Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 3

See Halachah 9.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 6, with regard to the distinction between these types of offerings.

I.e., an entity of seemingly little value. One might think that bringing such an offering in partnership is not becoming to the altar. Even so, if one’s intent is desirable, the offering is accepted (Radbaz, based on Menachot 110a).

In this chapter, the Rambam outlines the types of individuals who may bring a sacrifice and the rite of semichah because that is an obligation of the person bringing the sacrifice.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:1) notes that the prooftext states that it is forbidden to accept an offering from a gentile from a blemished animal. One can infer that if the animal is unblemished, the offering may be accepted.
The verse uses the term lechem, “food.” That term is understood as referring only to a burnt-offering, as Numbers 28:2 states: “My food for my fires.” And the burnt-offering is the only type of offering, consumed entirely by the fire of the altar (Radbaz).

Although the prooftext speaks only of animals, our Sages understood that the leniency applies to fowl as well (Radbaz).

As mentioned in Halachah 4, burnt offerings are not accepted from a Jew who worships false deities. Nevertheless, such restrictions are not placed upon gentiles.

To offer them as peace-offerings. They are, however, brought as burnt-offerings, as stated in the following halachah.

For the concept of atonement applies only with regard to the Jews’ relationship with God.

Rashi (Menachot 73b) interprets this as meaning that the gentile desires that his sacrifices be offered entirely to God and not have mortals partake of them.

The Radbaz notes that peace-offerings are not intended to bring atonement and explains that this is referring to an instance where a Jew vowed to bring a peace-offering and the gentile offered to bring it for him. One might think that since the gentile is bringing them they would be offered as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary to explain that they are peace-offerings.

See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat where the Rambam explains that the public desecration of the Sabbath is equivalent to idol worship, because they are both cornerstones of the Jewish faith. “Public” refers to a matter known about by ten people. The Radbaz adds that we do not accept the sacrifices of a Jew who has abandoned Judaism and accepted a faith like Islam which does not involve idol worship. Such a person is included in the category (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9) of an apostate with regard to the entire Torah.

Chulin 5a-b.

I.e., he had two cuts of meat before him of equal quality, one kosher and one non-kosher and he ate the non-kosher one solely for the intent of angering God (Gittin 47a).

Similarly, in Hilchot Edut 10:3, a distinction is not made with regard to the motivations for the transgression. There are other instances - see Hilchot Teshuvah, loc. cit., Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8;14, Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 11:2, and Hilchot Rotzeach 4:10 - where the Rambam does make such a distinction.

Since he frequently violates this transgression, we assume that he is not sincere in his desire for atonement for it, because a request for atonement must be accompanied by sincere regret. Sacrifices brought for other transgressions are, however, accepted from him. See Hilchot Shegagot 3:7.

A meal offering and a wine libation.

This verse concludes the passage commanding the offering of the accompanying offers, implying that it is only a native - i.e., a member of the Jewish people - who is required to bring them.

I.e., the Temple treasury.

Implying that the sacrifices themselves require that the accompanying offerings be brought.

Leaning on the animal with all one's strength, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the concluding halachot of the chapter.

The prooftext for the obligation to perform semichah speaks of “the children of Israel,” and uses the male form. Menachot 93b understands this to exclude gentiles and Chagigah 16b understands it as excluding women. See also Halachah 8.

This also includes offerings brought in partnership. The exclusion is only of communal offerings. See Halachah 10.

Sifra to the verse; Menachot 92b.

The Sifra derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 1:4: “And he will lean his hand on the head of the burnt-offering.” “The” implies that there are some burnt-offerings to which this does not apply.

Hilchot Shekalim 2:3; 3:14.

Money that was found between the chest of the freewill offerings and the chest of the shekalim that was closer to the chest of the freewill offerings.

Since the money was placed in the chest for the freewill offering, it is no longer considered ·as his personal property, but as the property of the community. Hence, he is not the owner of the sacrifices and may not perform semichah on them. For that same reason, the community brings the accompanying offerings.

The priests designated to serve in the Temple that week. Even though the person whose money was used is a priest and he has the right to offer sacrifices that he brings (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:7), in this instance, he cannot demand the right to offer the sacrifice.

These three individuals are not considered as responsible for their actions and are free of the responsibility for all mitzvot.

See Halachah 5.

Gentiles are not obligated in any of the mitzvot. Hence the obligation of semichah does not apply to them.

The Radbaz states that this concept is derived from the fact that the prooftext uses the term “his hand” in the singular.

For he is acting in the place of the original owner.

During the Yom Kippur services. The High Priest performs semichah on it.

In both these instances, there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 16:21; 4:15) requiring semichah for the sacrifice.

I.e., were it not for that tradition, we might have derived the need for semichah for communal offerings from these two instances using Biblical exegesis [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:7)].

Zevachim 32b explains that just as the slaughter of the animal must be performed “before God,” in the Temple Courtyard, so too, semichah must be performed “before God,” in that same place.

This is indeed what is done when the atonement process of the people bringing the sacrifice has not been completed and they are not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard until the sacrifice is offered.

As required by Halachah 13.

After the fact.

Menachot 93b derives this concept from the subsequent law: that slaughter must be performed directly after semichah. It thus follows that one must slaughter the animal in the same place where semichah was performed, for otherwise, this is not considered as directly afterwards.

Tosafot Yesheinim, Yoma 5a, explains that the intent is that although the person is not obligated to bring another sacrifice, in God’s eyes, his atonement is lacking.

This is derived from Leviticus 16:21 which states such a requirement with regard to the goat sent to Azazel.

Its cheeks (Rashi, Menachot 93b).

The sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered in this portion of the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:16.

See Hilchot Teshuvah 2:5 which states. that a person seeking to repent must mention the particular sins that he violated.

This is necessary, for without teshuvah, a sacrifice will not bring the person atonement (Hilchot Shegagot 3:10).

For, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3, sacrifices of lesser sanctity (of which the peace offering is one) may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Courtyard.

For a peace-offering is not offered to atone for a sin.

As an example, the Or Sameach cites Psalm 100. The popular translation of II Chronicles 30:22 speaks of the people reciting confessions on their peace-offerings. Rashi and Metzudot, however, render the verb as meaning “offer thanks.”