Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinueh (mitzvah 146) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinueh (mitzvah 143) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There the Rambam states that the commandment was instituted to correct the transgression of leaving the meat past its required time. See Chapter 18, Halachah 9.

This is speaking about a peace-offering which may be eaten on the day it was offered and on the following day. If it was left for a third day, it must be burnt.

In the Temple Courtyard, but not on the altar. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4 which states that there are three places where sacrifices are burnt.

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 understood that as being a twenty-four hour period. Leaving the sacrifice until the next day disqualifies it and requires it to be burnt. Since initially there was a doubt involved, this is the desired course of action.

I.e., they are burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem after their fats and organs were offered on the altar’s pyre.

I.e., before their blood is cast upon the altar.

The fats and the organs would definitely be disqualified in such circumstances. Zevachim 104b questions whether this would also apply with regard to the meat of a sacrifice and leaves that question unresolved.

Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam’s decision, because the Talmud’s query seems to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish (Zevachim 89b) who maintains that when the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness was removed from the Temple Courtyard before their blood was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. According to Rabbi Y ochanan who maintains that the sacrifice is not disqualified in such an instance, seemingly, these sacrifices are also not disqualified.
Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the issue, explaining that even Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the meat of those sacrifices is disqualified. Hence, there is reason to question what his opinion would be in this instance.

If the majority of an animal is not taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it is not disqualified. Zevachim l05a speaks about a situation where only half an animal was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, but included in that half was the majority of one limb. If the remainder of that limb was considered to be outside the Temple Courtyard, the majority of the animal would be considered to be outside.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam on both of these instances, maintaining that the Talmudic passage which is the Rambarn’s source (Zevachim 104b-105a) can be interpreted differently. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s interpretation can be substantiated.

All three instances mentioned above.

I.e., they will definitely be burnt. The question is only where they will be burnt, whether in the Temple Courtyard, like sacrifices that are disqualified or outside Jerusalem, as is required for these bulls and goats. When, by contrast, a doubt arises with regard to other sacrificial animals, there is no obligation to burn them unless they are disqualified. On the contrary, burning them would be considered as degrading for sacred articles (Rav Yosef Corcus). Hence they are required to be left until the next day, so that they will definitely be disqualified.

Even though it is permitted to cut the meat of burnt-offerings into portions (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:19), the priests were not accustomed to doing so. Rather a burnt-offering was cut up into several large portions and then brought to the altar. Hence if the meat of an animal was cut up into smaller pieces, one could assume that it was a sin-offering (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:3)). The meat of such offerings must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.
It is also possible that the meat was from a guilt-offering, but sin-offerings are more common and hence, they were mentioned. The meat could also have come from a peace-offering—for such offerings are also cut up into smaller pieces—but out of respect to the stringencies associated with sin-offerings, it is considered in that category.

Since peace-offerings may be eaten throughout Jerusalem, we can assume that meat found there was left over from such an offering.

Which is forbidden to be eaten or offered on the altar. Since it is possible that the meat was left beyond its appointed time, it must be burnt as is required for such meat. Nevertheless, since it is also possible that it had been sacrificed on this day, it cannot be burnt immediately. Instead, we wait until the following day when it is certainly required to be burnt and burn it at that time. For peace-offerings, it is necessary to wait two days.

I.e., since it is possible that the sacrificial meat had not been left for an extra day, if a person who is permitted to eat such a sacrifice partakes of it, he is not obligated to bring a guilt-offering to atone for misusing sacrificial meat.

Since the verse mentions the day, it must be burnt during those hours.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:6.

I.e., even if it is discovered at night, several days after the meat should have been consumed, it should be burnt on the following day and not immediately at night.

The verse regarding notar serves as the basis for the ruling regarding all sacrifices that must be burnt.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:10), the Rambam states the rationale: The prohibition of work on festivals is mandated by both a positive and negative commandment, while the charge to bum notar is merely a positive commandment. Now, a positive commandment never overrides the observance of both a positive and negative commandment. See also Hilchot Sh’vitat Yorn Tov 3:8.

Although it is forbidden to cause sacrificial meat to contract ritual impurity and by mixing notar or piggul with impure meat, one would be doing so since notar or piggul are already considered impure, this provision is granted (Pesachim 15b).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4.

In the original, an av tumah, literally, “a father of impurity,” and a v’lad tumah, literally, “the offspring of impurity.” See Chapter 18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.

The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6), even though—as he states in his Commentary to the Mishnah—the intent is “a derivative of a derivative,” i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus we are speaking about meat that touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh and others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah should be emended to reflect that understanding.

The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha’ar Avot Ha Tuma’ah 7:1; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

See Hilchot Tuma’at Ochalin 4:15.

To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a person has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain entities (Tvul Yom 2:1).

But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an earthenware utensil never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of impurity.

Which may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.

There is no necessity to bring it to the Temple and have it burnt there.

Meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.

The last place from the surroundings of Jerusalem from which the Temple can be seen. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:8.

And thus the difficulty in returning is not so great.

If, however, it is smaller, it is not significant and can be burnt wherever he is.

The Hebrew term birah is used to refer to the entire Temple complex.

This provision was made lest guests refrain from burning the sacrificial meat because of a lack of wood. See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:3 which touches on related matters.

It is sufficient to merely discard them.

See Hilchot Pesachim 10:1-2 which explain that the bones of the Paschal sacrifice are burnt together with its meat, because according to the Rambam, the prohibition against breaking a bone from the Paschal sacrifice applies even after the mitzvah to partake of the sacrifice is concluded. It is therefore desirable to bum the bones, so that they do not become a cause of transgression.
The Ra’avad mentions, based on Pesachim 83a, it can be concluded that only bones that had marrow and which were cracked open and the marrow removed must be burnt. If they have no marrow at all, there is no need to bum even the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.
According to this view, the difference between the law governing the bones of the Paschal sacrifice and those of other sacrifices can be explained as follows. It is forbidden to break open the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. Therefore, if the bones of a Paschal sacrifice were broken open, we can assume that this was done after the Paschal sacrifice became notar, for, according to many authorities, there is no prohibition against breaking the bones of a Paschal sacrifice once it has been disqualified. In such a situation, the bones are forbidden, because they served notar (i.e., the marrow). (See the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelech who notes that in Hilchot Karban Pesach 10:6, the Rambam writes that even in such a situation, it is forbidden to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice, and offers a possible resolution.)
With regard fo other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no prohibition against breaking their bones even during the time the sacrifice is acceptable. Hence, we can assume that they were broken during that time and the marrow removed. Thus, there is little likelihood that they served notar and thus became forbidden. According to this understanding, if a sacrifice was notar, any bone that contains marrow should be burnt. See the gloss of the Meiri to Pesachim, loc. cit., who implies that the Rambam should have been more explicit in his statements.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:20.

In the instance of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity.

As the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:2) states: “Whenever the altar did not acquire the flesh [of a sacrifice], the owners do not acquire the hide.”

See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

This is a violation of the norms of sacrificial practice (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:18). Nevertheless, it does not disqualify a sacrifice.

It is forbidden to benefit from these entities. They should be burnt so that they are destroyed entirely.

A conditional guilt-offering is brought when a person suspects he has violated a negative commandment, but has no definite knowledge that he did so. If he receives knowledge that he is guiltless after the animal has been slaughtered, but before its blood is cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. Once its blood has been cast on the altar, the sacrifice is acceptable even if the person receives definite knowledge that he is guiltless. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

A nazirite’s hair is considered “holy” and it is forbidden to be benefit from it. Therefore at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, he shaves his head and burns his hair in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in the southeastern corner of the Women’s Courtyard (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3).

Produce that grows in the first three years after the planting of a tree. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 10, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 10.

Species of grain or vegetables sown in a vineyard. See Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 5.

An ox—or any other animal—that killed a person. The ox is stoned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh at all (Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10).

When a wayfarer is found murdered and it is not known who killed him, a calf is brought as atonement. See Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzei’ach, ch. 9.

As stated in Leviticus, ch. 14, Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at, ch. 11, when a person whose body had been afflicted with tzara’at becomes pure, he must bring two birds as part of the purification ritual.

As stated in Hilchot Nizirut 6:11, when a nazirite becomes impure because of contact with a human corpse, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the stventh day. This shaving need not be performed in the Temple Courtyard.

The firstborn male offspring of a donkey must be redeemed for a sheep. If it is not redeemed, it is executed and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh (Exodus 13:13, Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).

Which is forbidden not only to be eaten, but also to benefit from (Exodus 23:19; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 9:1).

It is forbidden to benefit from the meat of such animals, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah2:2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning “the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger.” Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam’s words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This he maintains is two thumb breadths.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between “the width of a sit” and “the full length of a sit.” As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, “the full length of a sit” is two thumb breadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), “the width of a sit” is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three thumb breadths.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3).

Generally, the hair of an unredeemed firstborn donkey need only be buried, as stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, in this instance, the cloth must be burnt lest the forbidden substance not be recognized and the cloth considered as permitted (Temurah 34a).

Temurah, op. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of the statements of Leviticus 25:3 with regard to the ash of the inner altar. From those statements, a parallel is established with regard to the other ashes mentioned here. The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that it is only forbidden to benefit from the ashes which the priest removes when taking out the ash in the morning. He maintains that the ash on the altar is permitted. The Rambam, by contrast, maintains that all of the ash of the altar is forbidden.

Because in all these instances, the mitzvah is that the article be burnt.

While the ash of entities that are to be burnt is permitted.

The Ra’avad states that, on the basis of Gittin 54b, both of these statements should be understood as applying while the article in question is in that person’s hands. The rationale is that since he could now make the article piggul or impure, his word is accepted when he says that it was previously brought to that state.
The Kessef Mishneh states that although that is the opinion of Abbaye in Gitlin, loc. cit., Rava differs, maintaining that the law applies even when the articles in question are not in his hand. Generally, the halachah follows Rava’s opinion, but in this instance, Abbaye’s view is favored.

For this would cause acceptable sacrifices to be burnt unnecessarily and pure entities to be destroyed.

And accept the other person’s statements.

The wording of the Talmud that the Rambam quotes, “according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon,” implies that it is desirable to go beyond the letter of the law. See the parallels in Hilchot Karban Pesach 4:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8.