Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 3

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:2, sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard. Now, the altar is located in the southern portion. Nevertheless, based on the prooftext the Rambam cites, Zevachim 85a derives that it is acceptable to slaughter these sacrificial animals on the top of the altar.

The altar.

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

Peace-offerings are sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity which may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:4). Nevertheless, it is necessary to state that they may be slaughtered on the top of the altar, because one might think that since there is ample space to slaughter them, they would have to be slaughtered on the ground (Zevachim, loc. cit.; Gittin 67a).

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

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:19.

This refers to an entity like the carcass of a sacrifice which in its present state is not fit to be offered on the altar, but is not lacking any great tasks like slaughter.

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

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

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

Animals forbidden to be sacrificed, e.g., one that was worshipped, one that is treifah, or one which killed a person or the like. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.
The commentaries question why the Rambam does · not mention animals with disqualifying physical blemishes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:3) he rules that even if they were brought to the top of the altar, they should be brought down. And if the Rambam changed his mind, it would have been appropriate to say so explicitly. Nevertheless, it is possible to explain that such animals are also included in the general category of “entities forbidden to be offered on the altar,” as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit.

The leniency that every entity brought up to the altar should. be offered upon it applies only to entities that were disqualified after having been fit to be offered upon it. As our Sages taught (Zevachim 84a; see Halachah 8) whenever an entity was disqualified in the Temple, if it was brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered. In this instance, these substances were never fit to be offered on the altar’s pyre.

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

Even though it was disqualified in the Temple, nevertheless, it was disqualified before the time its meat and/or fats and organs were to be offered on the altar’s pyre (see Zevachim 84a, b).

Once blood is left past sunset, it is disqualified (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:1) and if the meat of a burnt-offering is left overnight, it is disqualified (ibid.:2). Nevertheless, since the meat of a peace-offering is acceptable if left overnight, this is not a serious enough disqualifying factor to prevent these entities from being offered on the altar’s pyre (Kessef Mishneh).

See Chapters 13-18 with regard to these factors.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:10-12.

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

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

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

After the fact, as stated above.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 21, where the Rambam speaks of the fire taking hold of the majority of the entity. Seemingly, that concept would apply here as well.

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

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

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

Thus even if the disqualified sacrificial entities were not placed down on the altar, but held by a person standing on the altar, the above concepts apply (see Zevachim 88a). Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Talmud mentions also a situation where a person is standing in the Temple Courtyard and holds a disqualified sacrificial entity over the altar with a pole. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the Talmud does not reach a final decision whether such an entity should be offered on the altar’s pyre or not, because of the doubt, they should not be taken down from above the altar.

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

Instead of afterwards, as required.

Or two sin-offerings (Kessef Mishneh).

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

The blood of the second animal should be cast on the altar and then its fats and organs offered. Since two animals were slaughtered and one offering can be carried out in a perfectly desirable manner, that is preferable to performing the offering in a manner that is effective only after the fact. Since the second animal will be offered in an effective manner, the blood of the first should not be cast on the altar. And since its blood should not be cast on the altar, the fat and the organs should not be offered on the altar's pyre (ibid.).

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

This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in Zevachim 9:1, who maintains that for a disqualified entity to be offered on the altar, it must be fit for the altar’s pyre and wine libations are poured over the altar and not on its pyre.

The rationale is that in the era when sacrifices could be brought on individual altars (see the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1), it was possible for a non-priest to perform melikah on a fowl that was offered as a sacrifice. Hence, even after the Temple was built, when a non-priest performs melikah on a fowl, that act is significant enough to endow it with holiness to the extent that if the fowl is brought to the top of the altar, it should be offered on the pyre (Zevachim 69a).

One might ask: Why isn’t the handful of meal acceptable? When offerings were brought on an individual altar, a handful of meal could also be separated by a non-priest. In resolution, however, it is explained that in the Temple, the handful of meal was afterwards placed in a sacred utensil (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:12) and then offered on the altar and such service was not performed by a non-priest on an individual altar (Zevachim, loc. cit.).

E. g., a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity; one who is intoxicated; one in the state of severe onein mourning (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah).

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

The meat of these sacrifices should not be offered on the altar, but rather eaten by the priests and, with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the owners.

After a handful of meal is taken from the omer and the meal-offerings, the remainder should not be offered on the altar, but eaten by the priests.

These breads are eaten by the priests.

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

Once these entities are separated from an animal’s body, they should be discarded rather than offered on the altar’s pyre. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:2.

The Rambam’s ruling is derived from the version of Menachot 23a in his possession. Ra’avad, Rashi, as well as the standard published text of that passage follow a different version which reads eitzim, wood, rather than etzem., bone.

The oil is the entity that should be returned to the altar and the bone is the entity attached to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). Although for its own sake, the bone should not be returned to the altar, as stated in the previous halachah, since it is attached to the oil, it should be returned, lest this be considered as treating sacred articles with disdain (Kessef Mishneh).

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

See Halachah 16.

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

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

Hilchot lssurei Mizbeiach 6:4-5.

Hilchot K’lei Hamikdash 1:16-17. The rationale is that these vessels were anointed only for the sake of measuring and only for measuring the particular types of substances - liquids or solids - intended for them.

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

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

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

And not something that fell in accidentally.

If, however, solids are piled up over the edges of a sacred container, they are not consecrated. Note the apparent contrast to Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 1:19 which states that liquid measures consecrate the overflow that drips down their sides.

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

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

This refers to offerings of flour and the like. As mentioned in the previous halachah, blood that is placed in such utensils is sanctified to be offered on the altar.

I.e., placing it in the sacred utensil is significant - for if it was not significant, it would not have been disqualified, and would have been able to be used on the following day.

As are sacred entities which became disqualified.

The square of the altar must be totally intact, even a slight chip disqualifies it, as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:14-16; 2:18.

Even if the altar is repaired before sunset, the blood of these sacrifices should not be cast upon it. Since at the outset, the altar was fit to have their blood cast upon it and then there was a time when that service could not be performed, the blood is disqualified forever.

This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 6, Halachah 1; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; et al.
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:15, this represents a reversal of the Rambam’s initial position on the matter.

The meal-offering brought as part of the dedication of the altar. As the verse states, it was considered as a sacrifice of the most holy order.

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