Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 10

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 102) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

This mitzvah is incumbent on the priests; it is not a dimension of the obligation to bring a given sacrifice.

The choice of this prooftext and the concept it teaches sheds light on an issue debated by the commentaries: Is it a positive mitzvah ·to partake of the meat of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity? In his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that since eating the other sacrifices does not bring about atonement, it should not be considered as an independent mitzvah. Instead, it is an extension of this mitzvah. In this instance, however, since the atonement of the person bringing the sacrifice depends on the priests’ consumption of the sacrifice, it is considered as an independent mitzvah. There is extensive discussion on this issue by other Rabbis.

E. g., the communal peace offerings.

I.e., after the handful has been taken out to be offered on the altar. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 134) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah encompasses partaking of all the different types of meal offerings (Radbaz).

Even minors; see Halachah 17.

Indeed, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5, there is a prohibition against partaking of these sacrifices outside the Temple Courtyard.

This includes the Temple building.

Zevachim 63a asks: From that verse, it would appear that it is desirable (not merely acceptable after the fact) to partake of the offerings inside the Temple building. Our Sages then cite Leviticus 6:9 which indicates that the sacrifices should be eaten in the Temple Courtyard. They explain that it is preferable to consider the Temple Courtyard the primary place where the sacrifices are eaten, for the Temple building is the resting place for the Divine presence and it is not befitting for that to be the primary place for eating, an activity that is essentially a human need.

Chapter 9, Halachah 4.

The breads and the portions of meat given to the priest from those offerings; see Chapter 9, Halachah 12.

I.e., they are comparable to the peace-offering.

I.e., the portions from the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, including the breast and the thigh of the peace offering and the firstborn offering.

Not only the portions given to the priests, but also those given to the Israelites.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which delineates the prohibition against eating such sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem.

As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11, while the Jews were journeying through the desert, their encampment was considered as divided into three camps: the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of the Israelites.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:9. See also parallel rulings in Hilchot Ma‘aser Sheni 2:16; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:1. The Radbaz clarifies that this is referring to instances where the windows are open to the city. If they are open only to the area outside the wall, he maintains that they should be considered as outside the city.

The verse continues “he shall bear his sin,”—that there is a prohibition in partaking of the sacrifice at that time.

But not the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Karban Pesach 8:1, 15.

I.e., the Rambam understands the verse as referring to all sacrifices unless it is specifically stated otherwise.

The first appearance of the sun’s rays - but not the sun itself - on the eastern hemisphere. According to different halachic views, it is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise.

I.e., if a person would be given the entire night, he might become lax and delay the consumption of the meat and come to partake of the meat after dawn. Giving him a more restricted time serves as a safeguard to prevent the violation of this limit. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:1).

Indeed, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13, partaking of sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity violates a Scriptural prohibition. See also Hilchot Chagigah 2:4.

As evident from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, sec. 69, the prohibition against partaking of sacrificial meat while uncircumcised is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of terumah while uncircumcised. See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Karban Pesach 9:7.

The literal meaning of the words used by the Rambam is "his sun has set." For in most instances, it is at sunset when the duration of the term of a person's ritual impurity ends.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, which explains that a zav, a zavah, a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at and a woman who gave birth or miscarried must immerse themselves in a mikveh (or in a stream) to regain ritual purity. Nevertheless, they may not partake of sacrifices until they bring the offerings required of them. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14.

A person whose gender is masked by an extra piece of flesh.

I.e., if he is in fact male, circumcision will not have been performed upon him.

One with both a male and female reproductive organ.

For these sacrifices may be eaten by both males and females. Although there is a halachic uncertainty with regard to the definition of his gender (see Hilchot Nezirut 2:10), that should not prevent him from partaking of these sacrifices. He may not, however, partake of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, for these may only be eaten by males and he is not categorically defined as male. The Kessef Mishneh clarifies that this leniency applies only when the male organ of the androgynus has been circumcised.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam’s ruling, as noted by Rav Yosef Corcus in his gloss to the following halachah, for sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and ordinary food may not be brought into the Temple Courtyard. Rashi (Temurah 23a) explains that the intent is that one may partake of ordinary food outside the Temple Courtyard and then enter the Temple Courtyard to partake of the sacrificial food. Tosafot explains that the prohibition against bringing ordinary food into the Temple Courtyard applies only when it is not being brought there for a purpose connected with the Temple service. If, however, it is being brought there to be eaten together with the sacrifices, there is no prohibition.

The Paschal sacrifice may only be eaten while roasted, but that is a specific obligation that does not apply to other sacrifices.

The sacrifices may be eaten only for a limited amount of time as mentioned above (Halachot 6-7), while there is no limit on the time terumah may be eaten. Thus if the sacrifices were cooked with terumah, the terumah could be disqualified with the sacrifices and the time in which it could be eaten would be reduced.

I.e., this is not considered as a desecration of consecrated articles (Radbaz). This applies provided there are no portions of the bones that are fit to be eaten (Kessef Mishneh).

For it is not befitting for one to leave his master’s table when he is hungry (Tosafot, Pesachim 120a).

For that is also not becoming.

I.e., that other foods may be eaten with it if there is only a small amount (Kessef Mishneh). Indeed, the verse from which the above concepts are derived (Leviticus 6:9) concerns the meal offerings.

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite’s ram may also be eaten by their wives, their daughters, and their servants (Radbaz).

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

The elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may be eaten only for a day and a night, while the breast and thigh of the peace-offering may be eaten on the following day as well (ibid.).

For sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the peace-offerings may be eaten by Israelites and women (ibid.).

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the peace-offering may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

Here the restrictions are reversed, for the peace offering of the previous day may only be eaten until sunset, while the sin-offering and the guilt-offering may also be eaten until midnight of the following night (ibid.).

In all of these instances, the pairs of offerings mentioned may be eaten by the same type of individual, in the same places, and for the same duration of time.

Which may only be eaten by priests.

Meat from a sacrifice that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood, offer the portions required to be offered on the altar's pyre, or partake of its meat at an improper time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

Meat that remained after the required time for partaking of this type of sacrificial meat passed (ibid. 18:10).

There are others who include sacrificial meat that became impure in the list of prohibitions mentioned here and, indeed, this is the standard text of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:16) which serves as the source for this halachah. The Rambam does not, however, include that particular in his version of the mishnah. The rationale for this distinction is discussed by the commentaries. See the notes to the following halachah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about an instance when there is sixty times more permitted meat than the piece of meat that is piggul or notar and that the forbidden piece of meat was removed. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:5-6 with regard to the latter points. This addition satisfies the objections raised by the Ra’avad. According to this interpretation, the fundamental point of this ruling is that the meat is permitted only to priests and not to non-priests.
Although the prohibitions against piggul and notar have been nullified since the sacrificial meat was originally to be eaten only by priests, the restriction against non-priests partaking of the meat still remains. There are, however, others who interpret the mishnah differently.

The term the Rambam uses literally translates as “the meat of desire,” i.e., meat that there is no mitzvah to partake of.

Because it has absorbed the flavor of the sacrificial meat. The Radbaz states that even if there is enough ordinary meat to nullify the presence of the sacrificial meat, the prohibition against eating the sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity is not nullified.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:17), the intent is that if the sacrificial meat was from sacrifices of the most sacred order, the ordinary meat may be eaten by priests. If it was of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it may be eaten by ordinary individuals, provided they are ritually pure.
In one of his responsa, the Radbaz mentions that only the ordinary meat is permitted to be eaten. The sacrificial meat is forbidden, because it is considered to have become ritually impure because of its contact with the ordinary meat. See Hilchot Sha‘ar Avot HaTumah 11:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam states that “everything may be eaten by pure priests” or “pure non-priests.”

The verse cited in the text of the Mishneh Torah does not exist. The commentaries have suggested that the intent is Leviticus 7:9 as stated in the following halachah.
See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains why all the different verses are necessary, because the concepts cannot be derived from each other.

As indicated by Halachah 17 [see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)], priests with a disqualifying physical blemish are not excluded from receiving a portion of the division of the sacrifices even though they are unfit to offer them, because there is a special verse that teaches that they should receive a portion.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 with regard to what is meant by a clan.

The commentaries note that the explanation appears to be the Rambam’s own, rather than to stem from a prior source.

I.e., if there were 20 meal-offerings and 60 priests, one might think that each of the meal-offerings would be divided among three priests rather than have all 20 divided among the 60. Hence, it is necessary to explicitly state that every priest receives a portion of a meal-offering of flour.

Sifra to the verse, Kiddushin 53a; Menachot 73a.

After the portions offered on the altar are taken.

In all these instances, one might think that it would be preferable to divide each of the sacrifices among a smaller number of priests.

Instead, he may only partake of what the other priests give him from their portions.

I.e., since the halachic status of the gender of an androgynus is not defined, he is not given a portion as a male would be.

The same phrase excludes both women and minors, because the term “man” implies that the recipient must be male and of age. Since they are not fit to perform service, they are not allocated a portion of the sacrifices.

Even though he is not fit to perform service, he is considered an ordinary member of the priestly clan and given a portion of the sacrifices. There is an explicit verse requiring this [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)].

Even if he would regain his ritual purity by the evening.

For everything depends on the priest’s state at the time the sacrifice is offered (ibid.).

I.e., which priests could be fit to perform service during the day and fit to partake of sacrifices after nightfall, but are unfit to partake of the sacrifices at the time they are offered.

But will not regain purity until nightfall.

A priest who had been a zav or who had been afflicted with tzara'at must immerse himself in a stream or a mikveh to regain ritual purity. In addition, he must bring a specific offering. Until he brings that offering, he is considered as lacking atonement, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.
These two categories of priests are considered as fit to serve, because they would be fit to offer a communal sacrifice if it were to be brought in a state of ritual impurity. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10 and Halachah 23 and notes.

The term onein refers to a person in the acute state of mourning experienced at the time of the death of any of seven close relatives. On the day of such a relative's death, one is an onein according to Scriptural Law. If the relative is not buried on the day of his death, the priest is considered an onein according to Rabbinic Law until after the day of burial. Once the relative is buried, however, the priest may perform service and partake of sacrifices in the evening. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:7, 9-10.

Who is permitted to serve even though he is in the state of onein mourning. See the following halachah.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:6-8.

The Or Sameach suggests that the text should read “are not fit to receive a portion of sacrificial foods,” because women and children are fit to partake of the sacrifices, but are not fit to perform sacrificial service.

As stated in Halachah 17.

Zevachim 12:2 derives this concept from Leviticus 7:12: “The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered will belong to the priest,” i.e., the priest must be fit to offer the sacrifice. If he is fit to offer it, he is fit to partake of it.
The Radbaz explains that it is necessary for the Rambam to mention the allocation of the hides explicitly, because one might not necessary derive this point from the allocation of the meat.

This is speaking about an instance where a priest was impure at the time a sacrifice was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on the altar. Nevertheless, the offering of the fats and the sacrifice was delayed and not performed until after nightfall. In the interim, the priest immersed himself and thus was pure at the time the fats were offered.

For the prooftext mention both these services.

For although he was pure when both these services were performed, he was impure in the interim.

I.e., he is not given a portion, because he cannot prove that he is worthy of one, but it is not taken from him, since the other priests also cannot prove that he is not worthy. In both instances, the basis for the decision is the principle: When one seeks to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

I.e., as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10, 12, when the majority of priests are impure, the communal offerings may be offered by the impure priests.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the glosses of the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus who note that if the sacrifice was offered by impure priests, its meat is not eaten (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:11). Hence we are forced to say that we are speaking about a situation where the sacrifice could have been offered by impure priests, but in fact it was offered by pure priests. Thus the sacrifice may be eaten. One might think that the impure priests would receive a portion since they were fit to offer the sacrifice. Hence, the Rambam explains that they do not, because they were not fit to partake of it at the time it was offered.

I.e., even if they would be fit to partake of it in the evening.