Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Which is Rosh HaShanah. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 312) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Although at present and as explained in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8, even at times in the Talmudic era Rosh HaShanah was observed for two days, sacrifices were offered only on the day consecrated as the first of Tishrei.

See Numbers 29:1-5.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

I.e., Rosh HaShanah.

Zevachim 89a derives this from the fact that Numbers 28:23 refers to the “the morning offering that is the continual offering.” The latter phrase teaches that it is given precedence because it is a continual offering, brought every day.

For example, as stated in Halachah 5, since it brings about atonement, the blood of a sin-offering is considered as on a higher level of holiness than the blood of a burnt-offering. Hence, it is given precedence.

Zevachim 90b debates which of the two should be given precedence without resolving the matter. Hence, it is left to an individual’s choice (Kessef Mishneh).

Lest its blood coagulate before the other animal was offered.

One from a sacrifice offered more frequently and one from a sacrifice offered less frequently or one on a higher level of holiness and one on a lower level.

More precisely, whenever the animal from the more frequent or holier offering was slaughtered before the blood of the other was sprinkled on the altar (see Radbaz).

I.e., this and the following instance exemplify the principle that an offering that is holier than another receives precedence over it.

While a burnt-offering, by contrast, is considered merely as a present to God (Zevachim 7b).

And hence is considered as holier.

As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, this is speaking about a situation where both animals were already slaughtered.

Since each has a positive quality, neither is considered as holier than the other.

In this situation, neither possesses a distinctive positive quality in and of itself. Instead, the blood of the burnt-offering is secondary to its limbs and the fats and organs of the sin-offering are secondary to its blood.

Zevachim 89b states that the blood of a guilt-offering is not on the same level of holiness as that of a sin-offering. According to the Rambam’s version, there is an unresolved question which is holier, its blood or that of a burnt-offering (Radbaz).

Rav Yosef Corcus understands this as referring to the slaughter of the sin-offering. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh ask: Since we know that a sin-offering receives precedence, why was it necessary to state previously that the blood of a sin-offering is given precedence? They explain that the previous halachah is speaking about a situation when both animals were already slaughtered and the question is which blood should be given precedence.

See Chapter 10, Halachot 3-4, where these offerings are described.

See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 where these offerings are described.

The High Priest. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4; 15:1-2, this offering is brought when a High Priest inadvertently transgresses and violates a sin other than idol worship.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 if the High Court errs in the issuance of a halachic warning and causes the people at large to sin, each tribe is required to bring a bull as a sin-offering.
Horiot 13a derives the sequence of these offerings from Leviticus 4:21 which describes the bull brought by the High Priest as “the first bull.” Our Sages understood that as implying that it is given precedence. Moreover, they maintain that it is logical to assume that the High Priest’s offering should be given precedence, for he is the one who offers the bull on behalf of the community. Hence first he should atone for himself and then, offer atonement for the community.

When the community violates a transgression involving the worship of false deities due to an erroneous ruling by the High Court, each tribe must bring a burnt-offering of a bull and a sin-offering of a goat (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.). Since this bull is a burnt-offering, the bull brought to atone for other transgressions is given precedence.

And sin-offerings should be given precedence, as stated in the preceding halachah.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, when a king sins and inadvertently performs a transgression punishable by karet other than idolatry. He must bring a goat as a sin-offering.

While the goat brought to atone for idolatry is brought on behalf of a tribe as a whole.

As a sin-offering. Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit., states that an ordinary individual who performs a transgression punishable by karet must bring either a she-goat or a ewe as a sin-offering. The sin-offering brought by a king receives precedence, for his sacrifice is associated with his elevated position.

A she-goat can be brought to atone for all transgressions, including idolatry, while a ewe may not be brought for idolatry. This indicates that the goat is of greater power.

This offering is singled out, because it is not brought to atone for any particular transgression (Kessef Mishneh).

As related in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:2, after childbirth, in order to be able to partake of sacrificial foods, a woman must bring a dove or turtle-dove as a sin-offering and a sheep as a burnt-offering: Since the fowl is a sin-offering, it is given precedence.

See the description of the presentation of the blood of a sin-offering in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:7. There are, by contrast, only two presentations of the blood of a guilt-offering on the altar (ibid.:6). Hence the sin-offering is given precedence.

As explained in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 10:5), this sacrifice enables the person to regain his ritual purity. Afterwards, he may enter the Temple Courtyard and partake of sacrificial foods. The order of the sacrifices brought by a person after he being healed from a tzara’at affliction is described in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

While the latter two are considered as sacrifices of lesser sanctity.

The offering of these three types of sacrifices and the breads that accompany them are described in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 9. The fact that the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite’s ram are eaten for only one day and a night indicate a higher level of holiness, for those restrictions are also placed on a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which are sacrifices of the most sacred order (Radbaz). The inclusion of breads in these offerings also points to their importance.

The presentation of the blood on the altar for these sacrifices is described in ibid.:6.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3, which describes this practice.

The waving of the peace-offering is described in ibid. 9:6-8.

The obligation to bring accompanying offerings is mentioned in ibid., ch. 2. None of these rites are associated with the firstborn offering. Its blood is only poured out at the base of the altar (ibid. 5:17); it does not require the owner to lean upon it (ibid. 3:6); nor is it waved; nor are accompanying offerings brought with it (see (ibid. 2:2).

Both of these factors indicate a higher level of holiness.

I.e., sin-offerings and burnt-offerings brought from turtle doves and ordinary doves.

In contrast, when a fowl is brought as an offering, only its blood is offered on the altar.

As stated in Halachah 6.

I.e., were he not to have brought the burnt-offering, the tithe offering would have been sacrificed first, but because he brought it, the entire order is rearranged.

E. g., they are all burnt-offerings or sin-offerings.

As indicated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:4.

See ibid. 1:18.

I.e., the omer offering and the two loaves.

The sheep mentioned above.

This also applies to animal offerings brought by males (Radbaz).

Brought as a sin-offering, as evident from the concluding clause of the halachah.

I.e., the sotah offering, for this is the only individual meal-offering brought from barley. Wheat is a more important grain and hence, its offerings are given precedence.

For each have a positive quality lacking in the other. The free-will offering is brought together with frankincense and oil, but the sotah offering comes to clarify whether a transgression was performed (Menachot 90a).

For the meal-offering is called a “sacrifice” and the wine libation is not (Radbaz). Alternatively, a handful of meal is sprinkled on the altar’s pyre, while the wine is merely poured down the shittin, holes on the base of the altar.

For the wine libations are poured out separately, while oil is always offered with other sacrifices (Radbaz). Alternatively, the majority of the oil is eaten by the priests, while the wine libations are poured on the altar in their entirety.

Because the minimum quantity of oil is larger than the minimum quantity of frankincens’e (Or Sameach).

The Radbaz questions the Rambam’s statements, noting that nowhere does the Rambam mention offering salt as an independent offering.

For salt is associated with the sacrifices by the Torah (Leviticus 2:13), while wood is called a sacrifice only by Scripture (Nechemiah 10:35, see Kiryat Sefer).

This principle applies to all the above situations.

Peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night.

For the peace-offering sacrificed on the present day may also be eaten at night and on the following day, while the one offered the previous day must be completed by sunset.

In which instance, one must complete eating both before sunset.

Halachah 8; see also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:17.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 48) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 314) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:7-8.

In the Mishnah (Yoma 7:3). This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (Yoma 70b) who maintains that the ram mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 is the same mentioned in Numbers. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.

After the conclusion of the fast.

See Leviticus 16:27; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:16.

As mentioned in Leviticus 16:5-9. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 3, for a description of the service performed with these goats.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 50) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 320) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:12-34.

The fact that the sacrifices of each day of Sukkot differ from each other endow the days of the holiday with an advantage over the days of the holiday of Pesach. For that reason, the full Hallel is recited on each of the days of Sukkot, while this is not true with regard to Pesach. Nevertheless, the fact that the sacrifices differ is not sufficient for each day to be considered a separate mitzvah.

Literally, “the eighth day of assembly.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 322) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:35-38.

I.e., it is not a continuation of the Sukkot offerings. As Rosh HaShanah 4b, et al, state there are six aspects in which Shemini Atzeret is considered as an independent festival. One of them is that it has its own sacrifice.

In connection with the water libation, a special celebration, Simchat Beit HaShoevah was held in the Temple Courtyard. The Rambam describes that celebration and the immensity of the joy expressed at that time at the conclusion of Hilchot Shofar Sukkah VeLulav. Interestingly, however, in that source, he does not associate the celebration with the water libation and here, he does not mention the celebration.

A practice that is part of the Oral Law, but is not specifically mentioned in the Written Law. As the Rambam mentions in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8), there are allusions to this practice in the Written. Law.

I.e., initially, this is the preferred manner of observing the mitzvah.

I.e., after the fact; the initial preference is that each be poured separately as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Radbaz explains that since ultimately, when the wine and the water reach the shittin, they will be mixed together, after the fact, it is acceptable if they were mixed together initially.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:5, libations offered in connection with a sacrifice must be offered by day, but those offered independently may be offered at night.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the Altar, through which the blood would run off and flow through the drainage canal and from there, to the Kidron River.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:1 and the discussion of the Rambam’s ruling by the other commentaries.

A log is 346 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

A stream that is located on the southern side of the Temple Mount.

One of the gates located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard. It was given its name, because the water for the libation was brought in through it.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:6.

Usually, the priests would circle the altar, turning first to the right. In this instance, they would tum to the left, lest the smoke affect the water and the wine (Sukkah 48b; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:11).

In his gloss to Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:1, the Kessef Mishneh states that these cups were not a permanent part of the altar, but placed there only during the Sukkot holiday.

So that it would be obvious that he is pouring the water in the altar’s cups (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Rather than on the altar.

Lit., “a follower of Tzadok.” The Sadducees represented a splinter group within Judaism. They accepted the Written Law, but not the Oral Law. [In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never attract a large number of followers with such an approach and hence, adopted this ruse (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:3)]. Since the water libation is not explicitly stated in the Written Law, the Sadducees did not accept its validity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:9), the Rambam gives an original interpretation for the reason the water should not be held in a sacred vessel. Were it to be held in a sacred vessel, it would be possible that the priests would sanctify their hands with it. Thus they would perform that rite with water that was not consecrated or would use up the water and prevent it from being used for the libation (Rav Kappach’s notes to that mishnah). This represents a different approach than that of the other commentaries.

With water from the Shiloach Stream.

This change was necessary, for going down to fill the pitcher with water from the stream was forbidden on the Sabbath, because one would be carrying from a public domain to a private domain.

Water that was uncovered is unacceptable as a libation, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:10.

I.e., in addition to the song recited for the daily sacrifice. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 8-9 which describe the Levites’ songs.

This psalm contains the verse “The voice of God is upon the water” and thus is appropriate to mark the beginning of the offering of the water libation (see Sukkah 55a).

This psalm warns against coming to the Temple to celebrate and offer sacrifices without first repenting (Rashi, Sukkah, op. cit.).

From this verse until the end of the psalm. These verses were chosen, because they speak of confronting wicked powers. Our Sages ordained that it be recited in the Second Temple period when the Temple was under the authority of Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers (ibid.).

I.e., from verse 5 until verse 16. These verses speak about God’s watchful eye that surveys man’s actions. These verses were chosen, because Sukkot marks the end of the harvest season when the agricultural gifts must be given to the poor. These verses serve as a warning, impressing the people with the awareness that God is observing them at all times and seeing whether they give these gifts or not.

Until the end of the psalm. These verses contain words of comfort and the reassurance of Divine blessings.

These verses speak of Divine judgement and Hoshaana Rabbah, the day on which these verses are recited, marks the conclusion of the judgment begun on Rosh HaShanah.

The song for the additional offering of the Sabbath (a portion of the song Ha’azinu, as mentioned in chapter 6, Halacha 9) is recited on that day and the songs for the remaining days are pushed back a day (Kesser Mishneh).

Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.

Because the number of bulls are being reduced by one each day. See Halachot 3-4 above.

When there are far fewer sacrifices, as stated in Halachah 5.

The Radbaz infers from this that no lotteries were conducted during the prior seven days. Although there were some days when one watch received more sheep to offer than another, they would balance that matter by allowing the other watches to receive more the following days.

There were two watches that did not offer three bulls throughout the Sukkot holiday. One opinion in Sukkot 55b maintains that on Shemini Atzeret, the lottery to offer the bull should be held only between these two watches. The Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi which maintains that all the watches are included in this lottery.

According to the guidelines established in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4, for the additional offerings of Sukkot, the thirteen bulls required a total of 39 esronim, the two rams, a total of 4 esronim, and the fourteen sheep, a total of 14 esronim, a total of 57 esronim. In addition, two esronim were brought for the additional offering of the Sabbath, and two esronim for the continuous offerings.

This includes the wine and the oil as well as the meal, as indicated by the concluding halachot of the chapter.

Indeed, if the meal-offerings for two types of animals become intermingled before they are mixed together with their oil, they are disqualified [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:4)].

The rationale for the separation is that the ratio of oil to meal is different for the offerings of sheep and bulls.

The Sifra derives this concept from Leviticus 3:11 which states “And he shall offer it on the pyre,” using a singular form.

I.e., those of bulls, those of sheep, and those of rams.

As required by Halachah 15.

For the rationale for the restriction against mixing their wine libations is only to prevent their meal-offerings from being intermingled. Once the meal-offerings have been offered, there is no longer any need for that constraint (Menachot 89b). They may be mixed as an initial preference [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. See Halachah 20.

For as stated in Hilchot Ma’aselr HaKorbanot 2:12, the wine libations may be brought several days after the sacrifice was offered.

In Halachah 18.

A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified for various reasons. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:15 for a detailed list of such individuals.

The wording of Zevachim 3:1 (the source for this ruling) could be interpreted as implying that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (based on Zevachim 31 b), the Rambam explains that this restriction applies only to a person who is ritually impure.

And thus does not violate the prohibition against entering the Temple Courtyard while ritually impure (see Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:6).

Where the sacrificial animals must be slaughtered. As stated in ibid. 3:18, it is forbidden for an impure person to insert his hand into the Temple Courtyard according to Rabbinic Law. Nevertheless, this person was willing to transgress. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) the Rambam offers an interpretation that does not require that the person transgress: he slaughtered with a long knife.

In which instance he would make the sacrifice impure and disqualify it. That is forbidden.

Seemingly implying that the slaughter must be performed by a High Priest. Nevertheless, Aaron’s name is explicitly associated with the verb vihikriv, “and he shall offer.” According to the Rambam, the verse should be interpreted as meaning that the offering of the bull must be performed by the High Priest, not necessarily its slaughter.

Nevertheless, as an initial preference, the slaughter should be performed by a priest (Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2; 4:17).

I.e., using a long knife so that the two are slaughtered with the same movements of the knife.

I.e., after the fact. This applies only with regard to sacrificial animals. Ordinary animals may be sacrificed in this manner as an initial preference. See Chullin 29a.

See Hilchot Shechitah 2:10.

Such slaughter is acceptable for ordinary animals after the fact (Hilchot Shechitah 4:5).

This is a principle applicable in many different contexts of Jewish Law, e.g., Hilchot Tuma’at Ochalin 3:10, 14:2; Hilchot Keilim 2:1.

For burnt-offerings may only be slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:2-3). Thus he obviously had the intent to slaughter the animal as a burnt offering.

Zevachim 48b interprets Leviticus 1:11 as implying that what is significant is the place where the animal is standing and not where the slaughterer is standing.

Zevachim, op. cit., interprets the above verse as implying that with regard to the receiving of the blood, what is important is where the person performing that act is standing.

This reflects a general principle of Torah Law: the majority of a person’s body is considered as his entire body (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For the slaughter was performed in the appropriate place.

The fact that the animal entered the southern portion of the courtyard between the slaughter and the receiving of its blood, does not disqualify it.

Where it is required that they be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:4).

For the blood must be received in the Temple Courtyard.

This translation is necessary, because we are speaking of a portion of the person’s body and not his garments. See Ezekiel 8:3 for a similar usage.

Significantly, Zevachim 26a, the source for this law, uses a different prooftext. Some commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah.

Implied is that if an animal moved out of the Temple Courtyard before its blood was received, it is disqualified. ·

See Halachot 32-33 of this chapter.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:15.

From the sacrifices of the most sacred order.

He should not, however, cut off the bone, because that would render the animal as blemished before the reception of the blood and thus disqualify it (see Zevachim 26a and commentaries).

As indicated by Zevachim, op. cit., the problem is not because of the blood from the meat that was outside the Temple Courtyard, because our Sages made a distinction between the blood that flows from the animal at the time of ritual slaughter and the blood that remains within its body (see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 6:4). Nevertheless, the fat from the portion of the animal that is outside the Temple Courtyard becomes mixed with its blood. This blood could also be part of the blood which is received, causing that blood to be disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity become disqualified when they are removed from the Temple Courtyard, whether before the blood was presented on the altar or afterwards. Moreover, even if the meat is cut off, as Rambam suggests, the animal will become ritually impure, because there is an unresolved doubt whether our Sages decreed that any animal that is removed from the Temple Courtyard becomes ritually impure. Hence, because of the doubt, we should rule stringently (see Pesachim 85a). The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus resolve the Rambam’s ruling.

Provided, of course, that the animal was returned to the Temple Courtyard and the blood received there. Even if a portion of the animal was outside the Courtyard, as long as the blood was received inside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Nevertheless, the portion that was outside the Temple Courtyard is forbidden to be eaten (see Halachah 32).
The Ra’avad states that after the blood was cast on the altar, the meat may be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Rav Y osef Corcus states that this is obvious, because the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:5-6).

Based on Zevachim 26a, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring only to sacrifices of the most sacred order. (This is reflected also in the prooftext which refers to such a sacrifice.) Sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, by contrast, may be slaughtered if they are hoisted in the air as long as they are within the space above the Temple Courtyard.

Based on Zevachim, op. cit., the Kessef Mishneh - and his objections are also seconded by Rav Yosef Corcus suggests emending the text of this halachah. As stated in Halachah 19, there is a difficulty in receiving the blood ofa sacrifice while hanging in the air, because this is not befitting to the Temple service. Nevertheless, slaughtering an animal is not a formal part of the Temple service (and hence can be performed by a non-priest). Therefore there is no difficulty in a slaughterer performing slaughter while hoisted in the air. And as stated in Halachah 20, the open space of the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard, so it is as if the slaughterer is standing in the Temple Courtyard.

The windpipe and the gullet.

For an animal to be sacrificed as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity.

Of an animal to be slaughtered as a sacrifice of the most sacred order.

See Hilchot Shechitah 4:13 for another application of this principle.

This applies both with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order and those of a lesser degree of sanctity.

Thus the animal’s blood is considered to have been received in the Temple Courtyard.

It is considered as if one was holding the receptacle in which the blood was received in one’s hands.

This is a general principle, applicable in several areas of Torah Law (e.g., Hilchot Shofar Sukkah ViLulav 1:5; 7:12).

The difference is that the blood will flow through the fibers, but the flour will not.

I.e., they are considered integral parts of the process of offering a sacrifice and therefore require a priest's involvement.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:23; 13:12.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this refers to ibid., ch. 6. The Lechem Mishneh states that he does not understand where jn that chapter there is an allusion to the need for a priest to perform that service.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text states kohen gadol. Translating that term as “the High Priest” would not be appropriate at all in the present context. Some have suggested that the intent is a large priest, but most consider it a printing error. ·

Even if the blood was cast on the appropriate place.

And continue the service with it. If he received the blood while holding the receptacle with his left hand, the sacrifice is disqualified.

He may then continue the service; the sacrifice is not disqualified.

Since initially it was received in the proper manner, the fact that it spilled is not considered significant.

Since initially, it was not received in the proper manner.

For, after the fact, it is not necessary to receive all of the animal’s blood (Kessef Mishneh). This is, however, the initial preference (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:8).

In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, the Rambam defines this term as "blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red." See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1).

Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal’s blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:15.

Once sacrificial blood has been cast on the altar as required by law, the blood remaining in the receptacle is considered merely as remnants and it is no longer able to be used to fulfill the service associated with this sacrifice.
One might object because, from Halachah 28, it appears that a person who is unfit to carry out Temple service does not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants. Hence, in the situation at hand, it would appear that if there is sufficient blood left in the receptacle, the sacrifice should not be disqualified. A distinction can however be made between Halachah 28 which speaks about blood that remains in the body of the sacrificial animal and this situation where the blood is remaining in the receptacle from which other blood was taken (Tosafot, Zevachim 92a). If the blood was not cast on the altar as required by law, the sacrifice is not disqualified and it is acceptable if that service is performed properly by an acceptable priest (Kessef Mishneh).

Who should then bring it to the altar. The fact that the person who was unacceptable held it does not disqualify the sacrifice.

With which the service may not be performed.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:10.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the intent is that the impure priest received the blood and cast it on the altar. Receiving the blood alone does not disqualify the animal. He bases his interpretation on Hilchot Me’ilah 3:2-3 where this concept is stated explicitly. In this manner, he resolves the Ra’avad’s objections to the Rambam’s ruling.

I.e., in a manner which would cause the animal to be disqualified as physically blemished. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7, for a list of such blemishes.

Note the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger who maintains that it is possible that it be necessary also to bring the blood to the altar while the animal is whole.

An olive-sized portion is considered significant. If even that small a portion of the meat can be eaten or the organs and fats can be offered on the altar, the purpose of the sacrifice will be consummated. Hence, it is appropriate to cast the blood on the altar.

The remnants are not considered as significant.

Hence the fat and the meat can be combined.

The sacrifice is disqualified, and if the person was bringing it to fulfill an obligation, he must bring another one.

And the organs and fat to be offered on the altar.

In this instance, casting the blood on the altar is sufficient to cause the sacrifice to be considered acceptable. See also the following halachah.

I.e., the organs and the fats should be offered on the altar and the person bringing the sacrifice is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

For sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.

Generally, when a sacrifice was disqualified, it would have to be burnt immediately. If, however, it was disqualified because of a difficulty with the casting of the blood or because the owners were disqualified, it should be kept until its form decomposes and then it is burnt (Rashi, Me’ilah 7b-8a).

I.e., casting the blood of sacrifices of a lesser degree enables the meat of the animal to be eaten. This applies, however, only when the animal was in the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood was cast on the altar. If not, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the meat may not be eaten (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Kessef Mishneh (see also Ra'avad) offers a different interpretation, saying the intent could be sacrificial meat taken out of the city of Jerusalem.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, questioning why these organs and fats should be offered on the altar’s pyre. The Rambam’s maintains that since the prohibition of me’ilah and the prohibitions mentioned in this halachah apply, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Hence, there is no reason why these organs and fats should not be offered (Kessef Mishneh).
Rav Yosef Corcus avoids this difference of opinion by explaining that this is referring to an instance where the organs and the fats were returned to the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast upon the altar. According to all authorities, the fats and the organs should be offered in this instance.

These transgressions apply when the blood is cast on the altar in the proper manner. The Rambam is emphasizing that even in this instance when the fats and organs are outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood is cast on the altar and therefore disqualified - these prohibitions still apply.

As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat.

As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it.

As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake ofit.

Even if these organs and fats were outside the Temple Courtyard at the time the blood was cast upon the altar, the casting of the blood caused them to be considered as sacrificial meat.

I.e., if either the meat could be eaten (or offered on the altar in the instance of a burnt-offering) or the fats could be offered on the altar, there will be some positive value to the sacrifice.

In Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2, the Rambam writes that if a priest cast the blood on the altar when he knows that the Paschal sacrifice is impure, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable, while in this instance, he does not make such a distinction. Nevertheless, the reason for this distinction is evident from the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Korban Pesach: the Paschal sacrifice is offered solely that it be eaten, while with regard to other sacrifices there is a positive dimension to the offering of the fats and organs on the altar even if the sacrifice is not eaten.

The initial preference is that they should not be offered on the altar.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:7.

In this instance as well, it is the High Priest’s forehead plate that arouses the positive spiritual influences that cause the sacrifice to be accepted. In contrast to individual sacrifices, however, with regard to communal sacrifices, one should cast the blood on the altar as an initial preference even though both the fats and the meat have been disqualified, for the restrictions against ritual impurity are superseded by the obligation to offer communal sacrifices (Kessef Mishneh; Rav Yosef Corcus).

And another sacrifice must be brought in its place. The forehead plate does not cause such sacrifices to be acceptable (Zevachim 8:12).

Even if it comes in direct contact with a source of impurity, it does not become impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 8:4), the Rambam states that there are some Talmudic references to the blood of sacrificial animals becoming impure, but all of those statements were made before the testimony given by Rabbi Yossi ben Yoezar who stated that they never become impure. Once that statement was made, the principle was accepted without argument.

Instead, it is poured on the altar.

Whether at night or on the next day.