Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

There are five sins for whose violation one must bring a guilt-offering. It is called a definitive guilt-offering, because it is not brought because of a doubt. They are: a) intimacy with a consecrated maid-servant, b) robbery, c) misappropriation of sacred articles, d) the contraction of ritual impurity by a nazirite, and e) purification from the infliction of tzara'at.

What is implied by intimacy with a consecrated maid-servant? When a man is intimate with a consecrated maid-servant whether intentionally or inadvertently, he must bring a guilt-offering, provided she is past majority, aware of the transgression, willfully participating, and she had previously engaged in relations in the ordinary manner, and the relations were completed, so that she will also be liable for lashes, as Leviticus 19:20-21 states: "There will be an investigation... and he will bring his guilt-offering," i.e., she receives lashes and he brings a sacrifice.

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught, in a situation where she is liable for lashes, he is liable for a sacrifice. When she is exempt from lashes, he is exempt from a sacrifice.

When a youth who is nine years old is intimate with a consecrated maidservant, she is liable for lashes and he is obligated to bring a sacrifice. It appears to me that he does not bring the sacrifice until he comes of age and attains intellectual maturity.

We have already explained in Hilchot Bi'ot Assurot, the definition of the term shifchah charufah used in the Torah and that the two are not liable until he is intimate with her in an ordinary manner and the relations were completed. Therefore if two people tell him: "You were intimate with a consecrated maidservant," and he said: "I was not intimate with her," his word is accepted and he does not bring a sacrifice as a result of their statements. For he knows whether or not he completed the relations and his statement: "I was not intimate" can be interpreted as "I did not complete relations."

Although a man is intimate with a consecrated maidservant many times, he is only liable for one guilt-offering. What is implied? A man was intimate with a consecrated maidservant many times intentionally or was intimate with her inadvertently, he became aware of the matter, and then he was intimate with her inadvertently again and became aware of the matter - even if the sequence occurs 100 times in 100 lapses of awareness, he is only liable for one guilt-offering. It atones for him for everything, for both his intentional and inadvertent transgressions with her.

When does the above apply? When he was intimate with only one consecrated maidservant. If, however, he was intimate with many consecrated maidservants, even in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for a guilt-offering for every consecrated maidservant.

If a man was intimate with a consecrated maidservant, set aside his guilt-offering and then was intimate with her again afterwards, he is liable for every time they were intimate. Setting aside a sacrifice creates a distinction. Thus it is as if he offered the sacrifice and then was intimate with the consecrated maidservant again.

Similarly, if a man was intimate with one consecrated maidservant five times in a single lapse of awareness, he then became aware of one transgression and set aside a guilt-offering and then became aware of the second, he must set aside another one even though both transgression were committed in a single lapse of awareness. Since he did not become aware of the transgression until after he set aside the offering, it is as if he was intimate with her after he set aside the offering. For the laws pertaining to one who acts inadvertently and one who acts intentionally are the same with regard to a consecrated maidservant.

In which instance is one obligated to bring a guilt-offering for robbery? Whenever anyone has in his possession a p'rutah's worth or more of Jewish money, whether he obtained it by robbery or theft, or it was entrusted to him, lent to him, came to him as part of a partnership agreement, or in another way, and he denied possession of it, taking a false oath, whether intentionally or inadvertently, he must bring a guilt-offering to atone for his transgression. This is called a guilt-offering for robbery.

It is explicitly stated in the Torah that a person will not receive atonement through a guilt-offering until he returned the money in his possession to its owner. The payment of the additional fifth does not, however, hold back the atonement.

We already explained in Hilchot Sh'vuot the types of oaths for which a person will be liable to bring this guilt-offering and when he is exempt from it, in which instances one would be liable for many guilt-offerings commensurate with the number of oaths he is obligated to take and in which instances, he would be liable for only one guilt-offering.

In which instance is one obligated to bring a guilt-offering for misappropriating consecrated property? Anyone who inadvertently derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit from consecrated property must make restitution for the benefit he derived, add a fifth, and bring a sacrifice to receive atonement. We already explained in Hilchot Me'ilah that bringing the sacrifice and making restitution for the principal prevent atonement from being granted. The additional fifth does not prevent atonement from being granted.

When a person partakes of food for which one is liable for misappropriating consecrated property in five different dishes in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for a guilt-offering for each one, even though the meat comes from one sacrifice, provided he derives a p'rutah's worth of benefit each time he eats. The rationale is that the different dishes create a distinction and they are considered as different types of food even though they are not considered as different transgressions with regard to the liability for karet. The rationale for this is that there is an added dimension of severity to the prohibition against misappropriating consecrated property, for one who causes others to derive benefit is liable just as one who benefits, the measure for which one is liable can be accumulated over time, and when an agent performs the mission with which he is charged, the principal is liable. These concepts do not apply with regard to other prohibitions.

Whenever a person is obligated to bring a definitive guilt-offering, he must become aware of his transgression beforehand and then offer his guilt-offering. If, by contrast, he offers the sacrifice before he becomes aware of the transgression and afterwards, becomes aware of it, he does not fulfill his obligation with it.

A king and an anointed priest bring the same sacrifice as an ordinary person for every transgression for which one is obligated to bring a definitive guilt-offering.

Whenever a doubt arises in a person's mind whether or not he committed a transgression for which he is liable to bring a definitive guilt-offering, he is entirely exempt. Therefore if a doubt arises whether one caused the misappropriation of consecrated property, he is not liable at all, as stated in Hilchot Me'ilah.

When there was a piece of ordinary meat and a piece of sacrificial meat before a person and he partook of one without knowing which one it is, he is exempt. If, afterwards, he partook of the second, he must bring a guilt-offering for the misappropriation of consecrated property. If another person comes and partakes of the second piece, they are both exempt.

When there are a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial meat before a person and he eats one of them without knowing which it is, he must bring a provisional guilt-offering, because of the possibility that he partook of the forbidden fat. If he ate the second one as well, he must bring a sin-offering for partaking of the forbidden fat and a definitive guilt-offering for misappropriating consecrated property. If another person came and partook of the second piece, that other person must also bring a provisional guilt-offering.

When there are a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat before a person and he eats one of them without knowing which it is, he must bring a sin-offering. If he ate the second after he became aware that he ate the first, he must bring two sin-offerings and a definitive guilt-offering to atone for misappropriating sacred property. If another person came and ate the second piece, each one should bring only a sin-offering. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, we explained the rationale why the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property falls on forbidden fat. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations concerning other prohibitions.

There are six individuals who are commanded to bring an adjustable guilt-offering. They are: one who becomes purified from tzara'at, a woman who gives birth, a person who takes an oath denying the knowledge of testimony whether intentionally or inadvertently, one who takes a false sh'vuat bitu'i inadvertently, an impure person who partook of consecrated food inadvertently and an impure person who entered the Temple inadvertently.

With regard to the sacrifice brought by a woman after childbirth: If she is wealthy, she brings a sheep in its first year of life as a burnt-offering and a young dove or a turtle dove for a sin-offering. If she does not have the means, her obligation for a sacrifice is reduced and she must bring merely two turtle doves or two young doves, one as a burnt-offering and one, as a sin-offering. Even if she has the means to bring a sheep, but does not have the means to bring its accompanying offerings, she should bring the offering of a poor woman.

When a person afflicted by tazara'at becomes purified, he must bring three animals as sacrifices: two sheep, one, as a burnt-offering and one, as a guilt-offering, and a ewe, as a sin-offering. If he does not have the means, he must bring two turtle doves or two young doves, one, as a burnt-offering and one, as a sin-offering, and a sheep, as a guilt-offering.

One who takes a false sh'vuah concerning testimony, inadvertently takes a false sh'vuat habitu'i, or inadvertently enters the Temple or partakes of consecrated food while in a state of ritual impurity must bring a ewe or a she-goat, like other fixed sin-offerings. If he does not have the means, he must bring two turtle doves or two young doves, one, as a burnt-offering and one, as a sin-offering. If he does not have the means to purchase the fowl, he should bring a tenth of an ephah of flour. This is referred to as "the meal-offering of a sinner." The manner in which it is offered has been described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot.

All of these sacrifices are explicitly mentioned in the Torah and it is explicitly mentioned that these individuals are obligated to bring them with the exception of an impure person who inadvertently entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food. For it is written in Leviticus 5:1-5: "When a soul will sin and hear a voice of adjuration... or a soul that will touch any impure thing.... or a soul that will take an oath, explicitly stating it with his lips,... and one will be guilty with regard to one of these." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the obligation for an impure person to bring a sacrifice refers to a person who became impure and then entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food without knowing of the prohibition. Although this interpretation was conveyed by the Oral tradition, it is as if it was stated explicitly, for the Torah explicitly obligated an impure person who partook of consecrated food or who entered the Temple for karet. With regard to an impure person who partakes of consecrated food, Leviticus 7:20 states: "And a soul that will partake of meat from a peace-offering brought to God while he is impure will be cut off." And with regard to one who entered the Temple, Numbers 19:20 states: "And the soul shall be cut off from the congregation, because he made the Sanctuary of God impure." Since the Torah obligated one who entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while impure for karet, it is understood that here it stated the sacrifice that must be brought because of the inadvertent violation of these prohibitions.

Whenever a woman is obligated to bring a sacrifice, her husband is obligated to bring it on her behalf. If he is poor, he brings the offering of a poor person. If he is wealthy, he brings the sacrifice of a wealthy person on her behalf. A person may bring an offering of a poor person on behalf of his son, his daughter, his servant and his maid-servant and have them partake of the offerings.

A king and an anointed priest must bring the same sacrifices for a false oath regarding testimony, a false sh'vuat bitu'i, and for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food while ritually impure as others. For the Torah did not distinguish between the sacrifices brought by a king or an anointed priest and ordinary individuals except with regard to those commandments for which one is obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering for their inadvertent transgression, as we explained. With regard to an adjustable guilt-offering, by contrast, all are equal.

We already explained in Hilchot Sh'vuot, when one is liable for a sacrifice for a false oath concerning testimony and a false sh'vuat bitu'i and when one is exempt, in which instances he would be liable for many sacrifices according to the number of oaths he took and in which instances, he would be liable for only one sacrifice. In Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah, I will explain in which instances a woman who gave birth and a person becoming purified from tzara'at will be liable for many sacrifices and in which instance, they will be liable for only one sacrifice.

With regard to all sins that one must bring a sacrifice whether he transgressed willfully or inadvertently, if a person violates them due to factors under duress, he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. Needless to say, this applies with regard to other sins for which he is liable for a sin-offering only when he transgresses inadvertently. If he sins under duress, he is exempt.

When a person set aside money for a ewe for a sin-offering and then needed it for another purpose, he may bring a she-goat and transfer the holiness of the money to the she-goat and derive benefit from the money. Similarly, if he set aside money for a she-goat and purchased a ewe, he may derive benefit from the money.

When a person set aside money for an animal and then became poor, he should take two turtledoves or two young doves and transfer the holiness of the money to them. Then he may benefit from the remainder.

If one set aside money for young doves or turtledoves and became poor, he should take an tenth of an ephah and transfer the holiness of the money to it. Then he may benefit from the money. Conversely, if he was poor and set aside money for a tenth of an ephah and became wealthier, he should add to that amount and bring a fowl. If he set aside money for a fowl and became wealthy, he should add to it and bring a ewe or a she-goat.

Even if a person was fit to inherit money and the testator was on his deathbed, he is still considered as poor until the testator dies and he inherits his estate.

When a wealthy person set aside a ewe or a she-goat and it contracted a blemish and then he became poor, if he desires, he may bring a fowl with the proceeds of its sale. If, however, he set aside a fowl and it was disqualified, he may not bring a tenth of an ephah of meal with the proceeds of its sale. It may not be sold, since there is no concept of redeeming a fowl.

When a person set aside a tenth of an ephah and then became wealthy before the meal was consecrated by placing it in a sacred utensil, it is like all other meal-offerings and may be redeemed and eaten. Once it has been consecrated in a sacred utensil, it cannot be redeemed. Instead, it should be left overnight and then taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.

When a wealthy person set aside a pair of doves to be sold with the intent of using the proceeds of the sale as part of the funds for a ewe or a she-goat and then became poor, he may bring this pair of doves even though they were consecrated only for their worth and thus originally disqualified as sacrifices.

Why are these doves not disqualified forever? Because when they were disqualified originally, they were not disqualified in an ultimate sense. For this pair of doves is now fit for sacrifice.

When a poor person brings the sacrifice of a rich person, he fulfills his obligation. Conversely, when a rich person brings the sacrifice of a poor person, he does not fulfill his obligation.

There is a difference with regard to the inadvertent violation of the prohibitions against entering into the Temple and partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure that does not apply with regard to other transgressions punishable by karet. With regard to all the other transgressions punishable by karet, if one transgressed inadvertently and ultimately, became aware that he transgressed, he is liable for a sin-offering, even though he did not have any knowledge of the transgression beforehand. With regard to the prohibitions against entering into the Temple and partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure, by contrast, one does not bring an adjustable guilt-offering unless he was aware of his ritual impurity and aware of the consecrated nature of the Temple or the food at the outset and aware of his ritual impurity and aware of the consecrated nature of the Temple or the food afterwards, and there was a lapse of awareness in the interim.

What is implied? He unknowingly contracted impurity and entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food and afterwards, he became aware that he had contracted impurity, that he was impure at the time he ate or entered, and that it was consecrated food that he ate or the Temple that he entered, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a sacrifice. He is not obligated unless he knew that he contracted impurity and that it was consecrated food or the Temple, before he entered or ate.

What is implied? He contracted impurity and became aware that he contracted impurity and knew that the building was the Temple or the food was consecrated. Afterwards, he had a lapse of awareness regarding the impurity, forgetting that he had contracted impurity, and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, knowing that this was the Temple or that this was consecrated food. Alternatively, he had a lapse of awareness and forgot that this was the Temple or that this was consecrated meat, but he was aware that he was ritually impure, and he entered or partook of the meat. Or he acted inadvertently or forgot that he contracted impurity, forgot that this was consecrated meat, or that this was the Temple and entered and ate. Then afterwards, he became aware of the matters of which he had been unaware, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering in all these six possible instances.

How do we know that this is the law regarding the inadvertent violation of the prohibitions concerning the Temple and consecrated food? Because with regard to other inadvertent transgressions, Leviticus 4:27-28 states: "Acting in violation of one of the commandments of God that forbids an act to be performed and he was guilty or if the sin that he committed becomes known to him," implying that he is liable if he ultimately knew of the transgression even if he was not aware of it originally. With regard to entering the Temple or partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure, ibid. 5:3 states: "And it became hidden from him, he became aware, and he became guilty." Since the verse states "And it became hidden from him," the implication is that he had knowledge of the matter beforehand. And since it is written: "he became aware, and he became guilty," he ultimately had knowledge. Thus we have learned that he must have awareness initially and ultimately and a lapse of awareness in the interim.

If a person contracts impurity and knows that he is impure and is aware of the Temple or that food is consecrated, but does not know the type of impurity that he contracted, then forgot that he became impure and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, and after entering or eating became aware of the type of impurity that he had contracted, he is liable to bring a sacrifice. Although at the outset, he did not know the type of impurity he had contracted, since he knew that he was ritually impure, it is considered as if he was aware of his impurity at the outset.

If, however, he suffered a lapse of awareness concerning the laws of ritual impurity, e.g., he became impure because of contact with a lentil-sized portion of the carcass of a crawling animal, and he knew that the carcass of a crawling animal imparted ritual impurity, but did not know the measure that imparts impurity and then forgot entirely that he touched the carcass of a crawling animal and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, and then became aware that he touched a lentil-sized portion of the carcass of a crawling animal, there is an unresolved doubt whether or not he is liable for a sacrifice.

A similar issue arises when a person who never saw the Temple and never was aware of its place, became impure and knew that he was impure, entered the Temple without knowing at the outset that this was its place, since he never saw it, and afterwards, remembered that he had contracted impurity and became aware that this was the Temple. There is an unresolved doubt if the knowledge that there is a Temple in the world is considered as awareness of the Temple or it is necessary for a person to know of the Temple's place.

It appears to me that those for whom a doubt exists regarding their obligation to bring a sacrifice should not bring a sacrifice, lest they be bringing a non-consecrated animal into the Temple Courtyard. If one would say: A sin-offering of fowl is brought even in a case of doubt although it is not eaten. There is a difference between the two. A sin-offering of fowl is brought, because the one bringing it is possibly lacking atonement and is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food until he brings a sacrifice as atonement. When, however, one is not lacking in atonement, he should not bring a sacrifice when there is a doubt involved.

When a person contracts ritual impurity in the Temple Courtyard, to be liable for the above-mentioned offering, he must initially know that he contracted impurity and that he is in the Temple. Afterwards, if he loses awareness that he contracted impurity, but remembered that he was in the Temple or he lost awareness that he was in the Temple, but did not forget that he was ritually impure, or he lost awareness of both matters, when he regains awareness, he should bring an adjustable guilt-offering. The above applies provided he waits the minimum amount of time, as we explained in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash.

When a person intentionally made himself ritually impure, but did not remain in the Temple Courtyard for the minimum amount of time specified, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to his obligation. Does the concept of a minimum amount of time apply only to one who contracted impurity due to forces beyond his control or does it also apply to one who willfully contracted impurity? Therefore if such a person loses awareness of his ritual impurity, but nonetheless leaves the Temple Courtyard without tarrying, he should not bring a sacrifice.

Similarly, there is an unresolved question if an impure person suspended himself in the space above the Temple Courtyard. It is unresolved whether the space above the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard or not.

When a person is in doubt whether or not he entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. For a person does not bring such a sacrifice unless he is unsure of the violation of a prohibition punishable by karet for which one brings a fixed sin-offering to atone for his inadvertent transgression.

The following rules apply when there where two paths in front of a person, one pure and one impure. and he walked down the first and then walked down the second, and at the time he walked down the second, he forgot that he walked down the first. If he lost awareness of this ritual impurity and entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food, he is liable. Even though originally, he did not have a definitive knowledge of his ritual impurity, but merely a partial knowledge, because he did not know that he walked down both paths so that he would definitely be impure, he is, nevertheless, liable for a sin-offering. For partial knowledge is considered as complete knowledge.

If he only walked down the first path and entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food, he is exempt, because it is not certain that he contracted ritual impurity.

If, in the previous situation, he had the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days and immersed himself after entering the Temple and then walked down the second path and entered the Temple, he is certainly liable, for he has certainly entered the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, either the first time or the second time. Although on each occasion he was in a state of uncertainty, for the status of both paths is a matter of question, here, with regard to the impurity of the Temple and consecrated objects, uncertain knowledge is considered as definite knowledge.

If a person was ritually impure and two witnesses tell him: "You entered the Temple," and he tells them: "I did not enter," his word is accepted and he does not bring a sacrifice. For if he desired, he could have said: "I entered intentionally."

The following rules apply if two witnesses tell a person: "You were impure when you entered the Temple. You contracted ritual impurity in our presence and you knew you were impure." Even though there was an interim of many days between the contraction of impurity which they testified about and his entry into the Temple and thus he could have said: "I already immersed myself," since he denies the statement of the witnesses and says: "I never contracted impurity," the statement of the witnesses is accepted and he is required to bring a sacrifice because of them. The rationale is that if two witnesses can cause him to receive as severe a punishment as execution, certainly, they can obligate him for an easier punishment, bringing a sacrifice, for he denied their testimony.

When a person entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity had a knowledge of the situation at the outset, but ultimately did not have knowledge of the matter, the goat whose blood is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies and Yom Kippur bring about tentative atonement until he becomes aware and brings an adjustable guilt-offering.

When he does not have knowledge at the outset, the goat offered in the Temple Courtyard and Yom Kippur bring about atonement. If he did not have knowledge neither at the outset, nor ultimately, the goats offered on the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh, bring about atonement. If one purposefully entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, the bull offered by the High Priest on Yom Kippur brings about atonement if the transgressor was a priest. If he was an Israelite, the blood of the goat which is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies and Yom Kippur bring about atonement, as Leviticus 16:16 states concerning that goat: "And he shall atone for the holy place, because of the impurity of the children of Israel."