Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 5

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:6. In this chapter, the Rambam explains the place where sacrifices are offered and the manner in which the blood and fats from the sacrifices are presented to God.

Indeed, a non-priest may slaughter a sacrificial animal as an initial preference (Radbaz).

Leviticus 1:5 states: “The sons of Aaron will offer it.” Implied is that all the acts involved in offering the animal should be performed by the priests (Zevachim 32a).

Zevachim 97b notes that Exodus 24:5-6 speaks of the blood of peace-offerings being received in sacred vessels. Now if this is a requirement for peace-offerings which are sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it certainly holds true for sacrifices of the most sacred order.

I.e., the receptacle may not be resting on the ground (Radbaz).

Since, as implied by Chapter 4, Halachah 8, one must receive the blood immediately after slaughter, this is seemingly obvious. It could be explained that the Rambam is implying that even after the fact, receiving the blood elsewhere disqualifies the sacrifice. Moreover, even if he received only part of the blood outside the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:16 which states: [The area] from the northern wall of the Temple Courtyard until the wall of the Altar was sixty and a half [cubits] wide. The length of this area, from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the eastern wall of the Courtyard, was 76 [cubits]. The rectangle [described above] is called "the northern portion." The sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered there. The 60 and a half cubit width can be broken down as follows: the space between the pillars and the northern wall, 8 cubits, the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits, the area of the tables, 8 cubits, the area of the rings, 24 cubits, the space between the rings and the Altar, 8 cubits. It was also called beit hamitbachayim, the butchering area, because here the large majority of sacrifices were slaughtered and prepared to be offered on the altar.

In the verse cited.

In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 5:1), he explains that although there is no specific verse referring to a burnt-offering as a sacrifice of the most sacred order, since an equivalence is established between it and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, we can assume that it is included in that category.

This refers to the sheep offered on Shavuot. Different laws apply to individual peace-offerings, as stated below.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that based on Numbers 10:10, Zevachim 55a establishes an association between communal peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and asks why the Rambam prefers the association with the sin-offerings. Seemingly, deriving the concept from the burnt-offering would be more direct. In resolution, he explains that since the Torah states that the sin-offering should be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt-offering, it is as if it is explicitly stated that the sin-offering should be slaughtered in the north. Hence, the derivation is not indirect.

Zevachim 54b explains that there was a small opening at the rear of the Holy of Holies. Since the area behind the Temple building could see the Holy of Holies, it was considered as if it saw “the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.”

In addition to the verse cited, Zevachim 55a states that there is another verse (Leviticus 3:8) which mentions slaughtering a sacrifice “before the Tent of Meeting.” It explains that both verses are necessary, for from the verse cited by the Rambam, one would not know that it is permissible to slaughter an animal in the side portions of the Temple Courtyard. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh suggests that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and the Rambam indeed desired to cite Leviticus 3:8.

For if seeing the entrance to the Temple Building makes a sacrifice acceptable, certainly, being inside the Temple building itself does (Zevachim 63a).

Needless to say, this applies with regard to the roofs of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz). For the roofs of the structures in the Temple complex were not consecrated (Pesachim 85b).

Tosafot, Yoma 29a, maintains that this also applies to any other sacrificial animals that must be slaughtered. This view is not, however, accepted by all authorities (see the commentaries to Zevachim 61a).

This law also applies if the gates to the Temple were closed during the day, but that generally did not take place (Radbaz).

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:17.

I.e., unlike the sin-offering mentioned in Halachah 9, he need not sprinkle it with his hand.

Beneath the scarlet band that was tied around the middle of the Altar. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9. If he cast the blood above that band, the sacrifice is disqualified.

The priest would cast the blood on the northeast comer and then the southwest in that order (Tamid 4:1), so that when walking, he would be circling the altar to the right (Yama 15b). These comers were chosen because there was no base on the altar’s northwest comer (Hilchot Beil HaBechirah 2:10).

A Greek letter whose shape resembles an upside-down “L.”

Hence our Sages (Zevachim 53b, et al) uses the expression: “Two presentations of blood that constitute four.”

Leviticus 1:11, 3:2.

And in the manner described above, the blood will be cast on all four sides of the altar.

Leviticus 7:2 which describes the guilt offering also uses the term “surrounding.” Nevertheless, its wording is slightly different.

If the blood is placed below the midway point of the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.

Implying that it must be placed on all four corners.

For all service is performed with the right hand. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:18.

The verb used by the Rambam (and his source, Zevachim 53a) refers to the wording employed by Leviticus 6:19, which means “performs the service of the sin-offering.”

Le., after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.

So that it does not become mixed with the blood remaining in the container (Zevachim 93b).

See Halachah 6.

For he is circling to the right, as required (Zevachim 62b).

If he fails to do this, the sacrifice is not disqualified (see Chapter 19, Halachah 4).

The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the prooftext to Leviticus 30:34 for that verse refers to the sin-offerings brought on the outer altar, while the verse cited by the Rambam refers to the sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled within the Temple itself.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 16, for a definition of this term.

See the following halachah for an actual description.

The sin-offering of the High Priest and his priestly brethren.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Bringing accompanying offerings for these sacrifices is an exception to the general rule, as stated in Halachah 2. The obligation to bring these three esronim is explicitly stated in Leviticus 14:10. The Oral Tradition (Menachot 91a) teaches that each one is designated for a different sacrifice.

Hilchot Avadat Yom HaKippurim 4:2.

The sprinklings had to be directed, one upward and seven downward, as will be explained in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim. If the High Priest was not careful about directing the sprinklings in this manner, they are still acceptable.
This is the interpretation offered by Rav Yosef Corcus and also suggested as an alternative by the Kessef Mishneh. The Kessef Mishneh, however, also offers another interpretation: that the Hebrew should be translated as “he did not have the intent,” i.e., he performed the act without the intent of it being a mitzvah. This can be connected to a question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? From Rosh Hashanah 32b, it would appear that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention.
On the surface, the Rambam’s own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:3 states: “A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah] … fulfills his obligation.” By contrast, Hilchot Shofar 2:4 states that a person who hears the sounding of the shofar from one who blows it casually, without the intent of performing a mitzvah, does not fulfill his obligation. There is extensive debate about this issue among the commentaries. The general consensus is that one must have the intent of performing a mitzvah. The situation involving matzah is unique for various reasons, each authority explaining the rationale for the exception in his own way. See the discussion of the rulings cited for more details.

These include a bull brought by a High Priest as a sin-offering and the bull brought as atonement for a Jaw forgotten by the High Court (Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16).

As atonement for the prohibition against idol worship (ibid.).

This is stated explicitly with regard to the sin-offering brought by the High Priest in Leviticus 4:6-7 and the bull brought because of the error of the High Court (ibid.:17). The sprinkling of the blood of the goats is derived from the laws regarding these offerings as stated in Halachah 16.

With regard to the sprinkling of the blood on Yom Kippur, this refers to the entry of the High Priest from the Holy of Holies. With regard to the other sacrifices, it refers to the entry into the Sanctuary from the Entrance Hall. The commentaries see a difficulty between the Rambam’s words here and his statements in Hilchot Avodat Yam HaKippurim 4:2.

The Menorah was on the southern side of the Sanctuary (to the left of the priest as he faces the Holy of Holies).

The High Priest.

As related by Leviticus 4:6, he sprinkles the blood toward the curtain separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.

Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:10.

The fats and the inner organs that are offered on the altar.

This order is explicitly stated in the Torah’s description of the manner in which several sacrifices are offered, e.g., Numbers 18:17: “Their blood shall the cast upon the altar and their fats they shall offer on the altar’s pyre.”

See Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

For otherwise there would be an interruption between receiving the blood and casting it upon the altar (Rashi, Zevachim 103b). This, however, is not an absolute requirement. If the animal is skinned first, the sacrifice is not disqualified (see Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9).

And from the burnt-offering, we derive that this law applies to other sacrifices of the most sacred order (Zevachim 103a).

I.e., the sacrifice was disqualified before its blood was cast on the altar, in which instance, it was never required that its flesh would be offered on the altar.

Instead, they are burnt together with the meat of the sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9).

The Tosefta, Zevachim, ch. 11, states that originally, the hides were divided daily among the members of the clan who served in the Temple that day. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, strong-armed priests would seize the hides from others. Hence, they organized a larger division where seizing the hides in that manner would not be. possible. among the members of the clan who served in the Temple that day. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, strong-armed priests would seize the hides from others. Hence, they organized a larger division where seizing the hides in that manner would not be possible.

It is offered on the altar, but it is not considered as his personal sacrifice.

Rambam LeAm notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:7), one opinion states - as the Rambam states here - that the male animals should be offered as burnt-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the males should be sold to others to be offered as burnt-offerings. Significantly, when referring to this law in Hilchot Arachin and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam follows Rabbi Eliezer’s position.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the standard published texts for Zevachim 103a speak about a convert rather than a gentile. He favors the Rambam’s version of the text, because seemingly there is no reason to distinguish between a convert and another Jew in this regard.