Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., if he offers it for the sake of a person without designating him as a deity, but merely as a token of appreciation, he is not liable.

In contrast to an entity which is eaten, as stated in Halachah 4.

Excluding sacrifices that are not offered on the altar, as mentioned in Halachah 7.

This applies with regard to all sacrifices, even sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity. Since these parts are offered on the altar in the Temple, one is liable for offering them outside the Temple (Radbaz).

Both the handful of meal taken from the meal-offering and the frankincense from that offering are offered on the altar in their entirety (Chapter 13, Halachah 12).

This is offered on the inner altar twice daily (Hile hot K’lei Hamikdash 2:11).

Which is offered on the altar in its entirety (Chapter 12, Halachah 9).

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

For a wine libation never less than three lugim. See the following halachah.

The Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh maintain that one is liable for pouring water on an altar only during the holiday of Sukkos, for only then is water offered on the altar in the Temple. The Radbaz does clarify that this is not necessarily apparent from the Rambam’s wording. Indeed, on the contrary, from the following halachah, one could infer the opposite.

This refers to the sin-offerings that were burnt. See Chapter 5, Halachah 11.

I.e., the fundamental aspect of pouring the blood is the sprinkling of the blood on the altar or in the Temple Building - each sacrifice according to its laws. Pouring out the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not of fundamental importance and the sacrifices are acceptable even if it is not performed. Hence, it is not considered as an act of significance for which one is liable.

When the water libation is offered. See the notes to the previous halachah.

For three lugim is the smallest wine libation offered (see Chapter 17, Halachot 12, 15). Similarly, the water libation offered on Sukkot is three lugim (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:7).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:5), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that we follow the principles that two entities that are of the same substance are never considered as intervening substances.

The red heifer should be slaughtered on the Mount of Olives, as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:1-2.

As stated in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7, the goat sent to Azazel was pushed off a mountain cliff in the desert outside of Jerusalem.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 11.

I.e., the Temple. This excludes offerings like the above which, though they are consecrated, are not offered in the Temple.

Radbaz notes that Zevachim 109a mentions sacrifices disqualified for other reasons. He explains that the Rambam does not mention them here, because here he is speaking in general terms. They are detailed in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim where he discusses the particulars pertaining to these laws.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19, which mentions the obligation to bum sacrifices that were disqualified for all these reasons.

As explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 3, if sacrificial meat or blood was brought to the top of the altar after being disqualified for these reasons, it should be offered on the altar’s pyre.

Any lesser amount is not considered significant. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:10.

I.e., a portion of it was lost or burnt.

This refers to a meal offering brought by a male priest, the meal offering of the High Priest, and the meal component of the accompanying offerings (Zevachim 13:4).

For the prooftext states “it,” and this implies that the entity must be complete.

Note a similar ruling in Hile hot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:10.

We have translated the text according to its straightforward meaning. Nevertheless, the Radbaz states that this ruling applies, not only to a burnt-offering and its own innards, but even one that is combined with the innards of another sacrifice. Thus he maintains that one is liable for combining the meat of a burnt-offering, not only with the innards of a burnt-offering, but also with the innards of a peace-offering.

For they are part of the same type of offering and are both offered on the altar in their entirety.

Provided he was notified of the transgression between the offering of each particular limb (Radbaz, based on Hilchot Shegagot 6:2).

The fact that the Torah uses two prooftexts implies that two different prohibitions are involved. The prooftext “to offer it” refers to both the_ prohibitions against slaughter and against sprinkling the blood and the prooftext “who will offer it” refers to the prohibition against offering the limbs on the altar (Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh, thus resolving the questions raised by the Ra’avad).

The Ra’avad objects to this ruling, noting that the previous halachah stated that a person is liable if the combination of a portion of a limb and the portions of the innards offered on the altar equal an olive-sized portion. This indicates that a limb need not be whole. The Kessef Mishneh and others, however, justify the Rambam’s ruling.

This law has already been stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 16. Indeed, there are some who considered its inclusion here as a scribal error.

The Hebrew original repeats the word ish meaning man, implying that even two men can be held liable for the same activity.

Even though he did not complete the required service associated with the sacrifice, as long as he sprinkled the blood on an altar once, he is liable.

The Rambam is quoting the wording of the mishnah (Zevachim13:6). Nevertheless, according to his understanding, this law applies to the blood of other sacrifices as well.

He is liable even if he does not apply the blood to the altar inside. The Rambam mentions the application of the blood inside only to emphasize that offering the blood properly does not remove the liability that was already established.

Hence if he offers any of it outside first, he is liable. The fact that he does not offer the entire amount outside is not significant. As long as a portion is offered outside, he is liable.

I.e., the offering was completed through the application of the blood to the altar inside. Although the remainder of the blood should also have been dashed on the altar, that is not an absolute requirement. Hence one is not liable for offering such blood outside the Temple Courtyard.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam regarding the latter point, explaining that Zevachim 112a states that one is exempt in the latter instance. Since the blood was first offered inside, the sacrifice is acceptable and the fact that later blood was also offered outside is not of consequence. The Radbaz explains that, according to the Rambam, that rationale applies when the blood was offered inside according to all of its specifications. In this instance, however, the Rambam is speaking about a situation where the applications of the blood to the Temple altar were not completed. Hence, the blood in the second cup is still significant.

See Chapter 13, Halachot 12-13, which describe the offering of the meal-offering.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2 for a description of the offering of the showbread.

Even though the offering is not complete until both bowls of frankincense are offered (ibid.:3), one is liable for offering even one of them outside.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15-16 for an explanation of these concepts. See also ibid. 2:4 which states that as long as the altar is built in its appropriate place, sacrifices may be offered even though the Temple is destroyed. Based on Zevachim 59a, the Radbaz states that even if the altar is not built, sacrifices can be offered on its site. Indeed, he writes that it is only because the gentiles do not allow us that we do not offer communal sacrifices in the present age. (Communal sacrifices may be offered while ritually impure.)
Based on this rationale, after the conquest of Jerusalem in 5727 (1967), the Lubavitcher Rebbe advised his chassidim to leave the holy city on the day before Pesach. The rationale is that the Paschal sacrifice may also be brought while ritually impure. Now, anyone who is close to Jerusalem on the day before Pesach and does not bring a Paschal sacrifice is liable for karet. Although many factors are involved and the Rebbe did not advise his followers to actually bring a sacrifice, he felt it necessary that precautions be taken so that they would not be held liable for not bringing the offering. This situation persisted for several years until the Rebbe felt that the Jewish control of the Temple Mount was weakened to the point that it would be impossible to bring an offering.

For slaughtering these animals outside the Temple Courtyard. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this is speaking about a situation where the gentile desires to offer the sacrifice to God.

Zevachim 116b notes that the passage prohibiting the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple Courtyard begins: “Speak to the children of Israel,” implying that the prohibition applies only to them.

This license applies in the present era as well.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 39) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 401) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. The Ramban (at the conclusion to his Hosafos to the negative commandments) argues that they should be considered as two separate mitzvot.

For “the eager hurry [to perform] mitzvot” (Pesachim 4a).

I.e., when the rays of the sun are already visible, but the orb of the sun has not appeared.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 6:l, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 1:4), the Rambam explains that once during the Greek occupation of the Holy Land, the Temple was besieged. Each day, the priests would exchange two baskets of gold coins for two lambs. One day, however, the Greeks refused to make the exchange. The people were forlorn. Later that morning, they miraculously found two lambs in the ‘Chamber of the Lambs and R. Yuda bar Bava ruled that the morning sacrifice could be offered if the fourth hour of the day had not passed.

The Radbaz derives two points from the Rambam’s statements: a) only in a pressing situation may the offering of the sacrifice be delayed until after daybreak; b) even in a pressing situation, the sacrifice may not be offered after four hours of the day have passed.

At noon, the sun is directly overhead and does not cast a shadow. By 12:30, the sun will have already passed to the western portion of the sky and will thus cast a shadow to the east.

I.e., the sacrifice could have been offered directly after noon. Nevertheless, since the time of noon is not obvious to everyone, it was delayed slightly.

I.e., to allow all of the other sacrifices to be offered, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

The Radbaz asks: Why isn’t its sacrifice delayed any longer? He responds that the Sages did not desire that there be any time pressure at all regarding its offering. Also, they wanted - at least partially - to fulfill the charge (Pesachim 4a): “The eager hurry [to perform] mitzvot.”

See Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:4 for more details.

As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, this term refers to certain individuals—a zav, a zavah, a person afflicted with tzara’at, and a woman after childbirth—who are not permitted to partake of sacrifices until they offer certain sacrifices.

This leniency is granted because a person who does not offer the Paschal sacrifices is liable for karet (Pesachim 59a).

For every member of the Jewish people would have to partake of a Paschal sacrifice. Thus there would be a multitude of animals to slaughter and have their blood offered.

At all other times, the Paschal sacrifices could be roasted at night. Hence, as long as they were slaughtered before nightfall, there was no difficulty. The roasting of the Paschal sacrifices did not, however, supersede the prohibition against cooking on the Sabbath. Hence, the slaughter had to be performed earlier so that they could be roasted on time.

This represents the division of the halachot in the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. A printing error appears to have crept into the standard published text.

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

As stated in Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbanot 4:2, this is a Rabbinic safeguard.

So that they will be consumed by the fires faster and more completely.

Although our Sages decreed that the limbs not be offered on the altar after midnight as mentioned above, if they were offered before midnight, they may be turned over the entire night.

I.e., communal sacrifices may be offered in a state of ritual impurity. If the offering itself was offered in this manner, the limbs may be offered in this manner at night.

I.e., during the day and not during the night.

I.e., an animal sacrificed as a communal offering may be slaughtered and offered on the altar on the Sabbath.

The offering of the limbs and fats which were not offered on the pyre on Friday.

If there was no opportunity to offer the fats and the limbs on Friday, they should be brought up to the top of the altar on Friday night, but not offered on the pyre. On the top of the altar, they are not disqualified because of the passage of the night and they should be offered on Saturday night (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Ritba).

According to the fixed calendar followed at present, Yom Kippur can never fall Saturday night. Moreover, even when the new moon was sanctified based on the testimony of witnesses, an effort was made not to have Yom K. ippur fall directly after the Sabbath (Rosh HaShanah 20a). Nevertheless, it is possible for the two holy days to follow in succession. See Hilchot Eruvin 8:10.

And Yom Kippur is also called “a Sabbath.”

Which is offered on the Sabbath.

I.e., on Saturday night which is the first night of the festival.

I.e., even though they were not offered because of the Sabbath, since their blood was offered on the Sabbath, the offering of their fats supersedes the festival prohibitions (Radbaz).

To make sure that they are free of physical blemishes [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:5)].

This was one of the sub-chambers in the Chamber of the Hearth (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:10).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the source for this practice was the Paschal sacrifice brought by the Jews in Egypt. They were commanded to take the lambs four days before they were offered.

The torches were necessary, because the offering was slaughtered before daybreak and more light was necessary for a careful inspecti:on.

This was a sign of the wealth and prosperity of the Jewish people, as appropriate for the Temple [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:4)].

The commentaries note that the rationale the Rambam gives here is different from that which he initially gave in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Beitzah 5:6). Afterwards, he emended that text to include the rationale mentioned here (Rav Kappach’s notes to that mishnah).

Chapters 6 and 9.

Rashi, Tamid 31b, states that thus refers to pagan idolaters who would bind all four feet of their sacrifices.

Tamid 31b states that the sacrifice would be bound like the binding of Isaac the son of Abraham. Although some commentaries explain that this means that one of the animals forefeet and one of its hindfeet would be bound, the Rambam does not accept that interpretation and maintains that none of the legs were bound. Tosafot Yom Tov (Tamid 4:1) brings support for this interpretation, noting that our Sages state that the priest who would offer the limbs on the altar would hold them during the slaughter. Thus each of the limbs was held by a different priest.

In this way, if it defecated, its rear would not be facing the altar or the Temple Building.

The area on the northern side of the Temple Courtyard where the sacrificial animals were slaughtered and cut up. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13-14.

There were rings implanted into the floor of the Temple Courtyard into which were inserted the legs of the sacrificial animals to hold them in place during the slaughter. See ibid.:14; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:1). Others maintain that the animal’s head was inserted into the rings.

The sun rises in the east. Hence if the sacrifice was slaughtered on the eastern corner in the morning, it is possible that the wall of the Temple Courtyard would block its rays. Conversely, since it sets in the west, the afternoon sacrifice was slaughtered in the east so that the sun’s rays would not be blocked.

Note the contrast to the Golden Altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

The Radbaz explains that this mitzvah has four components: a) to have a fire continuously burning on the altar;
b) to bring ordinary fire with each sacrifice; c) to arrange the array of wood on the altar; and d) to offer two logs with the continuous offering. Although these different actions are each associated with a separate verse, since they all share one objective: to have fire burn on the altar, they are considered as one mitzvah.

There was a special pyre kept burning on the altar for this purpose, as stated in Halachah 4.

As Leviticus 9:24 states: “And fire emerged from before God and it... consumed the burnt-offering.” This fire remained on the altar throughout the entire existence of the Sanctuary. Yoma 21b relates that in the First and Second Temples, fire also descended from heaven and burned on the altar.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 5, which states that the priest who would remove the ashes from the altar would prepare the arrangement of wood and he would bring the logs together with the daily offering.

Yoma 26b derives this concept from a different prooftext. It is questionable why the Rambam deviates from that source, since by doing so, he is forced to derive two different concepts from the same verse.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3 states that the logs used for the offering were “a cubit long and a cubit wide. Their thickness was like that of the leveling rod for an overflowing se’ah.”

See Sifra to the above verse; Yoma 26b.

The Radbaz maintains that the priest who would bring the logs in the morning (see note 4) would also bring a log in the afternoon and he would invite a friend to join him and bring the other log.

For the term used in that prooftext is singular.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom Kippurim 4:5.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

As stated in Halachah 1.

Yoma 45a.

I.e., when the altar was arranged in the morning, these limbs and fats were placed there until the large arrangement could be prepared and kindled.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 81) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 133) count this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

We have cited this reference because it is the one the Rambam refers to in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit. Others cite Leviticus 6:5. And in his commentary on the Torah, Rashi states that there are two negative commandments involved.

Despite the fact that the fire of the altar as a whole continues to burn.

See Halachah 4.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 2:4).

So that there would be enough air for the fire to burn effectively (Radbaz).

See Halachah 13. From the Rambam’s statements here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:2), it would appear that the top surface of the altar was flat and the name tapuach (literally, “bulging”) was given because of the ash-pile made there. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that there was a bulge in the center of the surface of the altar itself. See also the Meiri in his commentary to Tamid who maintains that the term refers to a concave curve on the altar’s surface. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s interpretation.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3.

I.e., the corner closest to both the Temple Building and the ramp.

For, in this way, he will be fulfilling the directive of Leviticus 16:12: “And he shall take … flaming coals from the altar, before God.” Yoma 45b explains that this refers to the outer altar which has a portion that is “before God,” opposite the Holy of Holies. The second arrangement of fire was arrayed exactly in this position. Although the above verse speaks about the incense offering of Yom Kippur, our Sages also applied the concept to the incense offering brought each day.

A se’ah is slightly more than 8 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. Other commentaries consider it larger.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 11; Chapter 6, Halachah 11.

Har HaMoriah states that this can be inferred from the fact that our Sages did not mention any specific place for this arrangement.

I.e., its description as “the fire of the altar.’’ The Radbaz notes that Yoma 45b derives this concept from a different verse and explains that this is a characteristic practice of the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah: to interpret the Torah’s verses according to their simple meaning even though different interpretations are offered in prior Rabbinic sources.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 30) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 131) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

It may not be performed by an Israelite (see Hilchot Bi‘at HaMikdash 9:8).

All four priestly garments, even though only two are mentioned explicitly in the Torah in this context [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:3)].

In contrast to other commentaries, according to the Rambam, these clothes are worn when removing the ashes from the altar and not when taking them out of the Temple Courtyard, for, as he states in Halachah 15, taking them out of the Temple Courtyard is not considered as priestly service.

I.e., garments that have not been consecrated.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that the reason they prepared clothes of lesser value is not because they did not wish to undertake the expense, because in the Temple, no such considerations were made. As our Sages state (Tamid 3:4), “Poverty is inappropriate in a place of wealth.”

Removing the ashes is comparable to cooking food, for both are acts of preparation. Serving wine and offering sacrifices are also analogous, for both involve presenting something.

The time when the first rays of the sun become visible on the eastern horizon. According to the various opinions, this is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise.

Since there are many sacrifices offered during the festivals, all of the activity in the Temple is begun earlier so that there will be ample opportunity.

On Yom Kippur, all of the elements of the Temple service were performed by the High Priest. Lest he become tired, the different elements of the Temple service were spaced out as far as possible. Hence, this activity was performed earlier in the night.

See Chapter 4, Halachot 1-5, for a description of the process in which this priest was chosen.

From Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:4 and Tamid 26a, it appears that the intent is that a person who enters the lottery for the right to remove the ashes would immerse beforehand. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:9.

Chapter 4, Halachah 1, states that the priests would come to the lottery wearing their priestly garments. Thus the one who was chosen would remove his ordinary priestly garments and put on the garments for the removal of the ashes.

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:4), a priest should not approach the altar for: any aspect of the Temple service, as implied by Exodus 30:20. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:1.

This warning was administered by the head of the clan that would serve in the Temple that day (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 1:4).

I.e., the side near the entrance to the Temple Building.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes authorities who mention that these coals must be from the limbs of the sacrifices that were consumed by the fire.

For when descending the altar, he would be facing the south.

The side closer to the entrance to the courtyard.

Thus he is 20 cubits from the altar, for the ramp was 30 cubits long.

Thus they are placed “near the altar,” as stated in Leviticus 6:3.

See Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbanot 6:21.

Which are described in Chapter 3, Halachot 4 and 12 respectively.

As opposed to the other services in the Temple, there was no lottery made for this service. In his gloss, the Radbaz first explains that since many priests were required, there was no need to make a selection. Anyone who desired could participate. The Radbaz appreciates the apparent question that arises from the comparison to the following halachah and hence offers another explanation: that the priest who was selected to remove the ashes initially was responsible for gathering several of his priestly brethren to help complete the task.

They would hurry so that they would not remain in the Temple Courtyard without having sanctified their hands and feet (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 2:1).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the. Mishnah (Tamid 2:1).

If they would be removed from the altar, they would be disqualified for having remained overnight. Nevertheless, while limbs and fats were on the altar themselves, they would never be disqualified.

For the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar and the limbs are also not disqualified there.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:7, 10.

See note 22.
The mishnah (Tamid 2:1) states that this pile would at times reach 300 kor (every kor being 2 letechim, see below). Although the Rambam states that this is an exaggeration, we can be certain that the size of the ash-heap was significant.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 6, for more details regarding this utensil.

A Talmudic measure equal to 9 kor which is equivalent to approximately 121 liter (approximately 27 gallons) according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 211 liter (48 gallons) according to Chazon Ish.

Leviticus 6:4 speaks of taking the ashes “outside the camp.” For future generations, that was interpreted as meaning “outside of Jerusalem.” The bull brought by the High Priest as a sin-offering would be burnt in the same place, as required by Leviticus 4:12. See Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbanot 7:4.

Even though it was not considered part of the Temple service, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

And thus does not require immersion or wearing the priestly garments.

Our translation follows the first printings and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and also follows the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 7:6).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s statements, noting that the prooftext he cites refers to the removal of the ashes from the altar and not depositing them outside of Jerusalem. As the Radbaz explains, the Rambam does not differentiate between the two.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:13 which mentions this prohibition. The Radbaz maintains that not only is a prohibition is involved, a person is liable for meilah, unauthorized use of sacred property, as stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:14.