Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In this chapter, the Rambam lists the time limits associated with bringing the sacrifices and describes the intent with which the sacrifices must be offered.

I.e., its blood should be sprinkled on the altar.

As is the entire sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:37).

I.e., the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the altar (Radbaz).

The fats and inner organs of the animal that are offered on the altar.

The appearance of the first glimmerings of the light of the sun on the horizon more than an hour before sunrise.

As Leviticus 6:2 speaks of “the burnt-offering … on the altar, the entire night until the morning.”

I.e., “lest time become pressing and they would not be offered until the following day” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:3)].

When there would be no prohibition involved in offering them.

For example, the meal-offerings brought by the priests. See Chapter 12.

Provided certain conditions are met, these may be offered on the altar even after the afternoon daily sacrifice has been offered. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:6 and notes.

As accompanying offerings. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

They need not be offered on the day the sacrifice is offered, but they must be offered during the day.

Since they were not associated with a particular sacrifice, there are no limits as to when they may be offered.

Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz who maintains that it is preferable for him to offer them at night, for the libations should be consecrated and offered at the earliest possible opportunity. Hence, if it is possible for him to do so by day, he should do so by day. If that option becomes available at night, he should not wait for the next day.

This is acceptable even as an initial preference.

I.e., one might think that since they were sanctified at night, they would not be disqualified until the end of the next day. Hence, it is necessary to state that this is not so.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 6.

See, for example, Chapter 9, Halachah 7.

See Chapter 13, Halachot 12-13.

The word “day” is mentioned in either the verse commanding the ritual acts mentioned or in a verse associated with them. Our Sages inferred that these ritual acts could only be performed during the day (see Megilah 20b).

I.e., according to Scriptural Law. See Halachot 2-3 above.

I.e., one should endeavor to perform them at the earliest possible opportunity.

See Hilchot Shechitah 1:14 and notes.

The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that slaughter is not considered part of the sacrificial service, as evidenced by the fact that it may be performed by a non-priest.

The laws governing the sprinkling of the blood are described in the following chapter.

The Rambam refers to these with the term simanim, “signs,” for they are the organs which, when slit in the desired manner, indicate that ritual slaughter is acceptable.

The Rambam is quoting Zevachim 25a-b. As indicated by the conclusion of the halachah, it appears that the intent is not that the animal’s neck should be held inside the sacred basin - for then, it would be difficult to perform the slaughter but rather, above it (see Radbaz).

In Hilchot Shechitah 1:9, the Rambam states: "Superior slaughter involves cutting both [the windpipe and the gullet], whether for an animal or a fowl, and a slaughterer should have this intent. [After the fact,] if one cut the greater part of one of them for a fowl and the greater part of both of them for an animal or a beast, the slaughter is acceptable."

So that the blood will not flow into the basin (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Our division of the halachot is based on the authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a slightly different version.

The question is whether the blood is considered as if it came to rest in the basin and then spilled out (in which instance, it would be acceptable to be gathered from the floor) or whether it spilled directly on the floor and was hence, disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 25b). The Rambam is stating that since the blood is not going to come to rest in the bottomless basin, it is considered as if was spilled out.
Note the Radbaz who maintains that even if the utensil has a hole in it, if the blood is able to be collected, it is acceptable.

The intent of the priest is significant and not the intent of the person who donated the sacrifice [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:6); Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1].

Although there are many activities connected with a sacrifice being offered, these four activities are considered the ones that are significant with regard to whether or not the sacrifice is disqualified.

The process of Biblical exegesis through which these concepts are derived is explained in Zevachim 4a-b.

If, however, they were sacrificed with a different intent, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the person is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation (Zevachim 2a).

From the Rambam’s words, it appears that this is not true with regard to a sin-offering or a guilt-offering or the Paschal sacrifice. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that from Zevachim 46b, it would appear that even those sacrifices are acceptable as long as one does not have a wrong intent. It is only when one has a wrong intent that they are disqualified. The Radbaz maintains that even though those sacrifices are not disqualified, the person bringing them is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept this explanation and leaves his question of the Rambam’s ruling unresolved.

The commentaries discuss whether these concepts apply with regard to the peace offerings as well. From the Rambam’s words, it would appear that the general intent applies to the peace-offerings; some of the particulars the Rambam mentions obviously do not.

I.e., he must know the type of offering for which he is slaughtering an animal (Rashi, Zevachim 46b).

I.e., and not for someone else (ibid.).

Rather than roasted for human consumption (ibid.).

That they be burnt on the altar and not elsewhere and then brought to the altar (ibid.).

In the previous halachah.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:6.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:6. In this chapter, the Rambam explains the place where sacrifices are offered and the manner in which the blood and fats from the sacrifices are presented to God.

Indeed, a non-priest may slaughter a sacrificial animal as an initial preference (Radbaz).

Leviticus 1:5 states: “The sons of Aaron will offer it.” Implied is that all the acts involved in offering the animal should be performed by the priests (Zevachim 32a).

Zevachim 97b notes that Exodus 24:5-6 speaks of the blood of peace-offerings being received in sacred vessels. Now if this is a requirement for peace-offerings which are sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it certainly holds true for sacrifices of the most sacred order.

I.e., the receptacle may not be resting on the ground (Radbaz).

Since, as implied by Chapter 4, Halachah 8, one must receive the blood immediately after slaughter, this is seemingly obvious. It could be explained that the Rambam is implying that even after the fact, receiving the blood elsewhere disqualifies the sacrifice. Moreover, even if he received only part of the blood outside the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:16 which states: [The area] from the northern wall of the Temple Courtyard until the wall of the Altar was sixty and a half [cubits] wide. The length of this area, from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the eastern wall of the Courtyard, was 76 [cubits]. The rectangle [described above] is called "the northern portion." The sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered there. The 60 and a half cubit width can be broken down as follows: the space between the pillars and the northern wall, 8 cubits, the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits, the area of the tables, 8 cubits, the area of the rings, 24 cubits, the space between the rings and the Altar, 8 cubits. It was also called beit hamitbachayim, the butchering area, because here the large majority of sacrifices were slaughtered and prepared to be offered on the altar.

In the verse cited.

In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 5:1), he explains that although there is no specific verse referring to a burnt-offering as a sacrifice of the most sacred order, since an equivalence is established between it and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, we can assume that it is included in that category.

This refers to the sheep offered on Shavuot. Different laws apply to individual peace-offerings, as stated below.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that based on Numbers 10:10, Zevachim 55a establishes an association between communal peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and asks why the Rambam prefers the association with the sin-offerings. Seemingly, deriving the concept from the burnt-offering would be more direct. In resolution, he explains that since the Torah states that the sin-offering should be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt-offering, it is as if it is explicitly stated that the sin-offering should be slaughtered in the north. Hence, the derivation is not indirect.

Zevachim 54b explains that there was a small opening at the rear of the Holy of Holies. Since the area behind the Temple building could see the Holy of Holies, it was considered as if it saw “the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.”

In addition to the verse cited, Zevachim 55a states that there is another verse (Leviticus 3:8) which mentions slaughtering a sacrifice “before the Tent of Meeting.” It explains that both verses are necessary, for from the verse cited by the Rambam, one would not know that it is permissible to slaughter an animal in the side portions of the Temple Courtyard. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh suggests that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and the Rambam indeed desired to cite Leviticus 3:8.

For if seeing the entrance to the Temple Building makes a sacrifice acceptable, certainly, being inside the Temple building itself does (Zevachim 63a).

Needless to say, this applies with regard to the roofs of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz). For the roofs of the structures in the Temple complex were not consecrated (Pesachim 85b).

Tosafot, Yoma 29a, maintains that this also applies to any other sacrificial animals that must be slaughtered. This view is not, however, accepted by all authorities (see the commentaries to Zevachim 61a).

This law also applies if the gates to the Temple were closed during the day, but that generally did not take place (Radbaz).

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:17.

I.e., unlike the sin-offering mentioned in Halachah 9, he need not sprinkle it with his hand.

Beneath the scarlet band that was tied around the middle of the Altar. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9. If he cast the blood above that band, the sacrifice is disqualified.

The priest would cast the blood on the northeast comer and then the southwest in that order (Tamid 4:1), so that when walking, he would be circling the altar to the right (Yoma 15b). These comers were chosen because there was no base on the altar’s northwest comer (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:10).

A Greek letter whose shape resembles an upside-down “L.”

Hence our Sages (Zevachim 53b, et al) uses the expression: “Two presentations of blood that constitute four.”

Leviticus 1:11, 3:2.

And in the manner described above, the blood will be cast on all four sides of the altar.

Leviticus 7:2 which describes the guilt offering also uses the term “surrounding.” Nevertheless, its wording is slightly different.

If the blood is placed below the midway point of the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.

Implying that it must be placed on all four corners.

For all service is performed with the right hand. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:18.

The verb used by the Rambam (and his source, Zevachim 53a) refers to the wording employed by Leviticus 6:19, which means “performs the service of the sin-offering.”

Le., after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.

So that it does not become mixed with the blood remaining in the container (Zevachim 93b).

See Halachah 6.

For he is circling to the right, as required (Zevachim 62b).

If he fails to do this, the sacrifice is not disqualified (see Chapter 19, Halachah 4).

The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the prooftext to Leviticus 30:34 for that verse refers to the sin-offerings brought on the outer altar, while the verse cited by the Rambam refers to the sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled within the Temple itself.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 16, for a definition of this term.

See the following halachah for an actual description.

The sin-offering of the High Priest and his priestly brethren.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Bringing accompanying offerings for these sacrifices is an exception to the general rule, as stated in Halachah 2. The obligation to bring these three esronim is explicitly stated in Leviticus 14:10. The Oral Tradition (Menachot 91a) teaches that each one is designated for a different sacrifice.

Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:2.

The sprinklings had to be directed, one upward and seven downward, as will be explained in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim. If the High Priest was not careful about directing the sprinklings in this manner, they are still acceptable.
This is the interpretation offered by Rav Yosef Corcus and also suggested as an alternative by the Kessef Mishneh. The Kessef Mishneh, however, also offers another interpretation: that the Hebrew should be translated as “he did not have the intent,” i.e., he performed the act without the intent of it being a mitzvah. This can be connected to a question of a much larger scope: Must a person who performs a mitzvah have the intention of doing so or not? From Rosh Hashanah 32b, it would appear that such intention is necessary. However, other Talmudic sources imply that there is no need for such intention. Whenever a person performs the deed of a mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation, regardless of his intention.
On the surface, the Rambam’s own decisions regarding this question appear paradoxical. Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:3 states: “A person who eats matzah without the intention [of fulfilling the mitzvah] … fulfills his obligation.” By contrast, Hilchot Shofar 2:4 states that a person who hears the sounding of the shofar from one who blows it casually, without the intent of performing a mitzvah, does not fulfill his obligation. There is extensive debate about this issue among the commentaries. The general consensus is that one must have the intent of performing a mitzvah. The situation involving matzah is unique for various reasons, each authority explaining the rationale for the exception in his own way. See the discussion of the rulings cited for more details.

These include a bull brought by a High Priest as a sin-offering and the bull brought as atonement for a Jaw forgotten by the High Court (Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16).

As atonement for the prohibition against idol worship (ibid.).

This is stated explicitly with regard to the sin-offering brought by the High Priest in Leviticus 4:6-7 and the bull brought because of the error of the High Court (ibid.:17). The sprinkling of the blood of the goats is derived from the laws regarding these offerings as stated in Halachah 16.

With regard to the sprinkling of the blood on Yom Kippur, this refers to the entry of the High Priest from the Holy of Holies. With regard to the other sacrifices, it refers to the entry into the Sanctuary from the Entrance Hall. The commentaries see a difficulty between the Rambam’s words here and his statements in Hilchot Avodat Yam HaKippurim 4:2.

The Menorah was on the southern side of the Sanctuary (to the left of the priest as he faces the Holy of Holies).

The High Priest.

As related by Leviticus 4:6, he sprinkles the blood toward the curtain separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.

Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:10.

The fats and the inner organs that are offered on the altar.

This order is explicitly stated in the Torah’s description of the manner in which several sacrifices are offered, e.g., Numbers 18:17: “Their blood shall the cast upon the altar and their fats they shall offer on the altar’s pyre.”

See Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

For otherwise there would be an interruption between receiving the blood and casting it upon the altar (Rashi, Zevachim 103b). This, however, is not an absolute requirement. If the animal is skinned first, the sacrifice is not disqualified (see Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9).

And from the burnt-offering, we derive that this law applies to other sacrifices of the most sacred order (Zevachim 103a).

I.e., the sacrifice was disqualified before its blood was cast on the altar, in which instance, it was never required that its flesh would be offered on the altar.

Instead, they are burnt together with the meat of the sacrifice (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9).

The Tosefta, Zevachim, ch. 11, states that originally, the hides were divided daily among the members of the clan who served in the Temple that day. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, strong-armed priests would seize the hides from others. Hence, they organized a larger division where seizing the hides in that manner would not be. possible. among the members of the clan who served in the Temple that day. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, strong-armed priests would seize the hides from others. Hence, they organized a larger division where seizing the hides in that manner would not be possible.

It is offered on the altar, but it is not considered as his personal sacrifice.

Rambam LeAm notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:7), one opinion states - as the Rambam states here - that the male animals should be offered as burnt-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the males should be sold to others to be offered as burnt-offerings. Significantly, when referring to this law in Hilchot Arachin and in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam follows Rabbi Eliezer’s position.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the standard published texts for Zevachim 103a speak about a convert rather than a gentile. He favors the Rambam’s version of the text, because seemingly there is no reason to distinguish between a convert and another Jew in this regard.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 63) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 115) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This refers both to the burnt-offerings brought by individuals and those brought by the Jewish people as a whole.

Having described the general principles that apply with regard to all the sacrifices, the Rambam begins to focus on each one individually, describing its laws in a particular chapter or set of halachot. Here the Rambam focuses on the manner in which the sacrifices are brought. In later sets of halachot, he speaks of the obligations of individuals and of the Jewish people as a whole to bring these sacrifices.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of the animal and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.

All of these are not fundamental parts of the animal’s body. Hence while they are connected to the body, they are considered as part of it and must be offered on the altar’s pyre. The implication is that ordinarily, they would not be separated and the animal would be offered on the altar while they were attached. Nevertheless, if they had been separated and they had descended from the altar, they are considered as distinct and there is no longer any obligation to offer them.

If, however, they flew off the pyre, but remained on the altar, they should be placed back on the pyre (Meilah 9b).

This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:5).

Indeed, if they were brought up to the altar as separate entities, they should be taken down again, rather than offered (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:16). Nevertheless, if they were separated on the altar itself before they were offered, they should not be taken down, but instead should be offered on its pyre (Radbaz, Rav Yosef Corcus).

The prooftext is defining the meat and the blood as the fundamental elements of a burnt offering. The implication is that it is necessary for them to be consumed by the altar’s fire and hence, they must be returned to the altar if they flew off. There is, by contrast, no fundamental necessity for the secondary elements of the animal’s body to be consumed by fire. Hence there is no obligation to return them to the altar if they flew off.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:6), the Rambam explains that often we see that when entities that contain moisture are placed on a fire, the moisture will vaporize. At times, the process will be powerful enough to lift up that entity and propel it upward.

When at times a distinction is made, as the Rambam explains in the second portion of the halachah.

To be consumed by its fire, as the mitzvah requires.

For the mitzvah of having them consumed by fire has been completed.

I.e., they did not become like ash.

Zevachim 86a notes that the prooftext cited speaks of the burnt offering being on the altar’s fire “the entire night, until the morning.” From the redundancy, our Sages derive that within the night, a distinction should be made. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

See Halachot 10-18 which describes the manner in which the limbs are brought to the altar.

For salt must be applied to all offerings (see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11-12).

Different priests would perform this service, i.e., one priest would bring a limb to the ramp and salt it and another one would bring it to the top of the altar (Radbaz, Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:6,8).

The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal’s hind leg. This nerve must be separated before the meat of an animal is eaten or offered on the altar. See Hilchot Ma’acholot Assurot 8:1 for more details.

It should not be removed beforehand, because the limb will not look attractive as it is being carried to the altar (Chulin 90b).

As described in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.

Indeed, the altar's ramp was separated slightly from the altar itself to insure that the limbs were thrown on the fire rather than merely placed there (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:13).

As obvious from the continuation of the halachah, the hole is not made in the animal's foot, but on its thigh above its knee. Thus it will remain hanging after its legs were cut off.

There were pillars in the Temple Courtyard with hooks to serve this purpose (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13).

Perhaps because of its weight, hanging it up would present a difficulty.

In Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:6, the Rambam states that the skinning of the animal and its division into portions need not be performed by a priest.

If he would skin the breast before cutting off the head, the skin would hang from the neck and it would be difficult to cut off the head precisely (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 4:2). Alternatively, since the head is offered first, it is appropriate that it be cut off first (Radbaz).

The portion below the knees.

I.e., the portion from the knee until the shoulder joint.

I.e., the fat that is on the digestive organs.

So that when the head is carried to the altar, the opening where it was severed will not be seen. This is a gesture of respect for the Divine Presence.

I.e., even water that is collected is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).

This chamber is described in Hilchat Beit HaBechirah 5:17. The stomach was washed there, because it would not be respectful to wash out its filth in the Temple Courtyard.

Since they are narrow, it is difficult to clean them thoroughly. At least three washings are necessary. If more are required to clean them, they should be washed more [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:2)].

For it is sacrificed with the tail, as stated in Halachot 9 and 13.

For the backbone is offered with the left flank.

The Radbaz explains that the backbone is left intact so that the vertebrae will not separate into individual units.

The ribs that were left are also taken with it (Radbaz).

Rav Yosef Corcus states that there is no Scriptural source for the division of the animal in this manner. Instead, this was simply the most practical and logical way of dividing it.

In this way, a portion of the animal with many bones (the head) and much meat (the leg) will have been offered. The head is also given priority, because it has been mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).

For the offering of the head is most important.

Since carrying the limbs to the altar is not part of the atonement process, there is no difficulty in it being performed with one’s left hand (Rabbenu Asher).

I.e., the outer side. Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:4).

These limbs are the largest and hence, receive priority.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). Others interpret the term bezech differently.

To cover them, for their appearance is not appealing (Radbaz).

Since a ram is much larger than a sheep, it would be difficult for one priest to carry the intestines alone. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that the intestines are cut in half and part given to one priest and part to another. The Tifferet Yisrael (Yoma 2:6) differs and maintains that two priests carry them together.

Here too, because it is a larger amount, it would be difficult for one priest to carry it. In this instance as well, the Radbaz explains that the intent is that each priest carries a container with half of the meal offering, while the Tiferet Yisrael maintains that it is placed in a large container and that container is carried by two priests together.

Halachah 10 mentions six priests because it does not count the two who bring the accompanying offerings. The Rambam is speaking about any burnt-offering. Therefore he does not mention the chavitin offering which is brought together with the daily burnt-offering.

For the foot of an ox is large and requires two priests to bring it. Similar concepts apply with regard to the other limbs.

Here also the Radbaz explains that the portions would be divided, with each priest receiving a separate portion. This, he maintained, is a greater expression of honor and respect than to have the priests carry the burdens together.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. He explains that the animal may not be cut into smaller portions, as implied by the first clause of this halachah. (Indeed, the prooftext cited refers to an individual burnt-offering.)

Holding the fowl.

Zevachim 65a states that this corner is chosen, because it is close to the ash pile where the skin and the intestines would be cast.

The Lechem Mishneh (gloss to Chapter 7, Halachah 6) quotes authorities who maintain that he need not sever the head entirely from the body entirely. What must be severed are the gullet and the windpipe organs. Just as ritual slaughter requires that they be severed, so too, they must be severed in the rite of melikah. The Kessef Mishneh (to that halachah) however, understands the Rambam’s words simply. The head must be separated from the body entirely.

The rationale for both these rulings is that the majority of the blood is lodged in the body.

For all offerings must be salted.

One of the stomachs of the fowl.

Our translation follows the Rambam’s Commentary of the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:5). The Radbaz interprets the term notzah as feces rather than as feathers and explains that this enables us to understand why these organs are not burnt together with the rest of the fowl. The intestines of an animal are washed out before being offered. Hence they are fit to be offered on the altar. Those of the fowl are not.

As required by Leviticus 1:16.

The ash pile on the floor of the Temple Courtyard, between the ramp and the altar, near the southeastern corner of the altar. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:12. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

As evident from Judges 14:6 (Zevachim 65b).

Because the primary element of the sacrifice was completed (Rav Yosef Corcus).

See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, which describes the manner in which the priest would hold the fowl. As stated there, this was one of the difficult tasks performed in the Sanctuary.

As one does when performing ritual slaughter (Hilchot Shechitah 2:7).

Such a motion is unacceptable for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:7).

This would disqualify an animal for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:14).

I.e., that would make the animal a treifah.

Cutting the majority of them is, however, acceptable. They need not be severed entirely.