Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In which instance it is not fit to be offered as a burnt-offering, for the animals offered for such sacrifices must be unblemished and male.

A blemished animal may be sold immediately.

As is the law if a person would consecrate a female animal or a blemished animal as a burnt-offering.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1.

Whether male or female.

Temurah 17b notes that Leviticus 5:19 states: “It is a guilt-offering” and comments: “‘It’ is sacrificed; an animal to which its holiness was transferred is not sacrificed.” See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:14.

Burnt-offerings sacrificed as an embellishment to the altar at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].

The laying of the hands on the animal by the owner, as explained in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:6-15.

Meal, oil, and wine offered to accompany a sacrifice, as explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.

As explained in ibid. 9:6-7, these portions of the animal offered as a peace-offering are placed in the owner’s hand. A priest places his hand below the owner’s hand and the portions are brought to each of the four directions and then upward and downward.

The forty loaves offered with the thanksgiving-offering. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKarbanat 9:17-19. Temurah 18b derives this from the phrase (Leviticus 7:12): “He shall offer on the slaughtering of the thanksgiving-offering, loaves....” From the fact that the verse speaks of “the thanksgiving-offering,” our Sages conclude: ‘“A thanksgiving-offering’ [itself] requires loaves; an animal to which its holiness was transferred does not requires loaves.”

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 12:8.

At which time, the obligation to offer the Paschal sacrifice takes effect.

The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in Pesachim 96b. There the Talmud notes that Exodus 12:27 states: ‘‘It is Paschal sacrifice” and comments: ‘“It’ is sacrificed, an animal to which its holiness is transferred is not sacrificed.” The Sages then explain that the restriction applies to a situation where a Paschal sacrifice was lost, another was set aside instead, the first was found, and the holiness of the second was transferred. (See Hilchot Karban Pesach 4:6.) If, however, one transferred the holiness of a Paschal sacrifice itself, the animal to which the transfer was made should be sacrificed. Thus the Rambam’s ruling appears questionable.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that there is a passage in Zevachim 37b which implies that an animal to which the holiness of the Paschal sacrifice was transferred should not be sacrificed. Nevertheless, he quotes Tasafat in Pesachim 97b who explain that the passage in Pesachim should be favored over the passage in Zevachim and therefore questions the Rambam’s ruling. He then offers an interpretation of the passage in Pesachim that fits the Rambam’s decision, but states that difficulties still remain.

For an animal unfit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice that was consecrated as a Paschal sacrifice should be brought as a peace-offering, as stated in Hilchot Karban Pesach 4:4.

Temurah 5b, et al.

Because of its holiness.

See the Rambam’s explanations when listing the mitzvot at the beginning of Hilchot Becharat.

Without being redeemed, as stated in the following halachah.

After it contracts a blemish. Since the firstborn animal belongs essentially to the priests (the owner has merely the right to decide to which priest to give it), an animal to which its holiness is transferred also belongs to the priests.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12. See also Hilchot Bechorot 1:2, 17; 6:5-6.

The law concerning such an animal is that it is considered as consecrated. It should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. It should then be sold and half the proceeds used for a burnt-offering and half, for a peace-offering (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:3, see Chapter 2, Halachah 4, above).

This appears to refer to the animals mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachot 13, 18, and 21. Their status is that they are not offered as sacrifices, but instead, left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. They are then sold and the proceeds used for sacrifices.

The Ra’avad notes that the Rambam’s ruling does not match the standard texts of Temurah 26b. Nevertheless, he supposes that the Rambam had a different version of that passage, which said: “Everyone agrees that when one says: ‘Half the animal is a burnt-offering and to half is transferred the holiness of a consecrated animal,’ that it should be offered as a burnt-offering.” The Ra’avad explains that the rationale motivating the ruling would seem to be that since it is forbidden to transfer the holiness of an animal, we assume that this was not the person’s intent. Instead, he first intended to consecrate it as a burnt-offering. Only afterwards did he change his mind and seek to transfer holiness to it.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that this cannot be used as the rationale for the Rambam’s ruling, because the Rambam states: “The holiness of a sacrificial animal should be transferred to half this animal and the other half should be consecrated as a burnt-offering,” mentioning the transfer of holiness first. Therefore, Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the explanation offered by the Ra’avad cannot be used to explain the Rambam’s ruling. Rav Yosef Corcus cites Rashi’s explanation: that the transfer of holiness does not take effect, because there is no specific animal to which the holiness is being transferred. Rav Yosef Corcus does not accept that interpretation, however, because there is no reason to speak of the transfer of holiness to only half an animal. The same concept could have been stated with regard to an entire animal. Instead, he explains the intent is that holiness cannot be transferred to half an animal. Hence, the transfer of holiness is not effective. By contrast, the consecration of half the animal as a burnt-offering takes effect. And since half an animal contains organs on which the animal’s life is dependent, the consecration spreads throughout the entire animal, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:2. As a result, the entire animal becomes consecrated as a burnt-offering.

Rav Yosef Corcus quotes Tosafot, Temurah, loc. cit., as explaining that this refers to a situation where a person is tithing his herds, for otherwise, there is no concept of consecrating a tithe offering. Nevertheless, before it emerges, he states that half the tenth animal will be consecrated as a burnt-offering. That statement supersedes the holiness that is endowed through the process of tithing.

Here also, there is no concept of consecrating half a tithe offering (Kiddushin Sia). Hence the person’s statement concerning the tithe offering is of no consequence. Nevertheless, his statement concerning the burnt-offering does take effect. And, as mentioned in note 24, since half the animal comprises organs on which the animal’s life depends, the consecration spreads through the entire animal.

In this instance, neither of the statements are effective. Hence, the animal’s status is in doubt. Kin’at Eliyahu asks why its status is in doubt. Since neither of these statements are effective, its status should be unchanged and it should remain an ordinary animal.

In which instance, the physical person of the animal is considered as consecrated and we wait until either the blemish is healed (in which instance, the animal is sacrificed) or it contracts a permanent blemish (in which instance, it is redeemed and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrificial animal).

I.e., either the animal with the temporary blemish or the unblemished animal.

Even after a consecrated animal is redeemed, its holiness does not depart from it entirely and its status is not that of an ordinary animal, as evident from the fact that it is forbidden to shear or perform work with such animals (Hilchot Me’ilah 1:9; see also the following halachah). Hence, that holiness can be transferred to another animal. Nevertheless, since a large measure of the holiness has departed, the animal to which the holiness is transferred can neither be sacrificed nor redeemed.

I.e., the consecrated animal had already been redeemed.

I.e., before holiness was transferred to them. Needless to say, the laws that follow apply when the animals were unblemished before holiness was transferred to them and became blemished afterwards.

And the proceeds of their sale used to purchase sacrificial animals.

I.e., their status is the same as blemished sacrificial animals that were redeemed, see Hilchot Me’ilah, loc. cit.

This is speaking about a situation in which the person did not know whether the animal whose holiness he transferred had been consecrated as a burnt-offering or as a peace-offering. In such an instance, the animal may not be sacrificed, because it is not known which type of sacrifice it is. Instead, ideally, the animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, it should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase one of the types of sacrifice. The other type of sacrifice should be brought from the person’s own resources. The Rabbis, however, feared that over time the person would forget that the animal pasturing came from an intermingling of sacrificial animals and might offer only one animal after it became blemished and was redeemed. Therefore, they suggested the course of action mentioned by the Rambam (see Ra’avad, Rav Yosef Corcus, and Lechem Mishneh, based on the Tosefta, Temurah 3:6).

The one to which the holiness was transferred.

The other animal that was brought.

In which instance, the law is that the animals should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. Then they should be sold and the proceeds of the more valuable one used to purchase a burnt-offering and a similar sum, used to purchase a peace-offering. The person bringing the sacrifices must make up the difference in the value between the more valuable animal and the less valuable one from his own resources (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:5-6).

These additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who explains that he brings an ordinary animal, not a sacrificial animal.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 15, the holiness of an animal to which holiness was transferred cannot be transferred to another animal. Hence, in this instance, since the two animals one to which the holiness of one of the animals from the first mixture was transferred and one which was consecrated conditionally, as either a burnt-offering or a peace-offering—became intermingled, the result is the same as in the previous clause. Again, ideally, the animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. Afterwards, it should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase one of the types of sacrifice. The other type of sacrifice should be brought from the person’s own resources. In this instance as well, the Rabbis, however, feared that over time the person would forget the original problematic situation and therefore, suggested the course of action mentioned by the Rambam.

The animal to which the holiness was transferred.

I.e., to it was transferred the holiness of the animal that was brought in the situation described in the first clause. Thus there is a lack of clarity regarding its status: Was the holiness of a burnt-offering or the holiness of a peace-offering transferred to it?

As in the above situation, the animals should be left to pasture. Then they should be sold and two animals each equal in value to the more valuable one should be purchased. The person bringing the sacrifices should suffer the loss from his own resources.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 6.

Without knowing its identity.

Since the identity of the animal whose holiness was transferred was not known, there is no way that it can be sacrificed.

Because it is possible that the holiness of a peace-offering was transferred to it. The proceeds of the sale should be used to purchase a peace-offering. Although a firstborn offering and a tithe offering need not be redeemed, redemption is necessary because of the peace-offering.

See Halachah 2; see also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:14.