֵהֶם. אוֹ שֶׁסִּדְּרָן מִצִּדֵּי הָעֵצִים. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ אוֹ אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵן לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאִם עָשָׂה הֻרְצָה:
26When one arranged the limbs [of a burnt-offering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them74Instead of placing them above the logs. or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not.75More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not. Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.
ג׳
א׳קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּאִלּוּ שְׁחָטָן בַּצָּפוֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ כא) "וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹלָה וּשְׁחִיטַת הַשְּׁלָמִים:
1When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered on the top of the altar, it is as if they were slaughtered in the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard],1As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2, sacrifices of the most sacred order must be sacrificed in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard. Now, the altar is located in the southern portion. Nevertheless, based on the prooftext the Rambam cites, Zevachim 85a derives that it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals on the top of the altar. as [Exodus 20:21] states: "You shall slaughter upon it2The altar. your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." This teaches that the entire altar is an appropriate place for the slaughter of burnt-offerings3Since it is acceptable for burnt-offerings, our Sages assumed that it was also acceptable for other sacrifices of the most-sacred order. and peace-offerings.4Peace-offerings are sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity which may be sacrificed anywhere in the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). Nevertheless, it is necessary to state that they may be sacrificed on the top of the altar, because one might think that since there is ample space to sacrifice them, they would have to be sacrificed on the ground (Zevachim, loc. cit.; Gittin 67a).
ב׳עוֹלָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְמַטָּה וְהֶעֱלָה אוֹתָהּ לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. יַפְשִׁיט אוֹתָהּ וִינַתְּחֶנָּה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. וּמוֹרִיד הַקְּרָבַיִם וּמְדִיחָן לְמַטָּה. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן וּמוֹרִיד הָעוֹר וְנוֹתְנוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים:
2When a burnt-offering was slaughtered on the top of the altar or it was slaughtered below [on the ground of the Temple Courtyard] and then brought up to the top of the altar, it should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below5For it is not respectful to clean out the wastes on the top of the altar. and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin should be taken down and given to the priests.6See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:19.
ג׳וְכֵן זְבָחִים שְׁחוּטִים שֶׁעָלוּ לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַפְשִׁיטָן וּמְנַתְּחָן בִּמְקוֹמָן וּמוֹרִיד הַקְּרָבַיִם וּמְדִיחָן בְּמַיִם וְחוֹזֵר וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן וּמוֹרִיד אֶת הָעוֹר וְאֶת הַבָּשָׂר וְנוֹתְנוֹ לַבְּעָלִים וְחוֹזֵר וּמַקְטִיר אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יוֹרִיד הַכּל אֶלָּא יַפְשִׁיט וִינַתֵּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שֶׁכָּל הָרָאוּי לָאִשִּׁים אִם עָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יֵרֵד. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כט לז) "כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקְדָּשׁ". יָכוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (ויקרא ו ב) "הִיא הָעלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה". מָה עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לָאִשִּׁים אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד אַף כָּל הָרָאוּי לָאִשִּׁים אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד:
3Similarly, when [other] sacrifices that had been slaughtered were brought up to the altar, they should be skinned and cut into portions in that place. The inner organs should be taken down and washed below and then brought back [to the top of the altar]. The skin and the meat should be taken down and given to the owners. The remainder [of the sacrifice] should be offered on the altar's pyre.Why shouldn't he bring down the entire [carcass] instead of skinning it and cutting it up on the top of the altar? Because anything that is fit to be offered on the pyre7This refers to an entity like the carcass of a sacrifice which in its present state is not fit to be offered on the altar, but is not lacking any great tasks like slaughter. if it was brought up to the top of the altar should not be taken down,8This general principle (stated in Zevachim 9:1) is the subject of discussion in the following halachot. as [indicated by ibid. 29:36]: "Everything that touches the altar shall be sanctified."Does [the above principle apply] even when [the entity brought to the top of the altar] is not fit [to be offered on the altar's pyre]? It is taught [Leviticus 6:2] "It is the burnt-offering on the pyre." Just as the burnt-offering is fit to be consumed by the altar's pyre should not be taken down once it was taken up [to the altar], so too, any entity that is fit for the altar's pyre9But only an article that is fit to be consumed by the fires. if it is brought up, it should not be brought down.
ד׳עוֹלָה שֶׁהֶעֱלָהּ חַיָּה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תֵּרֵד שֶׁעֲדַיִן אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה:
4When [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering is brought up to the top of the altar while alive, it should be brought down, because it is not yet fit [to be consumed by the altar's pyre].
ה׳וְכֵן קֹמֶץ הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. וְכָל אִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁעָלוּ יֵרְדוּ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן:
5Similarly, a handful of meal from a meal-offering that was not consecrated in a sacred vessel10Unless a meal offering is consecrated in a sacred vessel, it is unacceptable. and all entities that are forbidden to be offered on the altar11Animals forbidden to be sacrificed, e.g., one that was worshipped, one that is treifah, or one which killed a person or the like. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.The commentaries question why the Rambam does not mention animals with disqualifying physical blemishes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:3) he rules that even if they were brought to the top of the altar, they should be brought down. And if the Rambam changed his mind, it would have been appropriate to say so explicitly. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that such animals are also included in the general category of "entities forbidden to be offered on the altar," as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit..should be taken down from the altar even if they were brought up, because from the outset, they were not fit [to be offered on the pyre].12The leniency that every entity brought up to the altar should be offered upon it applies only to entities that were disqualified after having been fit to be offered upon it. As our Sages taught (Zevachim 84a; see Halachah 8) whenever an entity was disqualified in the Temple, if it was brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered. In this instance, these substances were never fit to be offered on the altar's pyre.
ו׳וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ נִשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָאת חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד:
6Similarly, when a consecrated animal was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, or its [blood]13This addition is obvious from a comparison to the following halachah. was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, if it was taken up [to the altar's top], it should be taken down.14Even though it was disqualified in the Temple, nevertheless, it was disqualified before the time its meat and/or fats and organs were to be offered on the altar's pyre (see Zevachim 84a,b).
ז׳אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלָּנוּ אוֹ שֶׁלָּן הַדָּם אוֹ הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָאֵימוּרִים. וְזֶבַח שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמָא אוֹ נִפְסַל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן אוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם אוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי. אוֹ שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ הַטְּמֵאִים וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיִין בַּעֲבוֹדַת קָרְבָּן הַבָּא בְּטֻמְאָה. וְשֶׁנָּתַן דָּמוֹ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ אוֹ קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּדָּרוֹם אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל דָּמָם בַּדָּרוֹם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִים אִם עָלוּ לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יֵרְדוּ:
7[Different rules apply] if, by contrast, sacrificial animals were left overnight - whether their blood, their meat, or their fats and organs were left overnight;15Once blood is left past sunset, it is disqualified (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1) and if the meat of a burnt-offering is left overnight, it is disqualified (ibid.:2). Nevertheless, since the meat of a peace-offering is acceptable if left overnight, this is not a serious enough disqualifying factor to prevent these entities from being offered on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).a sacrificial animal was taken out of the Temple Courtyard;it became impure or disqualified because of a disqualifying thought concerning the time [it was to be eaten] or the place [it was to be eaten];it was sacrificed for the sake of a different offering;16See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors.impure [priests] received its blood and cast it on the altar; [this is significant] since they are fit to perform Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity;17See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10-12.when the blood was presented in an improper place;18In which instance, after the fact, in many instances, the sacrifice is acceptable, as stated in Chapter 2.or sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard or their blood was received there.19Rather than in the north as required (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2).Although in all of these situations, [the sacrifices] are disqualified, if [the meat, fats, and/or organs] were brought to the top of the altar, they should not be taken down.
ח׳כָּל שֶׁפִּסּוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְקַבְּלוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ כָּךְ אִם יָרְדוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי פְּסוּלִין הֵם:
8[This is the general principle:] Whenever an entity is disqualified in the Temple Courtyard,20Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Zevachim 84a. the holiness [of the altar] accepts it.21After the fact, as stated above. Just as when these entities were brought up, they should not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they should not be brought up a second time. For they have been disqualified.
ט׳וְאִם מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶם הָאוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּרְדוּ יַעֲלוּ שְׁנִיָּה וְיַשְׁלִים הַקְטָרָתָן:
9If the [altar's] fire took hold of them22See Chapter 18, Halachah 21, where the Rambam speaks of the fire taking hold of the majority of the entity. Seemingly, that concept would apply here as well. [before they were brought down from the altar], they should be brought up again [so that] they will be consumed by its fire.
י׳קֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְפַּגֵּל וּמִקְצָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתוֹ מָשְׁלָה בּוֹ הָאוּר יַעֲלֶה כֻּלּוֹ:
10When the handful of meal [from the meal-offering] becomes disqualified as piggul,23See Chapter 13, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term. and a portion of it is on the ground and a portion took fire, the entire [handful] should be brought up [to the altar to be consumed].24For the handful of meal is considered as an integral entity.
י״אאֵיבָרִים וַחֲלָבִים וּקְמָצִים שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ כְּאִלּוּ לָנוּ בָּעֲזָרָה וְאִם יָרְדוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא יָרְדוּ מַקְטִירִין אוֹתָן לְעוֹלָם:
11When limbs, fats, and handfuls of meal were left overnight on the top of the altar, it is as if they were left overnight in the Temple Courtyard.25I.e., they are disqualified. Nevertheless, they should be offered on the altar's pyre, because they are on the top of the altar. If they were brought down from the altar, they should not be brought up again. If, however, they were not brought down, they should be offered on the altar's pyre in all situations.
י״בוַאֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ כְּמִזְבֵּחַ. וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן קֹדֶם זְרִיקַת דָּמִים לֹא יֵרְדוּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ:
12The open space above the altar is considered as the altar.26Thus even if the disqualified sacrificial entities were not placed down on the altar, but held by a person standing on the altar, the above concepts apply (see Zevachim 88a). Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Talmud mentions also a situation where a person is standing in the Temple Courtyard and holds a disqualified sacrificial entity over the altar with a pole. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Talmud does not reach a final decision whether such an entity should be offered on the altar's pyre or not, because of the doubt, they should not be taken down from above the altar. When one brought the fats and the organs of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity27Certainly, this applies to the fats and the organs of sacrifices of the most sacred order (Kessef Mishneh). up [to the altar] before their blood was poured on the altar,28Instead of afterwards, as required. they should not be taken down, because they have become "the food of the altar."
י״גהִפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת וְשָׁחַט אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם וְקָדַם וְהֶעֱלָה אֵימוּרִים שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם קֹדֶם זְרִיקָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֵרְדוּ:
13[The following law applies when a person] sets aside two [animals for] a guilt-offering,29Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh). one intended to serve as surety for the other.30I.e., if one was lost, the other would be sacrificed (Rashi, Meilah 7a). If he slaughtered both of them and brought the fats and organs of one up [to the altar] before [the blood] was cast [upon it], they should be brought down.31The blood of the second animal should be cast on the altar and then its fats and organs offered. Since two animals were slaughtered and one offering can be carried out in a perfectly desirable manner, that is preferable to performing the offering in a manner that is effective only after the fact. Since the second animal will be offered in an effective manner, the blood of the first should not be cast on the altar. And since its blood should not be cast on the altar, the fat and the organs should not be offered on the altar's pyre (ibid.).
י״דהַזֶּבַח הַפָּסוּל וְהַנְּסָכִים הַפְּסוּלִים שֶׁעָלוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. הַזֶּבַח לֹא יֵרֵד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָאִשִּׁים. וְהַנְּסָכִים יֵרְדוּ. וְכֵן נְסָכִים הַבָּאִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ וְעָלוּ יֵרְדוּ:
14When an unacceptable sacrifice and unacceptable wine libations32This clause is speaking about wine libations that were brought as accompanying offerings for a sacrifice. were brought up to the altar, the sacrifice should not be taken down as we explained. The wine libations, [by contrast,] should be taken down.33This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:1, who maintains that for a disqualified entity to be offered on the altar, it must be fit for the altar's pyre and wine libations are poured over the altar and not on its pyre. Similarly, when wine libations are brought independently and they were disqualified and brought to the top of the altar, they should be taken down.
ט״ועוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקוֹ זָר וְעָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד. וְקֹמֶץ הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ וְעָלָה יֵרֵד. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה פָּסוּל וְזֶה פָּסוּל זֶה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ כְּלָל. וְאֶחָד הַזָּר וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר הַפְּסוּלִים:
15When melikah was performed on a fowl by a non-priest and then it was brought to the top of the altar, it should not be taken down.34The rationale is that in the era when sacrifices could be brought on individual altars (see the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1), it was possible for a non-priest to perform melikah on a fowl that was offered as a sacrifice. Hence, even after the Temple was built, when a non-priest performs melikah on a fowl, that act is significant enough to endow with holiness to the extent that if the fowl is brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered on the pyre (Zevachim 69a). If, [by contrast,] a handful of meal was taken by a non-priest and brought to the top of the altar, it should be brought down. Even though both of these acts disqualify [the offerings], [the handful from the meal-offering] is considered as if it was never consecrated at all.35One might ask: Why isn't the handful of meal acceptable? When offerings were brought on an individual altar, a handful of meal could also be separated by a non-priest. In resolution, however, it is explained that in the Temple, the handful of meal was afterwards placed in a sacred utensil (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12) and then offered on the altar and such service was not performed by a non-priest on an individual altar (Zevachim, loc. cit.). [These laws apply to] a non-priest as well as to anyone else who is disqualified [from performing sacrificial service].36E.g., a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity; one who is intoxicated; one in the state of severe onein mourning (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah).
ט״זוְאֵלּוּ אִם יַעֲלוּ יֵרְדוּ. כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָאִשִּׁים. בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וּבְשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. מוֹתַר הָעֹמֶר וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וְהַקְּטֹרֶת. וְצֶמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְּבָשִׂים וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁבִּזְקַן הַתְּיָשִׁים וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים. וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינָן מְחֻבָּרִים אִם עָלוּ יֵרְדוּ:
16The following, however, should be taken down [even though] they were brought up to the top of the altar, anything that is not fit37I.e., halachically not fit to be offered, but either eaten, offered on the inner altar, or discarded. for the altar's pyre. [This includes:] the meat of sacrifices of the most sacred order, the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,38The meat of these sacrifices should not be offered on the altar, but rather eaten by the priests and, with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the owners. the remainder of the omer, the remainder of the meal-offerings,39After a handful of meal is taken from the omer and the meal-offerings, the remainder should not be offered on the altar, but eaten by the priests. the two breads [offered on Shavuot], the showbread,40These breads are eaten by the priests. the incense offering,41This is not fit to be offered on the pyre of the outer altar, but instead, on coals on the inner altar. the wool that is on the heads of sheep, the hair on the beards of goats, the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hoofs if they are not attached to [the animal's body].42Once these entities are separated from an animal's body, they should be discarded rather than offered on the altar's pyre. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:2. [In all these instances,] if [these entities] were brought to the top [of the altar], they should be brought down.
י״זקֹמֶץ שֶׁמִּצָּה שַׁמְנוֹ עַל הָעֶצֶם וְיָרַד הָעֶצֶם יַחֲזִירוֹ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא חִבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין כְּעוֹלִין הֵם חֲשׁוּבִין:
17If some of the oil from the handful of meal was squeezed out on a bone43The Rambam's ruling is derived from the version of Menachot 23a in his possession. Ra'avad, Rashi, as well as the standard published text of that passage follow a different version which reads eitzim, wood, rather than etzem,, bone. [that had been laying on the altar] and then the bone was taken down, it should be returned [to the altar]. [The rationale is that] there is an unresolved doubt whether entities attached to entities that should be brought up [to the altar]44The oil is the entity that should be returned to the altar and the bone is the entity attached to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). Although on its own accord, the bone should not be returned to the altar as stated in the previous halachah, since it is attached to the oil, it should be returned, lest this be considered as treating sacred articles with disdain (Kessef Mishneh). are considered as if they should be brought up as well.
י״חמִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְקַדֵּשׁ פְּסוּלִים בֵּין רְאוּיִין לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לוֹ. אֲבָל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא פְּסוּלִין הָרְאוּיִין לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. כֵּיצַד. מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁעָלוּ לוֹ זְבָחִים שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ. עָלְתָה לוֹ קְטֹרֶת זָרָה תֵּרֵד שֶׁאֵין הַקְּטֹרֶת זָרָה רְאוּיָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. אֲבָל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי שֶׁעָלָה לוֹ קֹמֶץ מִנְחָה בֵּין כָּשֵׁר בֵּין פָּסוּל לֹא יֵרֵד. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ כָּךְ הַכֶּבֶשׁ וּשְׁאָר כְּלֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בַּכֵּלִים (שמות ל כט) "כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ". מִשֶּׁיַּגִּיעַ לַכֶּבֶשׁ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לוֹ לֹא יֵרֵד וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְסַל. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לִכְלִי שָׁרֵת כָּל דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לוֹ מִתְקַדֵּשׁ וְלֹא יִפָּדֶה לְעוֹלָם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְסַל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּאִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
18The inner altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it,45The inner altar has an added measure of holiness, because it was anointed and thus is comparable to a sacred vessel (Rashi, Zevachim 23b). but the outer altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it, as we explained.46See Halachah 16.What is implied? When sacrifices that were disqualified are brought up to the outer altar, they should not be brought down. If an unfitting incense offering47This includes all incense offerings, because no incense offerings are ever offered on the outer altar. was offered upon it, it should be brought down, because an incense offering is not fit for the outer altar. If, by contrast, a handful of meal from the meal-offering was placed on the inner altar, it should not be taken off, whether it was fit or not fit. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.Just as the altar sanctifies any entity that is fit for it, so too, the ramp, and other sacred utensils, sanctify what is fit for them. For with regard to the sacred utensils, [Exodus 30:29] states: "Any entity that touches them will be sanctified." Thus when an entity that is fit for it reaches the ramp, it should not be brought down even though it is disqualified.48Instead, it should be offered on the altar's pyre. Similarly, if any entity that is fit for a sacred vessel reaches a sacred vessel, it should never be redeemed even though it was disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach.49Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.
י״טאֵין כְּלֵי הַלַּח מְקַדְּשׁוֹת אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ. וְלֹא כְּלֵי הַיָּבֵשׁ מְקַדְּשׁוֹת אֶת הַלַּח. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִדּוֹת הַלַּח וְהַיָּבֵשׁ שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֲבָל הַמִּזְרָקוֹת מְקַדְּשׁוֹת הַלַּח וְהַיָּבֵשׁ. וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין דַּם הַפָּסוּל לִקָּרֵב:
19Vessels made for liquids do not consecrate solids and vessels made for solids do not consecrate liquids.To what does the above apply? To the liquid and dry measures that existed in the Temple which we mentioned in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash.50Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash 1:16-17. The rationale is that these vessels were anointed only for the sake of measuring and only for measuring the particular types of substances - liquids or solids - intended for them. Receptacles,51The receptacles used to receive the blood from the sacrificial animal and then cast it on the altar. by contrast, consecrate both liquids and solids.52Since they were anointed to serve as receptacles, they consecrate anything placed inside of them. Sacred utensils sanctify blood that was disqualified and cause it to be offered [on the altar].
כ׳כָּל כְּלֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִתּוֹכָן וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא שְׁלֵמִים. נִקְּבוּ אִם עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין וְהֵם שְׁלֵמִים מְקַדְּשִׁין וְאִם לָאו אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין. וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא מְלֵאִין. אֲבָל הַמִּדּוֹת אֵין מְקַדְּשׁוֹת חֲסֵרוֹת אֶלָּא אִם דַּעְתּוֹ לְמַלְּאוֹתָן. וְאִם אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְמַלְּאוֹתָן מְקַדְּשׁוֹת לְהִפָּסֵל אֲבָל לֹא לִקָּרֵב:
20Sacred vessels only consecrate [entities] in the Temple.53If, by contrast, an entity is placed within a sacred vessel outside the Temple Courtyard, it is not consecrated. Also, they only consecrate [entities placed in them] willfully,54And not something that fell in accidentally. from their insides,55If, however, solids are piled up over the edges of a sacred container, they are not consecrated. Note the apparent contrast to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19 which states that liquid measures consecrate the overflow that drips down their sides. and when intact. [The following rules apply if] a hole was made within them. If they could still be used to perform the original task for which they were used when intact, they consecrate what is placed within. If not,56I.e., the hole prevents them from being used as a container. they do not consecrate [their contents].They consecrate [their contents] only when they are full. The measures do not consecrate their contents when they are lacking unless one intends to fill them. If one does not intend to fill them, they consecrate their contents only in that [the contents] could [later] be disqualified,57I.e., if they remained overnight or were taken out of the Temple Courtyard. but not to have them offered.58This refers to offerings of flour and the like. As mentioned in the previous halachah, blood that is placed in such utensils is sanctified to be offered on the altar.
כ״אכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּן לְהִפָּסֵל אֲבָל לֹא לְהִקָּרֵב. כֵּיצַד. דָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּלַּיְלָה נִפְסַל וְיִשָּׂרֵף. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ קָרֵב. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּמַץ מִנְחָה בַּלַּיְלָה וְנָתַן קֻמְצָהּ לִכְלִי שָׁרֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ נִשְׂרֶפֶת:
21[When an entity is placed] in a sacred vessel at an inappropriate time, it is consecrated only to the extent that it is disqualified, not that it should be offered.What is implied? When an entity whose mitzvah is performed during the day is placed into a sacred vessel at night, it is disqualified.59I.e., placing it in the sacred utensil is significant - for if it was not significant, it would not have been disqualified, and would have been able to be used on the following day. It should be burnt,60As are sacred entities which became disqualified. but not sacrificed. For example, if a handful is taken from a meal-offering at night and that handful is placed in a sacred vessel, it should be burnt.
כ״במִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם נִפְסְלוּ כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם שְׁחוּטִין בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִזְרַק דָּמָם. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לִזְרֹק עָלָיו וְנֶאֱמַר (שמות כ כא) "וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ" כְּלוֹמַר תִּזְבַּח וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתִקּוּנוֹ לֹא פָּגוּם:
22When an altar became damaged,61The square of the altar must be totally intact, even a slight chip disqualifies it, as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14-16; 2:18. all of the sacrificial animals that were in the Temple and had been slaughtered, but whose blood had not been cast on the altar, are disqualified.62Even if the altar is repaired before sunset, the blood of these sacrifices should not be cast upon it. Since at the outset, the altar was fit to have their blood cast upon it and then there was a time when that service could not be performed, the blood is disqualified forever. For there is no altar on which to cast the blood and [Exodus 20:21] states: "And you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings." Implied is that when you slaughter [your offerings,] it shall be intact and not blemished.
כ״גאֲבָל קָדָשִׁים חַיִּים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם בָּעֲזָרָה כְּשֶׁנִּפְגַּם לֹא נִפְסְלוּ. אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיִּבָּנֶה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקָּרְבוּ שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין:
23Sacrificial animals that were alive and located in the Temple Courtyard at the time [the altar] became damaged are not disqualified. Instead, when the altar is repaired, they should be sacrificed. [The rationale is that] living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.63This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 6, Halachah 1; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; et al.As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:15, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's initial position on the matter.
כ״דהִקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְנָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כְּשֶׁיִּבָּנֶה מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָן שֶׁהַדָּחוּי מֵעִקָּרוֹ אֵינוֹ דָּחוּי:
24If animals were consecrated before the altar was built, they should be sacrificed after the altar was built, for the fact that they could not [be sacrificed] originally is not a disqualifying factor.
כ״הוְכֵן אֵין אוֹכְלִין קָדָשִׁים וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ פָּגוּם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא י יב) "וְאִכְלוּהָ מַצּוֹת אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ". וְהוּא הַדִּין לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ פָּגוּם עַד שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה:
25Similarly, sacrificial meat should not be eaten while the altar is damaged, as [Leviticus 10:12] states: "You shall eat it64The meal-offering brought as part of the dedication of the altar. As the verse states, it was considered as a sacrifice of the most holy order. as unleavened bread near the altar."65Zevachim 60a explains that there is no obligation to eat sacrificial food near the altar. Rather the intent is as explained here. This also applies to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity; they should not be eaten in Jerusalem while the altar is damaged until it is repaired.
ד׳
א׳וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְחַטָּאת שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יָמוּתוּ. נִמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה הַחַטָּאת הַשְּׁנִיָּה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דָּמָהּ. הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אִם תָּמוּת אִם תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם. לְפִיכָךְ תָּמוּת. וְכֵיצַד הֵן מֵתוֹת. לֹא שֶׁיַּהַרְגֵם בִּכְלִי אוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אֶלָּא יַכְנִיסֵם לְבַיִת וְנוֹעֵל עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּם מִפִּי משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ נִשְׁמְעוּ. אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּחַטַּאת יָחִיד בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל חַטַּאת צִבּוּר שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַר כַּפָּרָה בֵּין רְאוּיָה בֵּין אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּחַטַּאת צִבּוּר וָלָד אוֹ תְּמוּרָה אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ. שֶׁכָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר זְכָרִים וְאֵין הַצִּבּוּר עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְאֵין כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵתִים:
1[All of the following:]a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, andd) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement,1Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13. should be consigned to die.[In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt2The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented. if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.3When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it. Therefore4For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed. it should be consigned to death.What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher.All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured - whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit5It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.- should be left to pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold.6See footnote 3. The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings.7I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].With regard to communal sin-offerings, it is impossible to speak of offspring, exchanges, or the owners dying, because all of the communal offerings are male.8Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring. The community cannot exchange one sacrificial animal for another as will be explained.9Hilchot Temurah 1:1. And the entire Jewish people will not die.10In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.
ב׳פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת הַצִּבּוּר מֵתָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקְרְבוּ עַצְמָן נְדָבָה שֶׁהֲרֵי זְכָרִים הֵם. גְּזֵרָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה:
2When the bull11Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1 and/or the goat12The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.). of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings.13The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests. [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities14See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1. are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found].Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].15For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.
ג׳הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶם עוֹמְדוֹת. מָשַׁךְ אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵיהֶן וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ הָאַחֶרֶת תָּמוּת. בָּא לְהִמָּלֵךְ אוֹמְרִין לוֹ שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּזוֹ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן תְּמִימָה וְאַחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תְּמִימָה תִּקָּרֵב וּבַעֲלַת מוּם תִּפָּדֶה. נִשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דַּם הַתְּמִימָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין יִמָּכְרוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְיָבִיא מִדְּמֵיהֶם חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפּל לִנְדָבָה:
3[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death.16Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi, Temurah 23a).This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov to Temurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above. If he asks the advice [of the court],17And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death. he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.18See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed.19And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above. If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar],20The act that brings about atonement. it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].21This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]." If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.22See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
ד׳הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת וְנִמְצְאוּ הָאוֹבְדוֹת וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. שְׁנִיָּה מֵתָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית רוֹעָה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית שְׁנִיָּה מֵתָה וְרִאשׁוֹנָה רוֹעָה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית שְׁתֵּיהֶם מֵתוֹת:
4[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish].23Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death. If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture.24For the same reason as stated in the previous note. If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.25For both of these share a direct connection with the second.
ה׳הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֵי זוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה:
5When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety,26So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering." he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
ו׳הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה. הֲרֵי הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ כִּשְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁנִּתְפָּרְשׁוּ לְאַחֲרָיוּת:
6When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.27And he can offer either as a sacrifice.
ז׳הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ. תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם יָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת:
7If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed,28A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old. it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.
ח׳כָּל חַטָּאת שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת קֹדֶם כַּפָּרָה. (אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ) אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. נִמְצֵאת אַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ עָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תָּמוּת:
8Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement,29Through the offering of another sacrifice. - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed30And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate. - it is not consigned to death.31According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death. Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed,32In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death. since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.
ט׳הָיְתָה גְּנוּבָה אוֹ גְּזוּלָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה. אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה. לֹא שָׁמְעוּ מִמּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ אֶלָּא אֲבוּדָה. הָיְתָה עִקַּר אֲבֵדָתָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה:
9If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death].33As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.If it first34Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance. was lost at night, even though it remained lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is not consigned to death.35Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
י׳אָבְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא מִן הָרוֹעֶה. אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה מִן הָרוֹעֶה וְאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה מִבְּעָלֶיהָ. אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא רוֹעָה:
10If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it].36As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
י״אוְכָל אֵלּוּ שֶׁרוֹעוֹת רוֹעוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה:
11All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.
י״בהָיְתָה אֲבוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִן הָרוֹעֶה וְאַחֵר מַכִּירָה. אֲפִלּוּ בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק לְפִיכָךְ תָּמוּת:
12If [the animal] was considered lost by both [the owner] and the shepherd, but another person - even in a far corner of the world - knows of its existence, there is an unresolved doubt whether it should be consigned to death.37Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal's existence, it is not consigned to death. Therefore it should be consigned to death.38As stated in Halachah 1.
י״גהָיְתָה נֶחְבֵּאת אֲחוֹרֵי הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ בְּסֵתֶר הַמַּדְרֵגָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבוּדָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. הָיְתָה בַּשָּׂדֶה אוֹ בַּאֲגַם הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אֲבוּדָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ שָׁם אָדָם רוֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. לְפִיכָךְ תָּמוּת מִסָּפֵק:
13[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.
י״דהַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חַטָּאתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף. אוֹ בְּחַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת סְמִיכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אָשָׁם וַדַּאי שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו. וְשֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו. יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת תָּמוּת בְּאָשָׁם יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה:
14When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive.When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained.39Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to perform semichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed. [Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering.40The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:6. [If] its owner died or received atonement,41Through the sacrifice of another animal. it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
ט״וכָּל אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתַּק לִרְעִיָּה. אִם הִקְרִיבוֹ עוֹלָה כָּשֵׁר. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקָּרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ עוֹלָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה. גְּזֵרָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה:
15[If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself,42I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering. it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.43For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.
ט״זהַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לַאֲשָׁמוֹ תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אָשָׁם. אִם הִקְרִיב אֲשָׁמוֹ יִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. וְכֵן וְלָדָהּ:
16When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.44All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering.45For it was consecrated for that purpose. If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.46If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.
י״זהִפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָתוֹ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עוֹלָה:
17When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a burnt-offering47All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated. in which he [is obligated] and she gives birth to a male, [the offspring] should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a burnt-offering.48The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.
י״חאֲבָל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ זָכָר לְחַטָּאת וְנָשִׂיא שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שְׂעִירָה לְחַטָּאת. וְכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פָּרָה לְחַטָּאת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵין מִתְקַדְּשִׁין לֹא קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְלֹא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים. לְפִיכָךְ יִמָּכְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמוּם:
18If, however, an ordinary person49In contrast to a king or a High Priest. set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering,50All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15). a king51This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6). set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering,52Instead of a he-goat as required. or an anointed priest set aside a cow,53Instead of a bull as required. these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated,54So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose. nor is their worth consecrated.55In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.56The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution.
י״טהֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא אוֹ שֶׁחָטָא וַדַּאי. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם דָוֶה עַל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו וְהוֹאִיל וְעַל סָפֵק הִפְרִישׁוֹ גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְהַקְדִּישׁ. הִפְרִישׁ אֲפִלּוּ עַל פִּי עֵדִים וְהוּזַמּוּ יִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ. הַדָּם יִשָּׁפֵךְ וְהַבָּשָׂר יִשָּׂרֵף כִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. נוֹדַע לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם. הַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל לַכֹּהֲנִים כְּכָל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת:
19[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering57Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering, and then discovered that he did not sin58In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all. or that he definitely sinned.59In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead. [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.60I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice. [The rationale61I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated. is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses62I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat. and the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah,63Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well. [the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out64In the drainage channel. and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified.65See Chapter 19, Halachah 1. If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.66For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.
כ׳אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵּן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין וְאֵין בּוֹ קְדֻשָּׁה כְּלָל. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם. הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה כִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:
20[This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal.67Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all. There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried.68I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.69See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.
כ״אמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְהִפְרִישׁ שְׁנַיִם לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֶחָד וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּאָשָׁם וַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא כֵּן:
21When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety,70I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it. he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.71As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.72Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances. Needless to say,73The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering. this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.
כ״בכָּל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בָּאִין בְּנֵי שְׁתַּיִם וּבָאִים בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע וַאֲשַׁם נָזִיר שֶׁהֵם בְּנֵי שָׁנָה וְאֵין לִדְמֵיהֶם קִצְבָה. אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בָּא מִן הַקְּטַנִּים אוֹ מִן הַגְּדוֹלִים. וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים:
22All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life74More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old. and their price should be [two] silver shekalim75As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man. with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at76A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12. and the guilt offering brought by a nazirite77When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12. which should be brought in their first year of life78As specifically stated in the Torah. and their cost has no limit.A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones.79This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by the Kessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim.
כ״גהוּזְלוּ אֵילִים וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא אַיִל בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא יִשְׁהֵא עַד שֶׁיּוּקְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה עַל דָּמָיו וְנָתְנָה לוֹ קִצְבָה:
23If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance].80He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less. He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.
כ״דהִפְרִישׁ אֲשָׁמוֹ וְהָיָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה יָפֶה סֶלַע וּבִשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה יָפֶה שְׁתַּיִם כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁהַדָּחוּי מֵעִקָּרוֹ אֵינוֹ דָּחוּי וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִרְאֶה עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה שָׁוֶה שְׁתַּיִם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵאֵלָיו אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָיָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה יָפֶה שְׁתַּיִם וּבִשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה יָפֶה סֶלַע הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. חָזַר וְנַעֲשָׂה יָפֶה שְׁתַּיִם יַחְזֹר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְמוּם שֶׁנָּפַל וְעָבַר:
24If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] one sela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement,81I.e., when it was sacrificed. it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own,82I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus). a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property.83I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable.84For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount. If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained.85Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared.
כ״ההִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים לְאָשָׁם וְלָקַח בָּהֶם שְׁנֵי אֵילִים לְאָשָׁם. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים יִקָּרֵב לַאֲשָׁמוֹ וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה:
25[The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering86Since it is of the required worth. and the other should be left to pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.87In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.
כ״והָיָה חַיָּב בְּאָשָׁם בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ בְּבֶן שְׁתַּיִם וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שָׁנָה. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן בַּבְּעָלִים. פָּסוּל וּתְעֵבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַפָּסוּל בְּחַטָּאת פָּסוּל בְּאָשָׁם. חוּץ מִן הָאָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:
26If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old,88I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite. and instead, brought one that was two years old,89As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings. brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come,90E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unaceeptable. it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day91We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (see Pesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour period. and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guilt-offering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.92Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.
כ״זעוֹלַת נָזִיר. עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת. עוֹלַת מְצֹרָע. שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּנֵי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד. אוֹ מְחֻסְּרֵי זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים. כְּשֵׁרִים וּטְעוּנִין נְסָכִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה. בֵּין עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לָהֶם:
27When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite,93When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1. a woman who gives birth,94The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.. or a person who is being purified after tza'arat,95See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit. was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come,96See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus. it is acceptable97I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering. and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought.This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.