Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As explained in Hilchot Sechirut 1 2:6, usually, a worker is entitled to partake of the produce with which he is working.

Even though the money is also consecrated, the workers may receive it, because it is part of their wages. Although one might ask: What is the difference whether they are given consecrated figs or consecrated funds, this decree is upheld (Rav Yosef Corcus).

I.e., it is an obligation for him to do so, lest the ox partake of the consecrated food [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 3:7)].

See Hilchot Sechirut, ch. 4.

Thus excluding consecrated produce.

100 dinarim.

Even one that was not consecrated as a sacrifice.

The holiness of the consecrated article is first transferred to money and then the article is given as payment. Needless to say, if the treasurers desire, they can pay the craftsman with consecrated funds (Rav Yosef Corcus).

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, it is forbidden to benefit from consecrated articles attached to the ground. The prohibition against me’ilah does not, however, apply.

Tosafot, Eruvin 31b, raise a question concerning this point, for that Talmudic passage states that the holiness of consecrated funds or articles may not be transferred to something attached to land. In resolution, Tosafot explain that since the building was not originally attached to the land and it will be torn down if it does not become consecrated, it is considered as if it were not attached.

A coin used in the Talmudic era.

The workers could claim that they built more than they actually did and thus receive extra wages, which would be a misappropriation of funds from the Temple treasury. This technique was employed to prevent this from happening, for they would always be receiving a fifth less.

I.e., they may cook sacrificial meat with the wood from the Temple and use the salt there.

The priests are permitted to partake of ordinary food together with the portions of sacrificial food that they receive. They may not, however, use the salt from the Temple with their ordinary food (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Should it fall there when sacrifices or meal-offerings are salted (Rashi, Menachot 21b). The prohibition does apply to the salt kept there to be placed on the sacrifices.

See similar statements in the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah. See also the Rambam’s statements in the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, ch. 48, where he explains that there are motivating rationales for all of the Torah’s decrees.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam’s words have a twofold intent: Firstly, a person should not think that since the motivating principles for the mitzvot are deep concepts, it is preferable not to investigate them at all. Instead, he should realize that he should invest himself in their study. On the other hand, if he cannot find a suitable explanation for a practice, he should realize that the lack is not in God’s thought, but in his own.

The Rambam is borrowing, out of context, the wording of Exodus 19:21-22.

Sifra on the verse.

Yoma 67b.

The commentaries cite Avot 1:2 and Megilah 31b as sources. The Rambam’s statements are not, however, explicit quotes from these sources.

The Rambam introduces each of the books of the Mishneh Torah with a verse from Scripture. In this instance, there is a difference of opinion concerning the verse he quotes. Our text follows the Rav Shabti Frankel version. Other texts cite the verse: “I will offer a thanksgiving offering to You and call upon the name of God.” (Psalms 116:17).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 55) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 5) include this as one of 613 mitzvot. The mitzvah is incumbent on every Jewish male and female as individuals. Nevertheless, since it must be fulfilled by the entire Jewish people at the same time, it has certain dimensions of a communal sacrifice (Chapter 7, Halachah 1).
In this context, we can understand why these halachot were chosen to begin Sefer HaKorbanot. In contrast to Sefer HaAvodah which described the sacrificial obligations incumbent on the Jewish people as a collective entity, Sefer HaKorbanot deals with sacrificial obligations incumbent upon individuals. Nevertheless, as a bridge connecting these two texts, the Rambam chose a subject that has elements common to both.

Exodus 12:6 states that the Paschal sacrifice should be offered bein ha’arbayim which is translated as “in the afternoon.” More specifically, based on Jeremiah 6:4, the Mechilta to the above verse interprets the term as referring to the time when the sun has past the midpoint of its daily cycle.

One that is more than a year old is unacceptable (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:13).

Pesachim 91b derives this from the fact that Exodus 12:4 speaks of “the number of souls” and not “the number of men.”

In which instance, he is exempt from karet and obligated to bring a second Paschal sacrifice. See Numbers 9:10-11; Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

Literally, the soul’s being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo’ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). This mitzvah and the mitzvah of circumcision are the only positive commandments whose neglect is punishable by karet. See also General Principle 14 in Sefer HaMitzvot which explains that although a person is liable for karet for transgressing this prohibition, that punishment is visited from Above and not by an earthly court.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:2, the failure to bring the Pesach sacrifice is one of only three commandments whose willful violation is punishable by karet, but one is not obligated to bring a sin-offering to atone for its inadvertent omission. Moreover, there is an added leniency here, one may correct his lack by bringing a second Pesach offering in the month of Iyar.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:12; 18:3.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:2 and notes which explain that in the time between the entry of the Jewish people into the land of Israel and the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem, people were permitted to offer private sacrifices on individual altars, the “high places” referred to in the above verse. There was no necessity to bring those offerings to the central altar. This did not apply with regard to the Pesach sacrifice, for Deuteronomy 16:7 specifically states that the Paschal sacrifice should be offered “in the place which God… chooses to cause His name to dwell.”

This phrase is found in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is referred to by Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam’s son, in one of his responsa.

The Rambam does not, however, count this as one of the 613 commandments. Instead, it is included in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 90), the mitzvah not to offer any sacrifice outside of Jerusalem.
In one of his responsa, Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam’s son, writes that the person is liable for lashes only during the era the Temple is standing. During the era when it is permitted to offer sacrifices on individual altars, offering a Paschal sacrifice on such an altar is forbidden, but one is not liable for punishment.

Zevachim 114b.

Generally, the afternoon daily sacrifice is the last sacrifice offered on the altar each day. The Paschal sacrifice is, however, an exception. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:2-4.

The prohibition applies not only to the one who actually slaughters the sacrificial animal, but to anyone who is enumerated as one of the members of a company that will consume the Pesach sacrifice.

The minimum sized portion for which one is liable. In this context, an olive-sized portion is between 25.6 and 36 grams according to the various views.

Leaven which is forbidden according to Scriptural Law from midday of the fourteenth of Nisan until the conclusion of the holiday.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 115) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 89) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Regarding the obligation to partake of the Paschal sacrifice together with a specific group of individuals, see the following chapter.

I.e., poured gently from close to the altar rather than cast upon it from afar.

The fats of several offerings should not be combined.

For the Paschal sacrifice may only be eaten in the holy city.
By saying that the owner can take the hide, the Rambam is emphasizing that it is his personal property, unlike the hides of certain sacrifices that are given to the priests.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 116) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 90) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

And whenever a prohibition does not involve a deed, lashes are not given (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).

The appearance of the first glimmerings of the light of the sun on the horizon more than an hour before sunrise.
This follows the Scriptural decree. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:2: “In order to distance [a person] from inadvertent transgression, our Sages declared that the eimorim and the limbs of the burnt-offerings should only be offered on the fire of the altar until midnight.”

I.e., since the Sabbath is on a higher level of holiness than the festivals, if the day before a festival is the Sabbath, the fats from the Sabbath offerings may be offered on the altar on the following night even though it is a festival. If, however, the day before a festival is an ordinary weekday, out of respect for the festival, the fats from the sacrifices of the previous day may not be offered on the altar that night.

Meiri, in his gloss to Pesachim 64a, states that from the use of the term “congregation” with regard to the spies (Numbers 14:27), we see that a congregation refers to a group of ten. We then apply the concept that each of the groups must be made up of three collectives, i.e., a grouping of thirty, for it is possible that the prooftext from Exodus is in fact referring to one group. Hence because of the possibility that each collective should be counted individually, we require three separate groups. And because of the possibility that it is referring to one larger group, we require each group to include 30 people.

Thus there will be 30 people in the Temple Courtyard for each group.

For it is impossible to slaughter it in three groups as explained above.

For, after the fact, such a separation is not an absolute requirement.

I.e., without dividing into separate groups.

For it was appropriate to praise God in this manner while offering these sacrifices. See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 3:6 which states that a flute would also be played while this sacrifice was offered.

For there were many priests performing the Temple service and they were nimble in their service (Pesachim 64b).

As explained in Hilchot Shofar 3:1-3, the tekiah blast is a single prolonged sound, while the term teruah refers to a series of staccato blasts.
Kiryat Sefer cites II Chronicles 5:13 which links “the sound of trumpets” with praise (Hallel) as the source for this practice. See also the Sifri Zuta which associates Numbers 10:10: “And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt-offerings and the sacrifice of your peace offerings” with the Paschal sacrifice.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:6-7 which relate how the trumpet is sounded in connection with the libations that accompany the daily sacrifices.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, these lines gave many the opportunity to participate in the sacrifice of the animal.

That there be altemate lines, each with a uniform colored vessel.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:5), the Rambam writes that these vessels were v-shaped.

I.e., even an Israelite; the sacrificial animals need not be slaughtered by a priest (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:6).

From this point onward, the sacrificial service had to be carried out by a priest (ibid.).

For as stated in Proverbs 14:28: “Among the multitude of people is the glory of the king” (Pesachim 64b). The more people involved in an activity, the more obvious its importance is.

This was the practice even on the Sabbath. See the Kessef Mishneh.

And pierced by a knife (Pesachim 68a).

For everything offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).

Due to the multitude of animals slaughtered.

To remove the blood and the filth. Pesachim 64a states that a drainage canal ran through the Temple Courtyard. They would plug the canal and flood the Courtyard. Then they would open the canal and let everything flow out.

Even though generally individual sacrifices are not brought on the Sabbath, the Paschal sacrifice is an exception. See Halachah 18.

Even though there is a Rabbinic prohibition against doing so on the Sabbath.

In Hilchot Shabbat 21:2, the Rambam defines the category of shvut as prohibitions instituted because the activities resemble a forbidden labor of could lead to the performance of a forbidden labor.

See ibid. 21:27. The commentaries explain that these restrictions were not imposed in the Temple, because the priests were known to be careful in their observance.

Carrying in the public domain involves a Scriptural prohibition. Because it is a walled city, Jerusalem was not considered a public domain, but instead a karmelit (Eruvin 101a). There is still a Rabbinic prohibition involved in carrying there, however, and that prohibition is not waived to allow the people to take their sacrifices home.

There was a significant area on the Temple Mount outside the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:1).

A rampart ten cubits high outside the wall of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Beit Habechira 5:3).

Because as a sign of respect, it is forbidden to sit in the Temple Courtyard (ibid. 7:6).

I.e., to the place he was staying in Jerusalem, for the Paschal sacrifice had to be eaten in the holy city.

Even though it is permitted to offer the fats on the night following the Sabbath and thus it is not an absolute necessity to violate the Sabbath prohibitions, it is more desirable to fulfill a mitzvah in its prescribed time than later (Pesachim 68b).

Pesachim 66b derives this concept from an association stemming from the use of the same term by Numbers 28:2 with regard to the daily communal offering. Just as in that instance, the term is understood as requiring that the offering be brought even on the Sabbath, so too, the Paschal sacrifice may be offered on the Sabbath.

Which involves a Rabbinic prohibition, as stated above. Although an animal is alive, the principle “a living entity carries itself’ applies only to a human and not to an animal [Hilchot Shabbat 18:16; see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 6:1)]. One may, however, lead an animal through the city’s streets.

The 2000 cubits that surround a city. Bringing an article that was outside those limits at the beginning of the Sabbath into the city is forbidden on the Sabbath, even if one is not carrying it.

So that the animal would not be considered as blemished. Since the person’s action makes the animal fit for a sacrifice, it is considered as if he violated the prohibition of makeh b’patish, making an object fit for use (Tzaphnat Pane’ach).

Since he is cutting it off by hand, a Scriptural prohibition no longer applies, because he is deviating from the ordinary way of performing the activity.

For once it is dry, the Scriptural prohibition no longer applies.

He must, however, perform these activities in the Temple complex, because only there are the Rabbinic prohibitions relaxed. Nevertheless, even though these activities could have been performed on the day before the Sabbath, since he is in the Temple, there are no restrictions on performing them.

Carrying it through the city by himself. As mentioned above, Jerusalem is a karmelit and it is forbidden to carry within the city based on Rabbinic decree.

And this is forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 20:1-2.

In order to enable him to offer the Paschal sacrifice.

This is forbidden, as implied by Deuteronomy 15:19: “Do not perform work with the firstborn of your oxen and do not shear the firstborn of your sheep.” As stated in Hilchot Me’ilah 1:7, the same prohibition applies to all other sacrificial animals.

The Rambam mentions these general prohibitions and these two specific leniencies in Hilchot Shabbat 23:14.

As explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach.

Which also disqualifies it (ibid. 2:10-11).

Just as there were no prohibitions against him slaughtering the first animal on the Sabbath, there are no prohibitions against him slaughtering a second or a third.

And thus the Paschal sacrifice can no longer be brought.

On the fourteenth of Iyar, as stated in Chapter 5.

The commentaries question why is necessary to mention this last point. Even if he intentionally did not bring a Paschal sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan, he may bring one on the fourteenth of Iyar, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.

The Mechilta and the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai derived this concept from textual associations with other verses. See also Halachah 14 which explains that as long as a sacrificial animal is alive, one can change his mind and switch from one sacrifice to another.

The use of a plural form indicates that more than one person should bring it.

For by eating such a portion, he fulfills the mitzvah, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 3.

And thus the lamb will surely be consumed in its entirety.

The commentaries understood this as referring to indecent and lewd conduct.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 8, which speaks of a woman’s obligations vis-à-vis the second Paschal sacrifice.

For a servant’s halachic obligations are the same as a woman’s (Kessef Mishneh).

As part of the process of training them in the observance of mitzvot.

And as a result, they are unable to consecrate the Paschal sacrifice. If, however, they reach the age of 12 and they are intellectually competent, it is possible that their consecration of a sacrifice is effective and a company may be constituted of them (Kessef Mishneh).

The term refers to a person who that day lost their spouse or one of the six relatives for whom they are required to mourn according to Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Evel 2:1). As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 9, if the relative died in the afternoon, such a person is obligated to partake of the Paschal sacrifice that night. Nevertheless, because of the acute mourning such an individual feels, he will not eat with appetite.

I.e., by leaving until the next morning, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 11.

This is the version in most of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings, following the understanding of the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 8:7), which maintains that converts would not be careful in their observance. Other versions follow the understanding of Rashi (Pesachim 91b) who maintains that the converts will be overly stringent in their observance and cause the sacrifice to be disqualified unnecessarily.

Who is forbidden to partake of the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 5; Chapter 9, Halachah 8.

Who may not partake of it, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and equates casting the blood with slaughter. As long as there are some circumcised people to partake of it, he maintains that the sacrifice is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling on the basis of his interpretation of Pesachim 61b.

As indicated by Leviticus 17:11: “For the soul of flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you... to gain atonement for your souls,” the fundamental atonement achieved by the sacrifices comes through casting the blood (Rav Yosef Corcus).

I.e., the sacrifice itself is not disqualified.

The commentaries explain that the Rambam’s ruling is based on a different version of Pesachim 61a than is found in the standard printed texts.

To the extent that he could not partake of an olive-sized portion of the sacrifice.

Who do not have any independent authority.

For their consent is of no consequence.

Once they attain majority, they are considered independent and their own decisions are significant. This applies even when they live at home and are financially dependent on their parents (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Who are considered as independent individuals, responsible for their own observance.

Even though a Hebrew maidservant is below majority, she is not dependent on her owner, because it is not his responsibility to educate her. Therefore, it is dependent on her consent.

For she is also independent.

And not by partaking of their own (Pesachim 88a).

They need not make a verbal statement of protest.

And not by partaking of the sacrifice of the husband, father, and or master (ibid.).

The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the woman did not decide where she wanted to partake of the Paschal sacrifice before it was offered and hence, the sages had to appraise that it could be assumed that her intent was to partake of her husband’s. The rationale is that since he provides her with food throughout the year, it can be assumed that she will desire to partake of his sacrifice (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Since she felt the need to be in her parents’ home, it can be assumed that this was her intent.

For as mentioned above, everything is dependent on her own desires.

If, however, she did not define her intent at the time the animals were slaughtered, she may not partake of either of the sacrifices. As Pesachim 87a emphasizes, we do not say that when afterwards she decides where she would like to partake of the sacrifice, it is considered as if that was his intent at the outset, for the principle of bereirah (retroactive association) does not apply in matters of Scriptural Law.

He may partake of whichever sacrifice he desires.

Since he is not obligated in the mitzvot, there is no absolute necessity to have him enumerated on the Paschal sacrifice (Rabbi Yosef Corcus).

See Chapter 3, Halachah 1, and notes.

This addition is necessary, for - as stated in Halachah 8 - a Hebrew servant decides where he eats on his own.

Each one of the owners is wary that the servant will feel more comfortable at the other owner’s household and that will enable the owner to take him entirely as his own (Kessef Mishneh).

Because as stated in Halachah 8, an owner may enumerate a servant on his Paschal sacrifice without the servant’s consent.

In Hilchot Avadim 7:4, the Rambam mentions two possibilities that enable such a situation to arise: An owner releases half of a servant, because of a monetary payment—e.g., he took money for half his worth with the intent of freeing that half. Alternatively, when a servant is owned by two partners, and one frees his half—whether through money or through a legal document—the servant acquires his half, and he is half servant and half free man.

The commentaries have raised difficulties with the Rambam’s ruling, noting that it appears to run contrary to the conclusion of Pesachirn 87a, 88a. There the mishnah states: “One who is half a servant and half a free man, should not partake of his master’s [Paschal sacrifice].” The Talmud questions that statement, noting that the implication is that he may partake of his own and there is an explicit beraita stating that he may not partake of his own Paschal sacrifice either. The Talmud answers that the beraita reflects the first teaching concerning the subject, while the mishnah reflects the ultimate conclusion, as it was taught: “One who is half a servant and half free serves his master for one day and works for himself for one day, as the School of Hillel taught. The School of Shammai say: ‘We compel his master to compose for him a bill of release.’ The School of Hillel recanted and gave the instruction according to the approach of the School of Shammai.”
Seemingly, when applying these concepts to the Paschal sacrifice, it appears that, according to the initial perspective, the servant should not partake of the Paschal sacrifice at all, for there is a part of his being - the side that is a servant - that is not dependent on his own decision. On the other hand, according to the perspective of the School of Shammai, since he ultimately will be freed, we consider it as if he was freed already and enable him to partake of his own Paschal sacrifice. Thus, as the Ra’avad protests, the Rambam’s ruling appears to follow the Talmud’s initial perspective, but not its ultimate one.
Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, was asked this question and responded with a different understanding of the passage in Pesachim. According to Rav Avraham, the mishnah reflects the initial understanding. Consideration is granted to the servant and he is allowed to fulfill his obligation. The bereitah reflects the final understanding of the Talmud which puts the emphasis on the attainment of the servant’s freedom. Since allowing him to partake of the Paschal sacrifice may cause this to be delayed, he is not given the opportunity of fulfilling the mitzvah until he is freed. This understanding of the passage is reflected in the Rambam’s ruling here and also in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 8:1).

I.e., how many people can be enumerated on one sacrifice.

For one may not fulfill his obligation by eating less. Initially, however, there should be enough for every person to eat to the point of satisfaction.

If, however, initially, a company was formed that was too large to enable each person to receive an olive-sized portion of meat, none of the members of the company should partake of it (Tosefta, Pesachim, ch. 7).

Although there are situations where a person who is not able to partake of the first Paschal sacrifice is exempt from bringing a second, that ruling is not given here, because in this situation, the person never had the possibility of partaking of the sacrifice.

I.e., the amount of meat he would have received had the division been made among the original people enumerated upon the sacrifice.

The division is made after the sacrificial animal is roasted, because it must be roasted as a single entity (see Chapter 10, Halachah 11).

The members of a company may not take meat from one company to another, nor may one Paschal sacrifice be eaten in two companies, as stated in Chapter 9, Halachot 1,4. In this instance, however, since the members of the company did not invite the other guests, they make this division. Nevertheless, the Rambam’s intent appears to be that the two companies should eat in the same room, without a divider between them. Thus it is not considered as if they actually separated into two companies (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For, as stated above, under ordinary circumstances, a company may not divide itself.