Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

There is a printing error in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. Our text follows the version found in authoritative manuscripts.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 121-122) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 16, 383) include these prohibitions as separate commandments in the reckoning of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

As described in Chapter 7, Halachah l. When, however, an individual Paschal sacrifice that had been slaughtered in a state of purity becomes impure, the prohibition applies, as stated in Halachah 6.

When the sacrifice is eaten.

When it is forbidden to partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

I.e., to prevent them from being broken. See Halachah 5.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9.

Pesachim 84b derives this concept from the prooftext cited above. It begins: “It shall be eaten in one home” and then continues “You shall not break a bone.” Implied is that the prohibition refers only to a bone that has meat that could be eaten.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 7:.11) states that even one person can be liable twice if he breaks the same bone of a Paschal sacrifice a second time.

See Halachah 2.

Burning is not breaking and sinews are not bones. Moreover, it is not appropriate to speak of breaking sinews (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Thus a prohibition was violated in its preparation (see Chapter 8, Halachah 4).

In which instance, it is disqualified; see Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

It was slaughtered or its blood received, brought to the altar, or poured on the altar with the intent that it be eaten in an improper place (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

Any of the above services were performed with the intent of partaking of the sacrifice at an improper time (ibid.).

Any of the above services were performed for the sake of any other sacrifices aside from the Paschal sacrifice (ibid. 15:11).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s rulings, noting that the matters discussed in this and the previous halachah are all subjects of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and the other Sages. In the previous halachah, the Rambam follows the view of the Sages, while in this halachah, he accepts Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s position. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that the discussion of these points in the Talmud appears to corroborate the Rambam’s rulings even though they represent opposing positions among Mishnaic Sages.

The bones of a large ox are firm. If even after cooking, one could not eat it, it is a bone and not cartilage.

I.e., the Paschal sacrifice must have at least an olive-sized portion of meat for each person enumerated on it. Although these sinews may be eaten, they are not considered in the above reckoning.

This is not considered as breaking a bone.

The gid [hanesheh] which is forbidden to be eaten; see Genesis 32:33; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot, ch. 8.

The Ra’avad takes fierce objection to the Rambam’s words, stating: By the life of my head, there is no greater prohibition than this - to roast a Paschal sacrifice with the sciatic nerve, its fat, the fat below its loins, and the membranes in the head. If I will merit to partake of the Paschal sacrifice and a Paschal sacrifice like this will be brought to me, I would smash it to the ground before [the bearer].
The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus defend the Rambam’s perspective, explaining that the fundamental point is that, as evident from Pesachim 74a, it is desirable to roast the Paschal sacrifice whole. Now if the sciatic nerve and the other membranes that are usually removed before meat is roasted or cooked would be removed, it would not be whole.
Rav Yosef Corcus states that there are certain expert butchers who can remove forbidden fats and the like without cutting the animal into pieces. Hence the Ra’avad maintained that one should have such measures taken. According to the Rambam, he maintains, since there is great difficulty in preparing the meat in this manner, it is not necessary. Although there are forbidden fats and the like in the sacrificial animal, there is no difficulty in roasting it whole. In explanation, he cites the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:32: If [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs, i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it, until he reaches the fat. Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted together with the sciatic nerve, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the sciatic nerve. [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it. When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.
It must be emphasized that the leniency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the meat is roasted and not when it is cooked. Moreover, even when the meat is being roasted, the goat must be lean, as stated in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot. Having emphasized these points, there is, as Rav Yosef Corcus explains, no reason to forbid the sacrifice. To cite the points raised by the Ra’avad individually:
The sciatic nerve - It has no flavor. Hence there is no difficulty in it being cooked with another entity (ibid.:17).
Its fat - Although the fat of sciatic nerve has flavor and hence, causes entities to be forbidden, that prohibition is Rabbinic in origin (ibid. 8:1-2) and is not applied in this instance.
The fat below the loins - This is also a Rabbinic prohibition (ibid. 7:8).
The membranes in the head - The difficulty is the blood they contain and the Paschal sacrifice is roasted with its head hanging down and the blood will flow out (ibid. 6:14).
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that all fat that is prohibited by Scriptural Law was removed before the animal was roasted.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 117, 119) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 8, 382) include these prohibitions as separate commandments in the reckoning of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

This is a general rule, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2. The commentaries also note that the violation of this prohibition does not involve a deed, which is another reason why lashes are not given.

The commandment to burn sacrificial meat that was left over beyond the time it is permitted to be eaten is not unique to the Paschal sacrifice, but applies to all sacrificial meat. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:1; Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143).

In contrast to the Paschal sacrifice that may not be brought from cattle.

Here the intent is not a large—or small-sized animal. Instead, the intent is that we need not be concerned with the animal's age. Although the Paschal sacrifice itself must be brought from an animal in the first year of its life, there is no such restriction with regard to this peace-offering.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:11.

It is singled out in this manner, so that it will not be confused with the festive offering that the person is obligated to bring on Pesach itself as on all the other festivals, as mentioned in Hilchot Chagigah 1:1. Even if one brings this offering, he is required to bring a separate sacrifice to fulfill his chagigah obligation.

We are forced to say that this is the verse’s intent, for as mentioned above, the Paschal sacrifice itself may not be brought from cattle (Sifri to the above verse).

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 6:3). In such an instance, many people would be enumerated on all the Paschal sacrifices and there would not be enough meat for each one to eat to the point of satiation as required (see Chapter 8, Halachah 3). In such an instance, the festive-offering is brought to compensate for that lack.

For individual offerings are never brought on the Sabbath except the Paschal sacrifice.

Similarly, individual offerings are never brought in a state of impurity except the Paschal sacrifice.

And thus there will be no difficulty in each person eating to the point of satiation.

Pesachim 69b states that this is obvious from the points stated in the previous halachah. Were the festive offering to be an obligation, it would have to be brought in all those instances as well.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:6. Thus the consumption of this festive offering is not dependent on the Paschal sacrifice.

I.e., the sixteenth of Nisan. The sacrifice is offered on the fourteenth. That day is counted. Thus the third day is the sixteenth.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 118) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 486) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Pesachim 71b explains that since the verse also mentions “the first day,” the implication is that it will be eaten for the entire first day after it was sacrificed and then burnt on the morning of the second day.

See Halachah 11 and Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:9.

Which theoretically could be left until the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan.

Which in and of themselves are not obligated to be burnt.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.

I.e., we are concerned that some of the meat of the Paschal sacrifice become mixed with them or attached to them and would accidentally be eaten after midnight (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Leaven and leavened products.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 3:8.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.

Halachah 12 above.

Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

There is an obligation to eat the second Paschal sacrifice together with matzah, but there is no obligation to remove chametz from one’s possession at that time.

On the basis of Isaiah 30:29, Pesachim, Zoe. cit., derives that Hallel is recited at night only on a holiday and the second Pesach is not a holiday.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

For the second Paschal sacrifice is offered during the day and there is no difficulty in reciting Hallel during the day (Pesachim, Zoe. cit.). See Chapter 1, Halachot 11-12. Alternatively, as Pesachim, Zoe. cit., asks rhetorically, “Is it possible that the Jews will bring their Paschal sacrifices and not recite Hallel!”

See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

These last three points are explicitly mentioned in Numbers 9:11-12.

That verse and the previous one mention several specific laws concerning the second Paschal sacrifice. Since the Torah made the general statement cited in the prooftext, there would be no need to single out these particulars. Their mention implies that the general principle mentioned previously is restricted (see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 9:3)].

In Exodus, ch. 12.