Although 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.

Rav 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.

The 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.

Casting 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.

This 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 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.

For 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.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.

The 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.

For 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.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.

See ibid.:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.

Based 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.

As 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.

This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices.

In 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.

The 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.

Since 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.

Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling.

Since 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.

Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup.

The 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.

E.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.

Sin-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.

I.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.

The 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.

See the notes to Halachah 10.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11.

I.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.

For 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.

Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar.

Which 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.

As 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.

I.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.

See Halachah 10.

Because, 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.

For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner.

I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner.

The Kessef Mishnehnotes 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.

Just 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 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.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary.

For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices.

I.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.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.

But the required number of sprinklings were not completed.

Just 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.

Even 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.

The 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.

That should be offered on the outer altar.

For 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.

Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified.

Even 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.

Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim 92b).

This 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.

I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle.

For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.

With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25.

Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard.

Into 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).

The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

Since 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 4:26 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.

I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice.

This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. From 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).

See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.

In 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).

Blood 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.).

Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh).

Rav 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.

This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:17-18.

Instead of placing them above the logs.

More 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.

As 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.

The altar.

Since it is acceptable for burnt-offerings, our Sages assumed that it was also acceptable for other sacrifices of the most-sacred order.

Peace-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).

For it is not respectful to clean out the wastes on the top of the altar.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:19.

This 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.

This general principle (stated in Zevachim 9:1) is the subject of discussion in the following halachot.

But only an article that is fit to be consumed by the fires.

Unless a meal offering is consecrated in a sacred vessel, it is unacceptable.

Animals 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..

The 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.

This addition is obvious from a comparison to the following halachah.

Even 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).

Once 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).

See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors.

See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10-12.

In which instance, after the fact, in many instances, the sacrifice is acceptable, as stated in Chapter 2.

Rather than in the north as required (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2).

Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary, Zevachim 84a.

After the fact, as stated above.

See 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.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term.

For the handful of meal is considered as an integral entity.

I.e., they are disqualified. Nevertheless, they should be offered on the altar's pyre, because they are on the top of the altar.

Thus 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.

Certainly, this applies to the fats and the organs of sacrifices of the most sacred order (Kessef Mishneh).

Instead of afterwards, as required.

Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., if one was lost, the other would be sacrificed (Rashi, Meilah 7a).

The 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.).

This clause is speaking about wine libations that were brought as accompanying offerings for a sacrifice.

This 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.

The 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 on 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).

One 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.).

E.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).

I.e., halachically not fit to be offered, but either eaten, offered on the inner altar, or discarded.

The 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.

After 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.

These breads are eaten by the priests.

This is not fit to be offered on the pyre of the outer altar, but instead, on coals on the inner altar.

Once 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.

The 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.

The 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).

The inner altar has an added measure of holiness, because it was anointed and thus is comparable to a sacred vessel (Rashi, Zevachim 23b).

See Halachah 16.

This includes all incense offerings, because no incense offerings are ever offered on the outer altar.

Instead, it should be offered on the altar's pyre.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.

Hilchot 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.

The receptacles used to receive the blood from the sacrificial animal and then cast it on the altar.

Since they were anointed to serve as receptacles, they consecrate anything placed inside of them.

If, by contrast, an entity is placed within a sacred vessel outside the Temple Courtyard, it is not consecrated.

And not something that fell in accidentally.

If, 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.

I.e., the hole prevents them from being used as a container.

I.e., if they remained overnight or were taken out of the Temple Courtyard.

This 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.

I.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.

As are sacred entities which became disqualified.

The 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.

Even 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.

This 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.

The 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.

Zevachim 60a explains that there is no obligation to eat sacrificial food near the altar. Rather the intent is as explained here.

Through 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.

The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented.

When 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.

For 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 became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.

When 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.

I.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)].

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring.

Hilchot Temurah 1:1.

In 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.

Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1

The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.).

The 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.

See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.

For 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.

Since 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.

And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.

And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above.

The act that brings about atonement.

This 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]."

See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

Since 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.

For the same reason as stated in the previous note.

For both of these share a direct connection with the second.

So 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."

And he can offer either as a sacrifice.

A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.

Through the offering of another sacrifice.

And 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.

According 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.

In 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.

As 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.

Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.

Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.

As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.

Temurah 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.

As stated in Halachah 1.

Hilchot 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.

The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:6.

Through the sacrifice of another animal.

I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering.

For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.

All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.

For it was consecrated for that purpose.

If 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.

All 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.

The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.

In contrast to a king or a High Priest.

All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15).

This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6).

Instead of a he-goat as required.

Instead of a bull as required.

So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.

In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.

The 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.

Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering,

In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all.

In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead.

I.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.

I.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.

I.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.

Hazamah 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.

In the drainage channel.

See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.

Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all.

I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.

See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.

As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.

Since 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.

The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.

More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old.

As 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.

A 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.

When 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.

As specifically stated in the Torah.

This 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.

He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less.

I.e., when it was sacrificed.

I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus).

I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.

For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount.

Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.

Since it is of the required worth.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if there is 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.

I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite.

As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings.

E.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.

We 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.

Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.

When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3..

See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.

See 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.

I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.