Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 4

Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13.

The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented.

When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it.

For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed.

It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.

I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring.

Hilchot Temurah 1:1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.

Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.

The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.).

The wording used by the Rambam literally means “the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach’s edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests. shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests.

See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.

For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.

Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi, Temurah 23a).
This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam’s thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach’s version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov to Temurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above.

And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.

And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above.

The act that brings about atonement.

This follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: “If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].”

See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death.

For the same reason as stated in the previous note.

For both of these share a direct connection with the second.

So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering."

And he can offer either as a sacrifice.

A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.

Through the offering of another sacrifice.

And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam’s logic, the term “even though” is inappropriate.

According to the Rambam [see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2)], the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is already lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death.

In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death.

As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.

Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.

Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.

As long as one - the owner or the shepherd knows of the animal’s existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.

Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal’s existence, it is not consigned to death.

As stated in Halachah 1.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to perform semichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.

The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:6.

Through the sacrifice of another animal.

I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering.

For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.

All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.

For it was consecrated for that purpose.

If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the. offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.

All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.

The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.

In contrast to a king or a High Priest.

All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:15).

This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6).

Instead of a he-goat as required.

Instead of a bull as required.

So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.

In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.

The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra’avad objects to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam’s perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam’s ruling and also offers a possible resolution.

Which must be brought when he is in doubt whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering,

In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all.

In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead.

I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.

I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally i.e., because he might have sinned when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated.

I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat.

Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).
Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well.

In the drainage channel.

See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.

Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all.

I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.

I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.

As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.

Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances.

The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.

More precisely, when they are at least thirteen months old.

As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant who was designated for another man.

A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12.

When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12.

As specifically stated in the Torah.

This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by the Kessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads “It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from older ones.” This version is supported by the Rambam’s statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice.

He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less.

I.e., when it was sacrificed.

I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus).

I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.

For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount.

Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.

Since it is of the required worth.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.

I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara’at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite.

As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings.

E. g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unacceptable.

We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (see Pesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four-hour period.

Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.

When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3..

See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.

See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara’at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before· bringing a sacrifice, as explained in the passage from Leviticus.

I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.