Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Hilchot lssurei Mizbeiach 3:2 with regard to the differences between these species. In this chapter, the Rambam outlines the different types of animal sacrifices and which animals are offered for each one.

The sacrifice of the firstborn of one's cattle or flocks.

I.e., the tithing of one’s cattle or flocks.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, in the introduction to the order of Kodshim, the Rambam speaks of” peace-offerings and [offerings] that resemble peace-offerings.” He later explains that the term “[offerings] that resemble peace-offerings” refers to the three types of sacrifices mentioned here, because they resemble peace-offerings. He elaborates on that theme in his commentary to Zevachim 5:5, explaining that the procedure in which these three sacrifices are offered resembles ‘that of the peace-offerings with only minor differences. For that reason and because they are offerings which a person is required to bring only on specific and infrequent occasions, he does not consider them as a separate category of sacrifices.

I.e., the two loaves offered that day. The Rambam is borrowing the wording of Leviticus 23:17.

Literally "continuous offerings."

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:1-3.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:9.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, chs. 7-10.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:2.

The Sanhedrin of 71 judges who would hold their sessions in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

Both of these sacrifices are described in Hile hot Shegagot 12:1.

See Hilchot Bechorot, ch.1.

See Hilchot Bechorot, ch.6.

See Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch.1.

Both of these sacrifices are described in Hilchot Chagigah, ch. 1.

See Hilchot Mechusrei KapParah, ch.1.

A person vows to bring either a burnt-offering or a peace-offering.

A person pledges to bring a particular animal as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering.

See Chapter 14 of these halachot (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot) which describes these sacrifices.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, and onward which describe this sacrifice.

One who took a vow not to drink wine.

See Hilchot Nizirut, ch. 8.

A person afflicted with tzara’at, a skin ailment, similar, but not identical, to leprosy.

See Hilchot Mechusrei KaParah, ch.4.

A male who has emissions from his reproductive organ similar to those resulting from a gonorrheal infection.

A woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle.

See Hilchot Mechusrei KaParah 1:3.

Premature death at the hand of heaven and the soul being cut off in the World to Come.

See Hilchot Shegagot, ch.1.

See Chapter 9 which describes both these types of sacrifices.

When he engaged in relations with a maid-servant who was married, or robbed, or made mundane use of consecrated property. Similarly, a nazirite who became impure and a person afflicted with tzara’at must bring this offering.

I.e., if the animal he designated as a sacrifice dies or the meal or wine offering designated for the sacrifices was spoiled, he must bring another one in its place.

I.e., if the animal he designated as a sacrifice dies or the meal or wine offering designated for the sacrifices was spoiled, he must bring another one in its place.

We are speaking about sacrifices that are required to be brought at a specific time. If for some reason, the community was unable to bring them at that time, they are not required to bring them afterwards. As Berachot 26a states: “If the time passes, [the requirement for] the sacrifice is nullified.”

We are speaking about sacrifices that are required to be brought at a specific time. If for some reason, the community was unable to bring them at that time, they are not required to bring them afterwards. As Berachot 26a states: “If the time passes, [the requirement for] the sacrifice is nullified.”

For these additional offerings may be brought even at a later date, as will be explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

Like the Paschal or festive offerings.

In this instance as well, since the time passed, the sacrifice cannot be brought. In truth, the matter is not at all dependent on whether an individual’s sacrifice or a communal offering is involved. The determining factor is whether there is a specific time associated with the sacrifice or not (Radbaz).

Leviticus 22:18-19 speaks of bringing the three species mentioned as burnt offerings and specifies that they must be male.

Provided they are eight days old, as explained in Halachah 11.

The Torah does not make any specification with regard to fowl.

Those brought for the sins mentioned in note 32.

The guilt offering brought by a nazirite.

Before an animal is eight days old, it is forbidden to bring it as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:4.

Both sheep and goats.

If it was brought earlier, it is acceptable after the fact (Radbaz).

Since Exodus 22:29 explicitly states that a firstborn animal may be offered on its eighth day of life, our Sages did not desire to place any restrictions on the offering. It may be offered on the eighth day even as an initial preference.

The tithe offering and the Paschal sacrifice are, like the firstborn offering, sacrifices of lesser sanctity and the laws governing the pouring of their blood on the altar are the same. Hence, our Sages considered them the same in this instance as well [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 1:4)].
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the mishnah cited also states that the same laws apply to offerings that were vowed or pledged and question why the Rambam does not mention them in this halachah. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam does not mention pledges and vows in his Commentary to the Mishnah and maintains that he possessed a different version of the mishnah.

Generally, years are counted from day to day and not from hour to hour. For example, with regard to a child becoming Bar Mitzvah at age 13, if he was born at 3 pm on the sixteenth of Elul, he reaches Bar Mitzvah at nightfall on the sixteenth of Elul. He need not wait until 3 in the afternoon. With regard to sacrifices, however, Zevachim 18b uses Biblical exegesis to teach that we count from the hour of an animal's birth.

As the Rambam describes in the following clause.

This refers to an animal like a ram that is not acceptable for sacrifice until it is a year and 30 days old. It is not acceptable until the hour of its birth passes on the thirty-first day.

The term, ayil, Hebrew for ram, is identified with strength. Implied is that the animal must reach a stage of maturity that endows it with strength and power.

This is a Greek term. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 1:3), the Rambam explains that the term carries an allusion to the Hebrew phrase peleg gas, implying that it has passed its limits exceedingly. Similarly, this animal is in an intermediate state, having left one category, but not entered another.

Perhaps the Rambam’s intent is that there is no concept of a pilgas with regard to goats.

Our translation is based on early printing and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version.

Brought on Rosh Chodesh or the festivals and those mentioned in the following halachot.

I.e., a king as stated in Hilchot Shegagot 15:6.

I.e., as opposed to ordinary sin-offerings which can be either a goat or a sheep, the prince’s offering must be a goat and it must be male in contrast to those offerings which are female.

I.e. the High Priest, but only one who was anointed. If he assumed his office through wearing the garments of the High Priest (as did the High Priests of the Second Temple), he is not required to bring this sacrifice (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.).

I.e., and not eaten.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.

By people at large due to an erroneous ruling by the High Court.

See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.

The two bulls brought by the High Priest mentioned in the previous halachah.

The bulls and the goats brought because of transgressions performed due to an erroneous ruling by the High Court and the goat offered as a sin offered on Yom Kippur] the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:5)]. Significantly, in his Commentary to Parah 8:3, the Rambam does not mention the goat offered on Yom Kippur among the goats that are burnt.

The Radbaz notes that this appellation is found in Zevachim 47a. He questions the reason for the Rambam’s inclusion of this point and explains that it can resolve a question that might arise if a person made a particular pledge.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

The Rambam does not mention the burnt offering, because then the entire animal is burnt.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Introduction to the Order of Kodshim), the Rambam explains that this term is derived from the term emar, "spoke," i.e., these are the organs spoken about, i.e., specified by God to be burnt.

The Biblical term kerev (Leviticus 3:3, et al) refers to the inner digestive organs.
That verse speaks of “the fat that covers the inner organs” and “all the fat on the inner organs.” The first term refers to a large membrane that covers all of these organs like a sack. The second term refers to the fat on the organs themselves.

I.e., one of the animals four stomachs. Since the verse uses the term kol, “all,” our Sages understood that additional fat was to be brought.

These are also mentioned explicitly in Leviticus 3:10, et al.

The tails of goat and cattle do not collect fat. Hence the term alyah, “fat tail” is not appropriate with regard to them and their tails are not offered (Radbaz).

Leviticus 3:9 speaks of ha’alyah temimah. In this context, temimah means “entire.”

The inner altar is used only for incense and the blood sprinkled on it on Yom Kippur. See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 2:11.

In which instance, its fat is forbidden to be eaten, as stated in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot7:3.

We do not consider it as if two animals were offered as this sacrifice and the eimorim from each must be offered on the altar. Instead, only the mother is considered as the sacrifice and the fetus is considered as an appendage to it. If the sacrifice is a sin-offering, it is given to the priests to partake of. If it is a peace-offering, it is given to the owner. Females are not sacrificed as guilt offerings.

The term nesachim is used continually throughout the Torah, e.g., Numbers, ch. 15. Literally, it means “libations.” We have not used that term, because it is not appropriate with regard to the meal offerings. Since every sacrifice is accompanied by such offerings, before delineating the details of the sacrifices, the Rambam describes these accompanying offerings.

As stated in Chapter 12, Halachot 6-7, all of the meal offerings brought independently must be brought to the comer of the altar and frankincense must be offered with them. Some also must be waved.

For Leviticus 2:13 states that salt must be brought on all sacrifices.

In contrast, there are other meal-offerings which are fit to be eaten.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Sukkah 48b gives that instruction with regard to the water libation brought on Sukkot. Nevertheless, that text questions why this instruction is mentioned here with regard to the wine libation, for, seemingly, there would be no reason to do so.

The Ra’avad notes that Sukkah 48a, b speaks of two cups on the southwest corner of the altar, i.e., on the upper level around which the priests would walk. The wine and water libations would be poured into these cups and they would extend to the nesachim. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam himself (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5; see also Chapter 7, Halachah 11) speaks of bringing the wine to the top of the altar. Hence, he maintains that the Rambam agrees with the Ra’avad concerning this issue. The Kessef Mishneh differs and maintains that these cups were only used during Sukkot. Otherwise, the wine was poured on the altar’s base and from there, it flowed into the shittin.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the altar.

These two offerings are singled out because they are individual burnt-offerings that are not dependent on an individual’s pledge or vow. Menachot 91b cites an explicit verse that teaches that accompanying offerings are required for these sacrifices.

Even those brought as burnt-offerings.

Menachot 91a derives the need for such accompanying offerings from juxtaposing Leviticus 14:10 and Numbers 15:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that accompanying offerings are brought for these sacrifices, because they do not come because of a sin.

Which are obligations and not dependent on a person’s volition.

An isaron is equivalent to the size of 43.2 eggs. In modem measure, the size of an egg is 57.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah, and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

As stated in Halachah 7, a hin is equivalent to twelve log. Each log comprises four revi’iot. In modem measure, a revi‘it is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount.

In its first year of life, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11.

In its second year of life (ibid.).

I.e., even if a person pledged to bring several sacrifices of a given type, he must bring the required accompanying offerings for each animal.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3 where this sacrifice is mentioned.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that only a quarter of a hin of oil should be used. The Radbaz notes that Menachot 89b appears to support the Ra’avad’s position. Although he explains that the Rambam’s position could be justified, he admits that it is somewhat difficult. The Kessef Mishneh also suggests that a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah. ·

Usually, only one isaron of flour was brought for a burnt-offering of a sheep, as stated in the previous halachah.

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.

This version is found in some of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is also suggested by the Or Sameach. The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

A ram that is between one year and one year and a month old (see Chapter 1, Halachah 14).

I.e., regardless of whether he pledged a ram or a male sheep, he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation by bringing a pilgas, for it is too old for the latter type sacrifice and not old enough for the former.

Hilchot Eruvin 1:13.

Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15.

See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:16 which describes the various measures that existed in the Temple.

As stated (ibid.:17), there were measures of a half a hin, a third of a hin, and a quarter of a hin in the Temple.

I.e., a person should not measure out the flour in a private measure he has outside the Temple. Instead, the measurement should be made with the Temple’s measure (Radbaz).

See Chapter 12, Halachah 7 and Chapter 13, Halachah 5.

I.e., they are not consecrated.

Flour, wine, and oil that come in contact with sacred utensils become consecrated.
Nevertheless, only the inside of the dry measures were consecrated. The outside remained unconsecrated. Hence, the fact that the flour came in contact with it does not change its status. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:19.

As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20, an object placed in a sacred utensil does not become consecrated unless the person placing it there did so intentionally.
Hence, even though the overflows came in contact with a sacred utensil, seemingly, there was no intent for them to become consecrated.

I.e., a safeguard instituted by our Sages lest a mistaken impression be created. The Kessef Mishneh notes that even though this rationale is advanced by Menachot 90a in support of a minority opinion, it would still be accepted by the majority.

I.e., there was another offering and it was thought they would be offered with it, but for some reason they were not and remained overnight.

For once they were placed in sacred utensil, remaining overnight would disqualify them, as stated in Halachah 12.

It is permitted to redeem them, because when consecrating them, there was the intent that they would be redeemed in such an eventuality (Radbaz}.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These fruits are served as dessert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the fundamental "food" of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free.

The flour and the oil are, however, absolute requirements. One cannot be offered without the other (Radbaz).

I.e., the person is required to bring both of these elements of the accompanying offering. Nevertheless, the offering of one is not dependent on the other as the Rambam continues to explain.

All of these have a certain dimension of holiness and are not considered as ordinary property. It is forbidden to use them for any purpose other than partaking of them in the ordinary manner. Hence they may not be used for these offerings.

The bread from the thanksgiving offering may be eaten by an ordinary person. Hence, it is permitted for it to be brought from the second tithes. The accompanying offerings, as states above, are offered on the altar entirely. Hence, they may not be brought from the second tithes (Radbaz).

These differ greatly for the measures usually employed.

The Radbaz explains that since we are speaking about a directive for a specific time and not an ongoing practice, as a prophet, Ezekiel had the right to speak of offerings not prescribed by the Torah. This does not constitute a violation of the prohibition to add to the Torah’s commandments. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch.9.

All authorities agree that Ezekiel’s prophecy referred to special sacrifices and was not to be followed continuously. Rashi (Menachot 45b) interprets it as referring to the Second Temple, while the Rambam understands it as applying to the era of Mashiach.

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.

Ezekiel 46:4.

See Ezra 8:35.

I.e., from the Torah scrolls which he wrote.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 313) and Sefer HaCVuch (mitzvah 454) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 314) and Sefer HaCVuch (mitzvah 455) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot.
The above is not merely a point of law, but a fundamental issue of Jewish faith. As the Rambam states in the ninth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. 10) declaring:
The ninth principle is that the Torah of Moses will never be nullified…. There can be no additions to it, nor any deletions from it - neither in its text nor in its explanation. And thus we are commanded: “Do not add to it and do not detract it from it.”
(Our translation is taken from the original manuscript versions of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah. The standard published text varies slightly.)

See Halachah 9.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 6, with regard to the distinction between these types of offerings.

I.e., an entity of seemingly little value. One might think that bringing such an offering in partnership is not becoming to the altar. Even so, if one’s intent is desirable, the offering is accepted (Radbaz, based on Menachot 110a).

In this chapter, the Rambam outlines the types of individuals who may bring a sacrifice and the rite of semichah because that is an obligation of the person bringing the sacrifice.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:1) notes that the prooftext states that it is forbidden to accept an offering from a gentile from a blemished animal. One can infer that if the animal is unblemished, the offering may be accepted.
The verse uses the term lechem, “food.” That term is understood as referring only to a burnt-offering, as Numbers 28:2 states: “My food for my fires.” And the burnt-offering is the only type of offering, consumed entirely by the fire of the altar (Radbaz).

Although the prooftext speaks only of animals, our Sages understood that the leniency applies to fowl as well (Radbaz).

As mentioned in Halachah 4, burnt offerings are not accepted from a Jew who worships false deities. Nevertheless, such restrictions are not placed upon gentiles.

To offer them as peace-offerings. They are, however, brought as burnt-offerings, as stated in the following halachah.

For the concept of atonement applies only with regard to the Jews’ relationship with God.

Rashi (Menachot 73b) interprets this as meaning that the gentile desires that his sacrifices be offered entirely to God and not have mortals partake of them.

The Radbaz notes that peace-offerings are not intended to bring atonement and explains that this is referring to an instance where a Jew vowed to bring a peace-offering and the gentile offered to bring it for him. One might think that since the gentile is bringing them they would be offered as burnt-offerings. Hence it is necessary to explain that they are peace-offerings.

See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat where the Rambam explains that the public desecration of the Sabbath is equivalent to idol worship, because they are both cornerstones of the Jewish faith. “Public” refers to a matter known about by ten people. The Radbaz adds that we do not accept the sacrifices of a Jew who has abandoned Judaism and accepted a faith like Islam which does not involve idol worship. Such a person is included in the category (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9) of an apostate with regard to the entire Torah.

Chulin 5a-b.

I.e., he had two cuts of meat before him of equal quality, one kosher and one non-kosher and he ate the non-kosher one solely for the intent of angering God (Gittin 47a).

Similarly, in Hilchot Edut 10:3, a distinction is not made with regard to the motivations for the transgression. There are other instances - see Hilchot Teshuvah, loc. cit., Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8;14, Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 11:2, and Hilchot Rotzeach 4:10 - where the Rambam does make such a distinction.

Since he frequently violates this transgression, we assume that he is not sincere in his desire for atonement for it, because a request for atonement must be accompanied by sincere regret. Sacrifices brought for other transgressions are, however, accepted from him. See Hilchot Shegagot 3:7.

A meal offering and a wine libation.

This verse concludes the passage commanding the offering of the accompanying offers, implying that it is only a native - i.e., a member of the Jewish people - who is required to bring them.

I.e., the Temple treasury.

Implying that the sacrifices themselves require that the accompanying offerings be brought.

Leaning on the animal with all one's strength, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the concluding halachot of the chapter.

The prooftext for the obligation to perform semichah speaks of “the children of Israel,” and uses the male form. Menachot 93b understands this to exclude gentiles and Chagigah 16b understands it as excluding women. See also Halachah 8.

This also includes offerings brought in partnership. The exclusion is only of communal offerings. See Halachah 10.

Sifra to the verse; Menachot 92b.

The Sifra derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 1:4: “And he will lean his hand on the head of the burnt-offering.” “The” implies that there are some burnt-offerings to which this does not apply.

Hilchot Shekalim 2:3; 3:14.

Money that was found between the chest of the freewill offerings and the chest of the shekalim that was closer to the chest of the freewill offerings.

Since the money was placed in the chest for the freewill offering, it is no longer considered ·as his personal property, but as the property of the community. Hence, he is not the owner of the sacrifices and may not perform semichah on them. For that same reason, the community brings the accompanying offerings.

The priests designated to serve in the Temple that week. Even though the person whose money was used is a priest and he has the right to offer sacrifices that he brings (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:7), in this instance, he cannot demand the right to offer the sacrifice.

These three individuals are not considered as responsible for their actions and are free of the responsibility for all mitzvot.

See Halachah 5.

Gentiles are not obligated in any of the mitzvot. Hence the obligation of semichah does not apply to them.

The Radbaz states that this concept is derived from the fact that the prooftext uses the term “his hand” in the singular.

For he is acting in the place of the original owner.

During the Yom Kippur services. The High Priest performs semichah on it.

In both these instances, there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 16:21; 4:15) requiring semichah for the sacrifice.

I.e., were it not for that tradition, we might have derived the need for semichah for communal offerings from these two instances using Biblical exegesis [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:7)].

Zevachim 32b explains that just as the slaughter of the animal must be performed “before God,” in the Temple Courtyard, so too, semichah must be performed “before God,” in that same place.

This is indeed what is done when the atonement process of the people bringing the sacrifice has not been completed and they are not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard until the sacrifice is offered.

As required by Halachah 13.

After the fact.

Menachot 93b derives this concept from the subsequent law: that slaughter must be performed directly after semichah. It thus follows that one must slaughter the animal in the same place where semichah was performed, for otherwise, this is not considered as directly afterwards.

Tosafot Yesheinim, Yoma 5a, explains that the intent is that although the person is not obligated to bring another sacrifice, in God’s eyes, his atonement is lacking.

This is derived from Leviticus 16:21 which states such a requirement with regard to the goat sent to Azazel.

Its cheeks (Rashi, Menachot 93b).

The sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered in this portion of the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3. See also Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:16.

See Hilchot Teshuvah 2:5 which states. that a person seeking to repent must mention the particular sins that he violated.

This is necessary, for without teshuvah, a sacrifice will not bring the person atonement (Hilchot Shegagot 3:10).

For, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachot 2-3, sacrifices of lesser sanctity (of which the peace offering is one) may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Courtyard.

For a peace-offering is not offered to atone for a sin.

As an example, the Or Sameach cites Psalm 100. The popular translation of II Chronicles 30:22 speaks of the people reciting confessions on their peace-offerings. Rashi and Metzudot, however, render the verb as meaning “offer thanks.”