Contact Us
Shabbat, 1 Nissan 5778 / March 17, 2018

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11, Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12, Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13

 Email
Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11

1

Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering,1 the offering is disqualified.2Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense,3 the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.

א

כל המנחות שקמצן אחד מן הפסולין לעבודה הרי הם פסולות וכן אם לקט הלבונה פסל אע"פ שלא קמץ:

2

[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4

a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable;

b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil;

c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.

ב

קמץ הכשר ונתן לפסול קמץ בימינו ונתן לשמאלו ואחר כך נתנו לכלי קמץ מכלי קודש ונתן לכלי חול פסל:

3

If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5

ג

קמץ ועלה בידו צרור או גרגיר מלח או קורט לבונה פסול:

4

If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6 and it is acceptable.

ד

קמץ עד שהוא בחוץ ונכנס לפנים יחזור ויקמוץ בפנים וכשר:

5

If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7

ה

נתפזר הקומץ על גבי הרצפה יחזור ויאספנו:

6

[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:

it was not placed in a sacred utensil,

the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,

it was brought to the altar8 while not in a sacred utensil,9

or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10

ו

היתה המנחה שלא בכלי שרת או שהיתה קומצה שלא בכלי שרת או שהעלהו למזבח שלא בכלי שרת או שבללה בשמנה חוץ לעזרה פסולה עד שתהיה בלילתה בפנים:

7

All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11 or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12 a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful...." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13 Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.

ז

כל המנחות שיצק עליהן השמן פסול לעבודה כגון הזר וכיוצא בו או שבללן או פתתם או מלחן כשירות הגישן או הניפן חוזר הכהן ומגיש או מניף ואם לא הגיש ולא הניף הכהן כשירות שנאמר והביאה אל בני אהרן וקמץ מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה למד על יציקה ובלילה שכשירה בזר:

8

When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15 of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16 "on all its frankincense."17

ח

מנחה שנפל לתוכה שמן מנחה אחרת או שמן חולין כל שהוא נפסלה חיסר שמנה פסולה חיסר לבונתה כשירה והוא שיהיו עליה שני קורטי לבונה אבל קורט אחד פסולה שנאמר את כל לבונתה:

9

If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugim for every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18 it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.

ט

ריבה שמנה ולבונתה עד שני לוגין לכל עשרון ושני קומצי לבונה לכל מנחה כשירה שני לוגין או שני קומצין או יתר על זה פסולה:

10

If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19 or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20 If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21 If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].

י

מנחת חוטא שנתן עליה שמן או על הקומץ שלה נפסלה נתן עליה לבונה ילקטנה היתה שחוקה הרי זו פסולה מספק שהרי אי אפשר ללקט:

11

If one placed oil on the remnants [of such a meal-offering] after the handful was removed, he is not liable for lashes,22 nor does he disqualify the offering,23 for the handful is acceptable.

יא

נתן שמן על שיריה אחר שקמץ אינו לוקה ולא פסלה שהרי הקומץ כשר:

12

If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24 on an olive-sized portion25 of the meal-offering,26 he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27 unless he places an olive-sized portion28 [on the offering].

יב

נתן משהו שמן על גבי כזית מן המנחה פסלה מספק אבל אם נתן השמן על פחות מכזית לא פסלה ואינו פוסל הלבונה עד שיתן כזית לבונה:

13

Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.

יג

אפילו נתן הלבונה על כל שהוא מן המנחה פסל עד שילקט:

14

If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29 that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.

יד

גבלה במים וקמץ כשירה לא נאמר חריבה אלא משמן:

15

A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.

טו

מנחה שקמצה פעמים כשירה אפילו פעמים רבות והוא שיקטיר כזית בבת אחת שאין הקטרה פחותה מכזית:

16

If one offered the handful [of meal30 on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31 for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32 When a meal-offering was lacking33 before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34 not placing it into a sacred vessel.

טז

הקריב הקומץ בלא מלח פסולה שהמלח מעכב במנחה כמו שביארנו מנחה שחסרה קודם קמיצה יביא מתוך ביתו וימלאנה שהקמיצה היא הקובעת לא נתינתה בכלי שרת:

17

When a person donates a handful35 of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36 are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.

יז

התנדב קומץ לבונה בפני עצמו אם חסר כל שהוא פסול וכן שני בזיכי לבונה שעם הלחם אם חסר אחד מהן כל שהוא פסולין עד שיהיו שני קמצין מתחלה ועד סוף:

18

[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38 If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.

Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40 [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.

יח

הפריש שני קמצין למנחה אחת ואבד אחד מהן קודם קמיצה לא הוקבע לאחר קמיצה הוקבע ופסולה מפני שריבה לבונתה וכן אם הפריש ארבעה קמצים לשני בזיכי לחם ואבדו שנים מהם קודם סלוק הבזיכים לא הוקבעו וכשירים לאחר סלוק הבזיכין הוקבעו ופסולין מפני הרבוי:

19

When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41 the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42

If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.

יט

קומץ מנחה שנטמא והקטירו הציץ מרצה שנאמר ונשא אהרן יצא הקומץ חוץ לעזרה והכניסו והקטירו אין הציץ מרצה שהציץ מרצה על הטמא ואינו מרצה על היוצא:

20

If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43 was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44 or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45 If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46

כ

קמץ את המנחה ואח"כ נטמאו שיריה כולן או נשרפו או יצאו חוץ לעזרה או אבדו לא יקטיר הקומץ ואם הקטיר הורצה נשאר מעט מן השירים בכשרותן יקטיר הקומץ ואותן השירים שנשארו אסורין באכילה:

21

If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47 If one did, it is unacceptable.

כא

היתה מחיצה מלמטה בכלי שיש בו עשרון של מנחה אף על פי שהוא מעורב מלמעלה לא יקמוץ ואם קמץ פסולה:

22

If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48

כב

היה הכלי חלוק במחיצה מלמעלה ומעורב מלמטה קומץ ממנו:

23

If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49 If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50

כג

חלק העשרון בכלי אחד ואין חלקיו נוגעין זה בזה ואין ביניהן מחיצה הרי זה ספק אם מצרף הכלי לקמיצה או אינו מצרף לפיכך לא יקמוץ ואם קמץ לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר הורצה ולא יאכלו השירים:

24

If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,51 the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].

כד

קמץ ונתן הקומץ למעלה על השלחן כנגד גובה מערכת לחם הפנים קדשו השלחן להפסל אבל אינו מקדשו ליקרב ואינו קרב עד שיתקדש בכלי שרת הראוי לקומץ:

25

If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53 If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].

כה

הדביק הקומץ לדופן הכלי וקמץ או שהפך הכלי על ידו וקמץ מתוכו ופיו למטה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר הורצה:

26

[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55 and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron].

If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56 The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57 If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58

כו

עשרון שחלקו ואבד אחד מחלקיו והפריש חלק אחר תחתיו ונמצא האבוד והרי שלשתן מונחין בכלי אחד ואין נוגעין זה בזה נטמא זה שאבד הרי הוא מצטרף עם חלק ראשון ונפסלו וזה שהפריש אינו מצטרף אלא ישלים עליו נטמא המופרש מופרש וראשון מצטרפין ונפסלו וזה שנמצא אינו מצטרף עמהן נטמא החלק הראשון הרי האבוד והמופרש תחתיו מצטרפין:

27

Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59 may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60 If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61 [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62 For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.

[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63

כז

וכן לענין קמיצה קמץ מן הנמצא שיריו עם החלק הראשון נאכלין והמופרש אינו נאכל קמץ מן המופרש שיריו נאכלין והנמצא אינו נאכל קמץ מן הראשון שניהן אין נאכלין לפי ששניהן שירים יתירים שהרי הן עשרון שלם ודומין למנחה שלא נקמצה שהיא אסורה והיאך קרב הקומץ הזה והרי לפניו עשרון ומחצה מפני שהקמיצה תלויה בדעת הכהן ובעת שקומץ אין דעתו אלא על העשרון בלבד והרי החלקים אינן נוגעין זה בזה:

28

When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64 the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65 or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66 They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.

כח

קומץ מנחה שנתערב בקומץ מנחה אחרת מקטיר שניהן כאחת והן כשירות וכן אם נתערב הקומץ במנחת כהנים או במנחת הנסכים או בחביתי כהן גדול הרי אלו כשירות ויקטיר הכל כאחד שהכל לאשים:

29

[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.

כט

שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו שנתערבו זו בזו אם יכול לקמוץ מזו בפני עצמו ומזו בפני עצמו כשירות ואם לאו פסולות:

30

When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67 If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

ל

קומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר הכל זו שנקמצה עלתה לבעלים וזו שלא נקמצה לא עלתה לבעלים:

31

If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68 it69 it should not be offered.70 If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

לא

נתערב קומצה בשיריה או שנתערבו שיריה בשירי חברתה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר עלתה לבעלים:

Footnotes
1.

See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:13.

2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by a person unacceptable, it is disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a non-priest.

3.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense.

4.

The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the deed may be corrected.

5.

The frankincense should be shifted to side before the handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful is lacking [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].

6.

Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12).

7.

And the meal-offering is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26).

8.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar.

9.

Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred utensil for each of these stages of service.

10.

Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot9b).

11.

As required for certain meal-offerings; see Leviticus 2:6.

12.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the waving process which is necessary for certain meal-offerings.

13.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23.

14.

One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7).

15.

A handful per offering (ibid.).

16.

There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam. Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam.

17.

The use of a plural term indicates that one particle is not sufficient.

18.

Double the usual measure.

19.

Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: "You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense." See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7.

20.

Because of the transgression involved.

21.

Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified.

22.

For the violation of the above prohibition.

23.

The Rambam's wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so.

24.

Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering.

25.

For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant.

26.

Before the handful of meal is removed.

27.

I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error.

28.

For here also anything less is not considered significant.

29.

Leviticus 7:10 speaks of a meal-offering "mixed with oil or that is dry."

30.

The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted.

31.

Although Menachot 18a states: "If salt was not placed on it, it is acceptable," it is explained (ibid. 20a): "If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did."

32.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other sacrifices.

33.

I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.

34.

Hence it must be complete at that time.

35.

This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13.

36.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2.

37.

Doubling the minimum requirement.

38.

And thus the offering is acceptable.

39.

Doubling the minimum requirement.

40.

On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar.

41.

The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered.

42.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me'ilah 3:9, et al.

43.

Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified.

44.

Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified.

45.

And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

46.

Menachot 9b derives this concept from Leviticus 2:3: "The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons." Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants.

47.

For the handful must be taken from an isaron of flour and since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if the isaron was brought in two containers which is unacceptable (Menachot 24a).

48.

Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity.

49.

Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner.

50.

The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above.

51.

15 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high.

52.

I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam's wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh).

53.

Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved.

54.

The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified.

55.

Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection.

56.

For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering.

57.

For as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection.

58.

For they both share a connection with it.

59.

In its entirety.

60.

Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah).

61.

The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable.

62.

As the Rambam continues to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron.

63.

Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.

64.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.

65.

See ibid. 2:1.

66.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.

67.

I.e., one might desire to offer the entire mixture so that he will have fulfilled his obligation to offer the handful. This, however, is undesirable for one will have offered a meal-offering without separating the handful from it.

68.

Our translation reflects the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries have questioned it and have suggested that the text should read: "or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering." This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn't the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard printed text. Moreover, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements.

69.

In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder.

70.

Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes betal - it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance, Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not become betal to the remainder of the offering.

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 12

1

If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],1 the showbread,2 and the omer that is waved,3 they are disqualified.

א

שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים ועומר התנופה שהוסיף במדתן או חסר כל שהוא פסולות:

2

With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering4 and the cakes of a nazirite5 that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice6 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

ב

חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שחסרו עד שלא נזרק דם הזבח פסולין משנזרק דם הזבח כשירין:

3

Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7 was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

ג

וכן שתי הלחם שחסרו עד שלא נזרק דמן של כבשים פסולין משנזרק דמן כשירים:

4

And with regard to the showbread, if lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8 it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.

ד

וכן שני סדרים שחסרו עד שלא הוקטרו הבזיכין פסולין משהוקטרו כשירים:

5

With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].

ה

אבל הנסכים שחסרו בין משקרב הזבח בין עד שלא קרב כשרים ויביא נסכים אחרים למלאותן:

6

[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9 If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11

What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12 If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13 they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14

When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15 [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16 Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.

ו

נסכים שקדשו בכלי שרת ונפסל הזבח אם נפסל בשחיטה לא קדשו הנסכים ליקרב נפסל מקבלה ואילך קדשו הנסכים ליקרב שאין הנסכים מתקדשים ליקרב אלא בשחיטת הזבח ומה יעשה בהן אם היה שם זבח אחר זבוח באותה שעה יקרבו עמו ואם לא היה שם זבח אחר זבוח באותה שעה נעשו כמי שנפסלו בלינה וישרפו במה דברים אמורים בקרבן צבור מפני שלב בית דין מתנה עליהן אבל בקרבן יחיד הרי אלו לא יקרבו עם זבח אחר ואע"פשהוא זבוח באותה שעה אלא מניחן עד שיפסלו בלינה וישרפו:

7

Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated,17 the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.18

ז

וכל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן יקרבו נסכיהם:

8

[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19 If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20 need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21

When does the above22 apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23 When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24 Its offspring does not require bread.25 [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26

ח

ולד תודה ותמורתה והמפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה אם הביאן לאחר שכפר בתודה ראשונה אינן טעונין לחם ואם עדיין לא כפר בה והרי היא וחליפתה או היא וולדה או היא ותמורתה עומדת הרי שניהן צריכין לחם במה דברים אמורים בנודר תודה אבל תודת נדבה חליפתה ותמורתה טעונין לחם וולדה אינו טעון לחם בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה:

9

[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27 and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28 The third one, however, requires bread.29

If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.30 The first one, however, requires bread.31 If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.32

ט

הפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאו הראשונות והרי שלשתן עומדות נתכפר בראשונה שנייה אינה טעונה לחם שלישית טעונה לחם נתכפר בשלישית שנייה אינה טעונה לחם ראשונה טעונה לחם נתכפר באמצעית שתיהן אינן טעונות לחם:

10

[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving offering, but it does not require bread.33 It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34

Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35 Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36 The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.

י

המפריש מעות לתודתו ואבדו והפריש מעות אחרות תחתיהן ולא הספיק ליקח בהן תודה עד שנמצאו מעות הראשונות יביא מאלו ומאלו תודה בלחמה והשאר יביא בהן תודה ואינה טעונה לחם אבל טעונה נסכים וכן המפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש מעות תחתיה ואחר כך נמצאת יביא במעות תודה בלא לחם וכן המפריש מעות לתודתו ואבדו והפריש תודה תחתיהן ואח"כ נמצאו המעות יביא מן המעות תודה ולחמה וזו התודה האחרונה תקרב בלא לחם:

11

[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37 If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38 [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.

יא

האומר הרי זו תודה והרי זה לחמה אבד הלחם מביא לחם אחר אבדה התודה אינו מביא תודה אחרת מפני שהלחם בא בגלל התודה ואין התודה באה בגלל הלחם:

12

When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39

יב

הפריש מעות לתודתו ונותרו מביא בהן לחם הפריש ללחם והותיר אינו מביא בהן תודה:

13

[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40 it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41 [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42 Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43

יג

האומר הרי זו תודה ונתערבה בתמורתה ומתה אחת מהן ואין ידוע אי זו היא הרי זו הנשארת אין לה תקנה שאם יביא עמה לחם שמא התמורה היא ואם הביאה בלא לחם שמא התודה היא לפיכך לא תקרב זו לעולה אלא תרעה עד שיפול בה מום:

14

When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44 If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45 the remainder of the breads are acceptable.

If the bread46 was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47 The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48

If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49 for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.

יד

תודה שנפרסה חלה מחלותיה כולן פסולות יצאת החלה או נטמאה שאר החלות כשירות נפרס לחמה או נטמא או יצא עד שלא נשחטה התודה מביא לחם אחר ושוחט ואם אחר שנשחט נפרס או נטמא או יצא הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל והלחם כולו פסול וידי נדרו לא יצא נזרק הדם ואחר כך נפרס מקצת הלחם או נטמא או יצא תורם מן השלם על הפרוס ומן הטהור על הטמא וממה שבפנים על שבחוץ:

15

When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50 If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51

טו

תודה שנשחטה על שמונים חלות לא קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים ואם אמר יקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים מושך ארבעים מתוך שמונים ומרים מהם אחת מכל קרבן והארבעים השניות יפדו ויצאו לחולין:

16

When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,52 the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.53

טז

השוחט את התודה והיה לחמה חוץ לחומת בית פגי לא קדש הלחם אבל אם היה חוץ לעזרה קדש הלחם אע"פ שאינו לפנים:

17

If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54

יז

שחטה עד שלא קרמו פני הלחם בתנור ואפילו קרמו כולן חוץ מאחת מהן לא קדש הלחם:

18

If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55 the bread is sanctified.56 If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58 the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59

יח

שחטה ונפסלה בשחיטתה במחשבת זמן או במחשבת מקום קדש הלחם נמצאת בעלת מום או טריפה או ששחטה שלא לשמה לא קדש הלחם וכן הדין באיל נזיר עם הלחם שלו:

Footnotes
1.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1.

2.

Ibid. 5:1.

3.

And offered on the day following Pesach; ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.

4.

See ibid. 9:17-22.

5.

Ibid.:23.

6.

The animal offered with the loaves.

7.

The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot.

8.

Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17.

9.

In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire.

10.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note.

11.

Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages in Menachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.

The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.

12.

I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified.

13.

And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it.

14.

The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them. For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4).

15.

I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which the accompanying offering was brought is not nullified.

16.

For the court does not make such stipulations about them.

17.

I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peace-offering.

18.

For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.

19.

See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

20.

I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgiving-offering.

21.

The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.

22.

That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the above situations.

23.

I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgiving-offering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice.

24.

Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.

With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transformed, Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred.

25.

I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah 4:1.

26.

Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.

27.

This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice.

28.

The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second.

29.

For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.

30.

For the third animal takes the place of the second.

31.

For it is not associated with the third animal.

32.

Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.

33.

For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8.

34.

For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.

35.

I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering.

36.

Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering.

37.

Setting aside a specific animal and bread.

38.

Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains.

39.

Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a).

40.

Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose.

41.

And bread should not be brought with such an offering.

As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8.

42.

Which requires bread.

43.

At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.

44.

The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar.

45.

Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic.

46.

This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced.

47.

Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard.

48.

And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text of Menachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.

49.

A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18).

50.

Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated.

51.

The commentaries question why the loaves must be redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40? Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be consecrated.

52.

This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5): patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)].

53.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.

54.

For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered.

55.

See the following chapters which discuss these issues at length.

56.

Because the disqualification came at the time of the slaughter of the animal and not beforehand. Since the bread becomes sanctified, it is considered as piggul

57.

An animal that will die within a year. In these instances, since the animal was never acceptable for sacrifice - even if that was not discovered before its slaughter - the breads are not consecrated.

58.

I.e., it was slaughtered with the intent of it being offered as another type of sacrifice. In this instance, even though the disqualifying factor took place at the time the animal is slaughtered, the bread is disqualified. For based on Leviticus 7:12, the Sifra states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering.

59.

I.e., for this offering is also accompanied by bread. The same concepts also apply with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuos and the two lambs brought at that time. See Chapter 17, Halachah 18.

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13

1

There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1 for a different purpose,2 the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.

What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3 [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose."

What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4 with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5 These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place.

What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.7

א

שלש מחשבות הן שפוסלין את הקרבנות ואלו הן:

מחשבת שינוי השם ומחשבת המקום ומחשבת הזמן מחשבת שינוי השם כיצד זה השוחט את הזבח שלא לשמו כגון שהיה עולה ויחשב שהוא שלמים או ישחטנו לשם עולה ושלמים או לשם שלמים ולשם עולה או ששחט הזבח שלא לשם בעליו זו היא מחשבת שינוי השם מחשבת המקום כיצד כגון ששחט את הזבח לשמו על מנת לזרוק דמו או להקטיר ממנו דבר הראוי להקטרה חוץ לעזרה או לאכול ממנו דבר הראוי לאכילה חוץ למקום אכילתו זו היא מחשבת המקום וזבחים שחשב בהן מחשבה זו הם הנקראים זבחים ששחטן חוץ למקומן מחשבת הזמן כיצד כגון ששחט את הזבח לשמו על מנת לזרוק דמו מאחר שתשקע החמה שאינו זמן זריקתו או להקטיר ממנו דבר הראוי להקטיר למחר מאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר שאינו זמן הקטרתו או לאכול ממנו דבר הראוי לאכילה לאחר זמן הראוי לאכילתו זו היא מחשבת הזמן וזבחים שחשב בהן מחשבה זו הם הנקראים זבחים שנשחטו חוץ לזמנן והם הנקראים פגול בכ"מ וזהו פגול האמור בתורה:

2

According to the Oral Tradition,8 we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9 The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice.

Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10 the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.

ב

מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר בתורה ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו אינו מדבר אלא במחשב בשעת הקרבה שיאכל ממנו בשלישי והוא הדין לכל קרבן שחשב עליו בשעת מעשיו שיאכל ממנו לאחר זמן הראוי לאכילת אותו קרבן וכן אם חשב להקטיר ממנו במזבח דבר הראוי להקטרה [לאחר זמן הראוי להקטרה] כך למדו מפי השמועה אחד אכילת אדם ואחד אכילת מזבח אם חשב עליהן אחר זמנן הרי הקרבן פגול:

3

When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it,11 but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained.

The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.

ג

אבל קרבן שלא נפסדה מחשבתו אלא נזרק דמו על המזבח כהלכתו ונשאר ממנו לאחר זמן אכילתו אותו הנשאר נקרא נותר ואסור לאכלו והקרבן כבר נרצה וכפר הרי הוא אומר בדם ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר כיון שהגיע דם למזבח כהלכתו נתכפרו הבעלים ונרצה הקרבן לפיכך אין מתפגל אלא דבר שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח כמו שיתבאר אחד זבח שחשב בו אחת משלש מחשבות אלו בשעת שחיטה או שחשב בשעת קבלת הדם או בשעת הולכתו למזבח או בעת זריקתו על המזבח:

4

We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12

ד

נמצאת למד שבארבע עבודות הזבח נפסל במחשבה: בשחיטה ובקבלה ובהולכת הדם ובזריקתו על המזבח:

5

A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services: melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13

ה

והעוף בשני דברים: במליקה ובמצוי הדם:

6

The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14

ו

והמנחות הנקמצות בארבעה: בקמיצה ובנתינת הקומץ בכלי שרת ובהולכת הקומץ למזבח ובזריקתו על האש:

7

If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15 when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16 or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.

ז

אבל אם חשב בדברים אחרים חוץ מאלו כגון שחשב בשעת הפשט או בשעת ניתוח או בשעת הולכת אימורין למזבח או בשעת בלילת המנחה או בשעת הגשתה וכיוצא בדברים אלו אין אותה המחשבה מועלת כלום בין שהיתה מחשבת שינוי השם בין מחשבת המקום בין מחשבת הזמן:

8

Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all.

What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17

a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18 or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19

b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20

c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22 on the upper portion,

d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23 on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24 on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber,

e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it,

f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service,

g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood;

h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25

i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt26 outside its proper time or outside its proper place;

With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.

ח

וכן המחשב באחת מארבע עבודות אלו או בכולן מחשבה אחרת חוץ משלש מחשבות אלו אין אותה המחשבת מפסדת כלום כיצד המחשב בשעת שחיטה וקבלה והולכה וזריקה להניח דם הזבח או אימוריו למחר או להוציאן חוץ לעזרה או שחשב לזרוק הדם על הכבש שלא כנגד היסוד או ליתן את הניתנין למעלה למטה ואת הניתנין למטה למעלה או ליתן דמים הניתנין במזבח החיצון במזבח הפנימי או את הניתנין בפנימי לחיצון או להכניס דם החטאת לפנים או שחשב שיאכלו הזבח טמאים או שאר הפסולין לאכילה או שיקריבום טמאים או שאר הפסולין לעבודה או לערב דם הזבח בדם הפסולין או שחשב לשבר עצמות הפסח ולאכול ממנו נא או שחשב לשרוף חטאת הנשרפת חוץ לזמנן או חוץ למקומן בכל אלו המחשבות וכיוצא בהן הזבח כשר וכן אם חשב בשעת קמיצת המנחה ובשעת נתינתו לכלי ובשעת הולכתו ובשעת זריקתו על האש להניח קומצה או לבונתו למחר או להוציאו לחוץ הרי זו כשירה:

9

We already explained27 that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.

What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29 having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30

ט

כבר ביארנו שהולכה שלא ברגל אינה הולכה לפיכך אין המחשבה פוסלת בה והמהלך במקום שאינו צריך הרי זו הולכה והמחשבה פוסלת בה כיצד קבל הדם והוא עומד במקומו ופשט ידו לזורקו על המזבח וחשב בעת שפשט ידו בדם אין המחשבה פוסלת בה אבל אם קבל הדם בפנים ולא הלך בו לגבי המזבח אלא הלך בו והוציאו לחוץ וחשב בשעת הלוכו לחוץ במחשבת הזמן וכיוצא בה הרי זו פוסלת:

Footnotes
1.

The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6.

2.

I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

3.

Zevachim 1:1 states: "All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner's obligation with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice." Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:10.

4.

I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner.

5.

Sacrifices of the most sacred order must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.

6.

Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day.

7.

Leviticus 7:18; 19:7. The term has the implication of "rejected" (Targum Onkelos) and "abhorrent" (Rav Saadia Gaon).

8.

Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3).

9.

I.e., the verse states: "if it was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable." Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering disqualifies it from the outset.

Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah's words. The above verse uses the term: "the one who offers it," implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav ("and it will be considered"), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought.

10.

Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a twofold construction for the term "eat," haechol yaechol, our Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption: consumption by the altar and consumption by man.

11.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition.

12.

The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim 1:4.)

13.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that performing melikah is equivalent to slaughter and squeezing a fowl's blood on the altar equivalent to casting an animal's blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to the altar.

14.

For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim 13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal, equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal.

15.

All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable.

16.

These services are performed before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services performed before slaughter which do not disqualify an animal.

17.

All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however, we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the service intended that they be performed.

18.

While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night.

19.

Which would disqualify them.

20.

And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.

21.

Burnt-offerings.

22.

Sin-offerings.

23.

I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and individual offerings.

24.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:11.

25.

Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9).

26.

See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these sin-offerings. As related there, they are burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or on the following night.

27.

Chapter 1, Halachah 23.

28.

Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.

29.

He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it - but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi, Zevachim 16b).

30.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion in Zevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest's intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam's understanding.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
 Email