Get the best of Chabad.org content every week!
Find answers to fascinating Jewish questions, enjoy holiday tips and guides, read real-life stories and more!
ב"ה

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5, Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6, Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

Show content in:

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 5

1

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering and dies, the money should be [thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.1 Similarly, when a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, another sin-offering is offered in its place, and then the [initial] money is found after atonement was achieved, [the money should be thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.2

א

הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וּמֵת יֵלְכוּ הַמָּעוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִקְרִיב חַטָּאת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְנִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת אַחַר כַּפָּרָה יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח:

2

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside other money in its stead, but did not have the opportunity to purchase a sin-offering with the later funds before the first funds were found, he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.3 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.4

ב

הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶן חַטָּאת עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מָעוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:

3

When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering in its stead, but before he sacrificed it, the [original] funds were found and the [animal was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.5 The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

ג

הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַקְרִיבָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת וַהֲרֵי הַחַטָּאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:

4

When a person set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside money in its stead, but was not able to purchase [an animal] as a sin-offering with it before the [first] animal was found, but it [was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.

ד

הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶם עַד שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת חַטָּאתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:

5

If he set aside two piles of money for surety [that he will be able to purchase a sin-offering], he should gain atonement with one of them6 and the other should be used for freewill offerings.7

ה

הִפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִפּל לִנְדָבָה:

6

If he set aside [an animal for] a sin-offering or the money for a sin-offering, because he thought that he was obligated [to bring one] and then he discovered that he was not so obligated, [the animal or the money] is of ordinary status; it is not consecrated.8

If he set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings or the money for two [animals] because he thought was obligated to bring both and then it was discovered that he was only liable to bring one, he should bring one as a sacrifice and the other should be used for freewill offerings.9

ו

הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ אוֹ דְּמֵי חַטָּאתוֹ וְכַסָּבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חֻלִּין וְלֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ דְּמֵי שְׁתַּיִם וְכַסָּבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. יָבִיא אַחַת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:

7

When he picks up coins in his hand or was in the process of collecting them and said: "I will bring my sin-offering from these," the remainder are not consecrated.10Similarly, it appears to me11 that an inference can be drawn [from this ruling] to [similar situations involving] other sacrifices and the remainder are not considered as consecrated.12

ז

הַלּוֹקֵחַ מָעוֹת בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְלַקֵּט וְאָמַר אֵלּוּ אָבִיא מֵהֶם חַטָּאתִי. הַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַדָּבָר קַל וָחֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין:

8

When a person sets aside money for a meal-offering of a sinner13 and brings a meal-offering from those funds, or he set aside a meal-offering itself, and [in either of the above instances, money] was left over, the remainder should be used to bring a freewill meal-offering.14 Any extra [meal15 left after] the tenth of the ephah that is brought by the High Priest as his chavitin offering16 should be left to rot.17 Similarly, the remainder [of meal left after preparing] the bread for a thanksgiving offering or the bread for a nazirite's offering18 should be left to rot.19

The remainder of money for wine libations should be used for freewill offerings.20 We have already explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,21 that any money remaining from the half-shekalim are considered as ordinary funds.

ח

הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְהֵבִיא מֵהֶם מִנְחָתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְהוֹתִירָה. הַמּוֹתָר יָבִיא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה. אֲבָל מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִיא הַחֲבִיתִין יֵרָקֵב. וְכֵן מוֹתַר לַחְמֵי תּוֹדָה וּמוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל נָזִיר יֵרָקְבוּ. וּמוֹתַר דְּמֵי נְסָכָיו יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׁקָלִים שֶׁמּוֹתַר הַשְּׁקָלִים חֻלִּין:

9

[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] pairs of doves for zavim, zavot or for women after childbirth,22 sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings should be used for freewill offerings. They should be offered as burnt-offerings, as explained.23

[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] burnt-offerings should be used for burnt-offerings, [to purchase] peace-offerings, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] meal-offerings, for meal-offerings, [to purchase] a Paschal sacrifice, for peace-offerings,24 [to purchase] nazirite-offerings, for nazirite-offerings,25 [to purchase] the offerings for a particular nazirite, for [freewill] offerings to be brought by that nazirite.26

When does the ruling that [money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] a sin-offering should be used for freewill offerings apply? With regard to a fixed sin-offering. When, however, one was obligated to bring an adjustable guilt offering27 and set aside money for a sin-offering of an animal and became poor, he should bring a fowl instead.28 He may transfer the holiness from those funds to the fowl and benefit from them.29 Similarly, if he set aside money for a fowl and became poor, he should bring a [meal-offering] of a tenth of an ephah instead.30 He may transfer the holiness from those funds to [the meal] and benefit from them.

ט

מוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִים. קִנֵּי זָבוֹת. קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת. חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. מוֹתְרֵיהֶם יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה וְיִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה לְעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים לִשְׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה לְמִנְחָה. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח לִשְׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים לִנְזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר לְאוֹתוֹ נָזִיר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמּוֹתַר חַטָּאת לִנְדָבָה. בְּחַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בְּקָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה וְהֶעֱנִי. מֵבִיא תַּחְתֵּיהֶם עוֹף וּמְחַלְּלָן עַל הָעוֹף וְיֵהָנֶה מֵהֶם. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ דְּמֵי הָעוֹף וְהֶעֱנִי. מֵבִיא תַּחְתֵּיהֶם עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וִיחַלֵּל הַמָּעוֹת עָלֶיהָ וְיֵהָנֶה בָּהֶם:

10

If a person set aside an animal [for an adjustable guilt-offering], it contracted a disqualifying physical blemish, [and he became poor],31 it may be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a fowl.32 If, however, he set aside a fowl [for such an offering], it was disqualified, [and he became poor], he may not sell it and bring a tenth of an ephah from the proceeds of the sale, for a fowl [that was consecrated] may not be redeemed, as stated in [Hilchot] Issurei HaMizbeiach.33

י

הִפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם. תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ עוֹף. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִישׁ עוֹף וְנִפְסַל. לֹא יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. שֶׁאֵין לָעוֹף פִּדְיוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּאִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

11

[The following rules apply to] all those obligated by the Torah34 to bring pairs of doves35 who set aside money for those doves. If they desired to use all the money for sin-offerings of fowl alone, they may.36 If they desire to use it for burnt-offerings of fowl, they may. Even if they had [originally] said: "This is the money for my sin-offering and this is the money for my burnt-offering," he may mix the money together and buy the two offerings together, or use the money solely for sin-offerings, or solely for burnt-offerings. [The rationale is that the identity of] pairs of doves is designated only when purchased by the owners or when offered by a priest.37

יא

כָּל חַיָּבֵי קִנִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ מָעוֹת לְקִנֵּיהֶן. רָצָה לְהָבִיא בְּכָל הַמָּעוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְבַדָּהּ יָבִיא. רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְבַדָּהּ יָבִיא. אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר אֵלּוּ דְּמֵי חַטָּאתִי וְאֵלּוּ דְּמֵי עוֹלָתִי. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְעָרֵב הַמָּעוֹת וְלִקַּח בָּהֶן כְּאֶחָד חַטָּאתוֹ וְעוֹלָתוֹ. אוֹ לִקַּח בַּכּל חַטָּאת אוֹ עוֹלָה. שֶׁאֵין הַקִּנִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת אֶלָּא בִּלְקִיחַת הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיַּת כֹּהֵן:

12

Therefore if one set aside money for a pair of doves without making a determination and died, all of the money that was undetermined should be used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it is all fit to used for a burnt-offering.38

יב

לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְקִנִּין סְתָם וּמֵת. יִפְּלוּ כָּל אוֹתָן הַמָּעוֹת הַסְּתוּמִין לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּן רְאוּיִין לָבוֹא עוֹלָה:

13

[The following laws apply when someone] was obligated to bring a sin-offering and he said: "I pledge a burnt-offering," and set aside money saying: "This is for my obligation." If he desires, he may use them to bring an animal as a sin-offering or he may use them to bring an animal as a burnt-offering.39 If he died and left the money, it should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea.40

יג

מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי. רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה יָבִיא. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה יָבִיא. מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ הַמָּעוֹת יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח:

Footnotes
1.

The ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering whose owner died mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Since this money was set aside to be used for a sin-offering, it may not be used for any other purpose. Hence, it should be cast in a place where no one will benefit from it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:2).

Although the term Yam HaMelech is generally translated as "the Dead Sea," it literally means "the Salt Sea." In several places in his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam interprets the term as referring to the Mediterranean.

2.

I.e., this ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering which was lost and the owner attained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, as stated in Chapter 4, op. cit.

3.

Since both sets of money were set aside for the purchase of a sin-offering, they should be used primarily for that purpose. It is preferable to purchase a more expensive animal for a sin-offering than to have more money left over to purchase burnt-offerings.

4.

Since the money was not used as of yet and the person did not yet gain atonement, any funds that remain can be used for another purpose.

5.

For the same reasoning as in the previous halachah.

6.

He should not, combine the two to purchase a single offering.

7.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

8.

For the consecration was made in error and hence is not binding. See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.

9.

I.e., with regard to money, the money should be used to purchase freewill offerings. With regard to an animal, the animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. It should then be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings (Kessef Mishneh). Since he did not specify which of the animals should be associated with the particular sin and he is liable for one sin-offering, the remaining animal is not considered to have been consecrated in error (Rav Yosef Corcus).

10.

Since he said, "from these," the implication is that all of the coins were not consecrated, only those necessary to purchase the animal for the sin-offering.

11.

This phrase introduces a conclusion drawn by the Rambam through logic that is not based on any explicit prior Rabbinic source. The rationale is that when bringing a sin-offering it is likely that the person feels remorse and is willing to give more to attain atonement. Nevertheless, none of the extra money is consecrated. It follows logically that this principle should also apply with regard to a freewill offering in which instance the donor may not be as powerfully motivated.

12.

The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's conclusion with regard to sacrifices that one is obligated to bring, but differs with regard to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings that one gives of his own volition. In those instances, he maintains that the extra money should be used for those sacrifices. The Kessef Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam's approach.

13.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:4; Hilchot Shegagot 10:4.

14.

Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5) which states that since we are speaking about what remains after bringing a sin-offering, it should be used to bring freewill burnt-offerings.

15.

I.e., in this and the following situations, the person required to bring a meal-offering brought more than the required amount.

16.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2.

17.

For the concept that the remainder of what was set aside should be used for burnt-offerings was stated with regard to sin-offerings and not these types of sacrifices (Menachot 108a).

18.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:5 which states that the bread are integral parts of these two types of offerings.

19.

The rationale is that these breads are not considered as independent sacrifices, but as elements of the thanksgiving or nazirite offerings. Hence they were consecrated - and may only be used for - those sacrifices.

20.

For wine libations are sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. Hence the laws governing them are the same as those governing sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

21.

Hilchot Shekalim 3-13.

22.

The requirement for these individuals to bring doves as sacrifices is mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.

23.

Ibid. 2:2-3, and in several instances in this and the previous chapter.

24.

For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5)].

25.

See Hilchot Nizirut 9:1 which states: "[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of [poor] nazirites, those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, op. cit., the Rambam interprets this teaching as referring to nazirites who desire to pool their offerings.

26.

Since the money was designated for the offerings of that particular person, it cannot be used for the sacrifices of another nazirite.

27.

See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.

28.

As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase an animal as a sacrifice.

29.

Keritot 27b derives this law through a process of Biblical exegesis.

30.

As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase doves as a sacrifice.

31.

The bracketed additions are based on Hilchot Shegagot 10:11.

32.

Even though the animal had already been purchased for the sacrifice, since it was disqualified and his status changed, he is allowed to use the proceeds from its sale to bring a lesser offering.

33.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4. This applies only to a fowl itself. Money set aside for a fowl may be redeemed, as stated in the previous halachah.

34.

I.e., the individuals mentioned at the beginning of Halachah 9.

35.

Generally, a pair of doves includes one to be offered as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering.

36.

The person must, however, bring another dove(s) for the other burnt- or sin-offerings, he or she is obligated to bring.

37.

I.e., if the owners specify which doves are to be offered for which specific offering, the fowl is designated for that purpose. Alternatively, if such a distinction was not made, they become designated by the priest at the time he offers them (Keritot 28a; see Chapter 8, Halachah 8).

38.

Were, however, the fowl to have been designated for sin-offerings, they would be consigned to die, as evident from Halachah 1. See also the previous chapter.

39.

The Ra'avad differs and, based on Nazir 27a, maintains that the text should read: "He should not bring a sin-offering.... He should not bring a burnt-offering." He also explains that this version is preferable, for, otherwise, there would be no reason why the money mentioned in the following clause should be consigned to be destroyed. Seemingly, there is no difference between that clause and the situation mentioned in the previous halachah.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that text. Because of the difficulties, the Ra'avad raised, the Kessef Mishneh suggests a third version: If he desires to bring a sin-offering, he should. If he desires to bring a burnt-offering, he should not.

40.

According to the Rambam, since he has an obligation to bring a sin-offering and did not clarify his intent, we must accept the possibility that the money is associated with a sin-offering and must be done away with, as stated in Halachah 1.

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6

1

If one of [the animals designated as] a sin-offering that was consigned to death or an ox that was condemned to be stoned1 becomes intermingled with any other sacrificial animals - even in a ratio of one to a myriad - they should all be consigned to death.2 [The rationale is that] living animals are important and are never considered insignificant [in a mixture].3

If [the animals] were sacrificed,4 [the sacrifices] are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.5

א

כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן אַחַת מֵחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת. אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל. אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִבּוֹא כֻּלָּן יָמוּתוּ לְפִי שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשׁוּבִין הֵן וְאֵינָם בְּטֵלִין. וְאִם הִקְרִיב הֻרְצָה שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּין נִדְחִין:

2

If [sacrificial animals] became intermingled with [animals that are] forbidden to be offered on the altar,6 they should all be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes. They should then be sold and the proceeds from the sale of the choicest animal among them7 should be used to bring sacrifices from the type in which [the forbidden animal] became intermingled.8

ב

נִתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן אֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. יִרְעוּ כֻּלָּם עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין שֶׁל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב:

3

If sacrificial animals become intermingled with unblemished ordinary animals, the ordinary animals in the mixture should be sold as sacrifices of that type, and they should all be sacrificed.

What is implied? If four animals that were designated as peace-offerings became intermingled with four unblemished ordinary animals, the four ordinary animals9 should be sold to someone who is obligated to bring peace-offerings and they should all be offered as peace-offerings. Similar laws apply with regard to burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings.

The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary money, for they are the proceeds of the sale of ordinary animals.

ג

נִתְעָרְבוּ קָדָשִׁים בְּחֻלִּין תְּמִימִים יִמָּכְרוּ הַחֻלִּין שֶׁבַּתַּעֲרֹבֶת לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְיִקָּרְבוּ כֻּלָּן. כֵּיצַד. אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת שְׁלָמִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת חֻלִּין תְּמִימִים. יִמָּכְרוּ הָאַרְבַּע שֶׁל חֻלִּין לְמִי שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא שְׁלָמִים וְיִקָּרְבוּ הַכּל שְׁלָמִים. וְכֵן בְּעוֹלָה אוֹ בְּאָשָׁם. וְהַדָּמִים חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהֲרֵי דְּמֵי חֻלִּין הֵן:

4

When an ox that was consecrated became intermingled with ordinary animals, the largest among them is considered as the consecrated one10 and the others should be sold for sacrifices of that type.11 If sacrifices of the most sacred order became intermingled with animals consecrated for the same purpose,12 each one should be offered for the sake of its owner, even though none [of the owners] recognize their sacrificial animal.

When does the above apply? With regard to sacrifices to be brought by women in which there is no obligation for semichah.13 With regard to sacrifices to be brought by men, since each one of them is obligated to perform semichah on his sacrifice,14 these animals should not be offered until each one gives his portion [in the sacrificial animal] to his colleague15 or until they all become blemished and are sold. [In that instance,] each one should then bring a sacrificial animal equal in value to the more select of that type.

ד

נִתְעָרֵב שׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּשְׁוָרִים שֶׁל חֹל. גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּכֻלָּן הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְיִמָּכְרוּ הַשְּׁאָר לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. נִתְעָרְבוּ קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּמִינוֹ. זֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו וְזֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַכִּיר קָרְבָּנוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת נָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם סְמִיכָה. אֲבָל קָרְבְּנוֹת אֲנָשִׁים הוֹאִיל וְכָל אֶחָד צָרִיךְ לִסְמֹךְ עַל רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן הָאֶחָד חֶלְקוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל מוּם בַּכּל וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיאוּ כָּל אֶחָד בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין:

5

If [sacrificial animals of] two [different] types become intermingled, e.g., a peace-offering with a burnt-offering, they should not be sacrificed, even as the more sacred.16 [The rationale is that] we should not cause sacrificial animals to become disqualified.17

ה

נִתְעָרְבוּ מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ כְּגוֹן עוֹלָה בִּשְׁלָמִים. לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ אֲפִלּוּ כַּחֲמוּרָה שֶׁבָּהֶן. שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפָּסוּל:

6

Just as we may not reduce the time [in which sacrifices] may be eaten,18 so too, we may not limit the people eligible to partake of them,19 nor the place where they can be eaten.20 Instead,21 what should be done? All [of the sacrificial animals of mixed identity] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. Then each one should be sold individually. He should purchase a sacrifice for each type of the value of the most choice animal. He must suffer the loss22 from his own resources.

ו

וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בִּזְמַן אֲכִילָתָן כָּךְ אֵין מְמַעֲטִין בְּאוֹכְלֵיהֶן וְלֹא בִּמְקוֹם אֲכִילָתָן. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִרְעוּ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶם מוּם וְיִמָּכֵר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְבַדּוֹ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֵן מִמִּין הָאַחֵר וְיַפְסִיד הַמּוֹתָר מִבֵּיתוֹ:

7

Even though the person already sacrificed the burnt-offering or the peace-offering which he was obligated to bring,23 he should nevertheless bring a different burnt-offering and peace-offering from the proceeds [of the sale] of the mixture.

ז

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר הִקְרִיב עוֹלָה שֶׁחַיָּב בָּהּ אוֹ שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְהַקְרִיבָן. הֲרֵי זֶה מַקְרִיב מִדְּמֵי הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת עוֹלָה אַחֶרֶת וּשְׁלָמִים אֲחֵרִים:

8

When a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, [the two] should be allowed to pasture until they contracted disqualifying physical blemishes and were redeemed. He for should bring a peace-offering of the value of the most choice animal and a sin-offering of the value of the most choice animal. If he took the initiative and offered another [animal as a] sin-offering for the sin-offering that was set aside for him first,24 they should all be consigned to death.25

ח

חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּשְׁלָמִים יִרְעוּ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שְׁלָמִים וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן חַטָּאת. וְאִם קָדַם וְהִקְרִיב חַטָּאת אַחֶרֶת עַל חַטָּאת שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁהּ לוֹ כֻּלָּן יָמוּתוּ:

9

Similarly, if money for a sin-offering becomes mixed together with money for a guilt-offering, one should take two animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on [the animal set aside as] a sin-offering and transfer the holiness of the money for the guilt-offering on [the animal set aside as] a guilt-offering.

If he already offered his sin-offering, all of the money should be taken and thrown to the Mediterranean Sea.26 If he had already offered his guilt-offering, all of the money should be used for freewill offerings.27

ט

וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ מְעוֹת חַטָּאת בִּמְעוֹת אָשָׁם. לוֹקֵחַ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת וּמְחַלֵּל דְּמֵי חַטָּאת בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא עַל חַטָּאת וּדְמֵי אָשָׁם עַל אָשָׁם. וְאִם כְּבָר קָרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ יוֹלִיךְ כָּל הַמָּעוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאִם כְּבָר קָרְבָה אֲשָׁמוֹ יִפְּלוּ הַכּל לִנְדָבָה:

10

When a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with an animal exchanged for it,28 they should both be offered and the bread [that accompanies the thanksgiving-offering] should be waved with [both of] them.29

If a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with other sacrificial animals, even if the person offered [another animal as] his thanksgiving-offering, all [the sacrificial animals] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish. He should then bring another thanks-offering of the value of the most choice animal and the other offering of the value of the most choice animal.30

י

תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן תִּקָּרַבְנָה וְיָנִיף הַלֶּחֶם עִמָּהֶן. וְכָךְ אִם נִתְעָרְבָה תּוֹדָה בִּשְׁאָר זְבָחִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּרְבָה תּוֹדָתוֹ יִרְעוּ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה זֶבַח אַחֵר:

11

If [a thanksgiving-offering] becomes mixed with a nazirite's ram, they should both be sacrificed31 and the bread waved with them.

יא

נִתְעָרְבָה בְּאֵיל נָזִיר שְׁתֵּיהֶם תִּקָּרַבְנָה וְיָנִיף הַלֶּחֶם עִמָּהֶן:

12

When a firstborn offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, they should both be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, and then eaten as a [blemished] firstborn offering.32

Why aren't they sacrificed?33 Because a Paschal sacrifice may be eaten by any person until midnight34 and the firstborn offering is eaten for two days and is eaten only by priests. [We follow the principles that] we do not cause sacrifices to be disqualified35 and we do not reduce the amount of people eligible to partake of them.36

יב

בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּפֶסַח שְׁנֵיהֶם יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶם מוּם וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ. לְפִי שֶׁהַפֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל לְכָל אָדָם עַד חֲצוֹת וְהַבְּכוֹר לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל וְאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בַּאֲכִילָתָן:

13

Similarly, when a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, when they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions regarding a tithe offering.37 When a firstborn and a tithe offering become intermingled, they may be eaten [as ordinary meat]38 after contracting a disqualifying physical blemish.39

יג

וְכֵן מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּפֶסַח כְּשֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם יֵאָכְלוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂר. הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ יֵאָכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן:

14

Similarly, when other sacrificial animals become intermingled with a firstborn or a tithe offering, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. They may be eaten according to the restrictions applying to a firstborn offering or a tithe offering that became blemished.

יד

וְכֵן שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶם מוּם וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם:

15

When a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace-offering, even though only the fats and the organs are offered and the meat is eaten, they should not be offered.40 Instead, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish and bring a guilt-offering of the value of the more choice one and a peace-offering of the value of the more choice one. [The owner should] suffer the loss of the difference [between the value of these animals and the animals lost] from his own resources. If he took the initiative and offered his guilt-offering first, they should both [be allowed to pasture until they become blemished and sold, with the proceeds] used for freewill offerings.41

טו

אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁלָמִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן אֶלָּא הָאֵימוּרִין אֲבָל הַבָּשָׂר נֶאֱכָל. לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה אָשָׁם וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שְׁלָמִים וְהַמּוֹתָר יַפְסִיד מִבֵּיתוֹ. וְאִם קָדַם וְהִקְרִיב אֲשָׁמוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:

16

It is possible for sacrificial animals of any type to become intermingled with other sacrificial animals of the same species with the exception of [animals consecrated] as sin offerings and [those consecrated as] guilt-offerings, because guilt offerings may be brought only from male sheep42 and sin-offerings are brought from female sheep.43

טז

כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּתְעָרְבוּ מִין בְּמִינוֹ. חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת עִם הָאָשָׁם שֶׁאֵין הָאָשָׁם אֶלָּא מִזִּכְרֵי כְּבָשִׂים. וְאֵין לְךָ חַטָּאת מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים אֶלָּא נְקֵבָה:

17

If any of the sacrificial animals [of two types] that were intermingled while alive were sacrificed,44 they are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.45

יז

וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַמִּתְעָרְבִין בַּחַיִּים אִם הִקְרִיב הֻרְצָה שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין:

18

[The following rules apply with regard to] any animal found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder46 or that radius to any other direction.47 If it is a female [that can be estimated to be] a year old, it is placed in a closed room to die, lest it be a sin-offering.48 If it [appears to be] two years old, it should be brought as a peace-offering49 and bread should be brought with it, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.50

If a male that [appears to be] two years old is found, there is no way of correcting the situation, for it is possible that it is a guilt-offering whose owner has not yet received atonement.51

If one found a male animal that is a year old, he should allow it to pasture until it becomes blemished, bring two animals in its stead and make a stipulation, stating: "If the [blemished animal] was a burnt-offering, this is designated as a burnt-offering in place of it. If it was a peace-offering, this is a peace-offering in place of it."52 He then offers the first as a burnt-offering. Its accompanying offerings53 should be brought from communal funds.54 The other should be brought as a peace-offering together with bread, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.

What should be done with the animal that was found? It should be eaten after it contracts a blemish. For even if it was a firstborn offering or a tithe offering, it could be eaten after it was blemished.55 If it was a Paschal sacrifice whose time had passed, it is considered as a peace-offering. And during the time the Paschal sacrifice [must be offered], everyone is careful regarding it.56 If one might ask: Maybe it is a guilt-offering of a nazirite or a person purified from tzara'at?57 These are not frequently found. Therefore [the Sages] showed no concern about them.

יח

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר וּכְמִדָּתָה לְכָל רוּחַ. אִם נְקֵבָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ הִיא כּוֹנְסָהּ לְכִפָּה עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת שֶׁמָּא חַטָּאת הִיא. הָיְתָה בַּת שְׁתַּיִם יְבִיאֶנָּה שְׁלָמִים וְיָבִיא עִמָּהּ לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא תּוֹדָה הִיא. מָצָא זָכָר בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה. שֶׁמָּא אָשָׁם הוּא וַעֲדַיִן לֹא כִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו. מָצָא זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם. וּמֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת תַּחְתָּיו וּמַתְנֶה וְאוֹמֵר אִם עוֹלָה הָיָה זֶה עוֹלָה תַּחְתָּיו וְאִם שְׁלָמִים הָיָה זֶה שְׁלָמִים תַּחְתָּיו. וּמַקְרִיב הָאֶחָד עוֹלָה וּנְסָכָיו מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וְהָאַחֵר שְׁלָמִים עִם הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁמָּא תּוֹדָה הָיָה. וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה בָּזֶה הַנִּמְצָא יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בְּכוֹר אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּמוּמוֹ הוּא נֶאֱכָל. וְאִם פֶּסַח אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁלָמִים וּבִזְמַנּוֹ הַכּל נִזְהָרִין בּוֹ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁמָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר אוֹ אֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע הוּא. אֵינָן מְצוּיִין תָּמִיד. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶן:

19

If sacrifices became intermingled with other sacrifices after the animals were slaughtered, they should be eaten according to the laws pertaining to the more severe category.58 If [such sacrifices] became intermingled with sacrificial animals that were disqualified or ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard,59 they should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable60 and then be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.

יט

נִתְעָרְבוּ קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן. נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין אוֹ בְּחֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה תְּעֻבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה:

20

When the limbs of a sin-offering become mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, the entire mixture should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable.61 [Afterwards,] they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.62

כ

אֵיבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה. מַנִּיחִין הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסְדוּ וּתְעֻבַּר צוּרָתָן. וְשׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָן בָּעֲזָרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:

21

When a limb from a blemished [sacrificial] animal becomes mixed with the limbs of sacrificial animals - even one in a thousand63 - they should all be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.64 Even if all the limbs [of the sacrifices] were offered except for one, it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.

כא

אֵיבָר שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּאֵיבְרֵי קָדָשִׁים אֲפִלּוּ אֵיבָר בְּאֶלֶף אֵיבָרִים. יֵצְאוּ הַכּל לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרְבוּ כֻּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׂרֵף בָּעֲזָרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:

22

When pieces [of meat] from sacrifices of the most sacred order become mixed with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness or those which are eaten for one day65 become mixed with those eaten for two days, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions of the more severe of the two.

כב

חֲתִיכוֹת קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּחֲתִיכוֹת קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. אוֹ הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּנֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים. יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן:

23

When a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 pieces of meat from a pure sin-offering or a slice of the showbread that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 slices of the showbread that are pure, [the mixture] may be considered acceptable,66 as we explained in [Hilchot] Terumot.67

כג

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְמֵאָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְהוֹרָה. וְכֵן פְּרוּסָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁנִּטְמָא שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּסוֹת שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַטָּהוֹר. הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּעֲלֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּתְרוּמוֹת:

24

If, however, a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering became mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary meat or a piece of the showbread which is pure becomes mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary bread, [the mixture] should not be considered as acceptable.68 Instead, the entire mixture should be eaten by priests, as is true with regard to any mixture of consecrated food and ordinary food.69

כד

אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין. וְכֵן פְּרוּסָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּסוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ אֶלָּא יֵאָכֵל הַכּל לַכֹּהֲנִים כְּכָל הַמְדֻמָּעוֹת:

Footnotes
1.

For killing a human; see Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:6, such an animal is unfit for sacrifice on the altar. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam states that, in this context, the term also applies to an ox that was sodomized by - or forced to participate in sexual relations with - a Jew, for it is also condemned to be executed.

2.

For it is possible that every animal is that animal condemned to die.

3.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a forbidden substance is considered as insignificant if mixed with a larger volume of permitted substances (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1). Even according to Rabbinic Law, it is considered insignificant if mixed with more than sixty times its volume in most situations (ibid.:5). Nevertheless, this situation is an exception for the reason stated by the Rambam.

4.

For their designated purpose.

5.

This is a general principle applicable in many contexts, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 3, Halachah 22; and Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. Thus the fact that as an initial preference the animal should not have been sacrificed is not significant, for according to Scriptural Law, the presence of the forbidden animal is nullified. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.

6.

E.g., animals that were set aside for sacrifice to false deities, an animal given to a prostitute, or one exchanged for a dog. See a full listing of such animals in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.

7.

For perhaps the sacrificial animal was the most choice.

8.

After selling the animals, the person obligated to bring the offerings must say: "The holiness of the sacrificial animal is transferred to these funds" and with those funds, he should purchase a new sacrificial animal.

9.

Even though the owner does not know which four animals they are, he may sell them (Rav Yosef Corcus). To avoid the difficulty mentioned in the following halachah, however, the owners must specify which animals are being given to the purchaser.

10.

And should be sacrificed for the purpose for which the animal was consecrated originally.

11.

For it is possible that any one of them is the consecrated animal.

12.

E.g., burnt-offerings with burnt-offerings.

13.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5

14.

Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.

15.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that in Hilchot Meilah 4:8, the Rambam rules that a person cannot sell an animal set aside as a peace-offering or as a burnt-offering. By the same reasoning, it would seem that it would be forbidden to make the exchange mentioned here.

16.

I.e., in the example given above, to offer both of them as a burnt-offering.

17.

See the explanation of this principle in Halachah 12. This rationale is given by Zevachim 8:3 with regard to a peace-offering and a guilt-offering that became mixed together, for it is possible that the meat of one of the animals will not be finished during the first night and will therefore be disqualified, lest it be that of the guilt-offering. This is undesirable, because perhaps it is from the peace-offering and thus it will be disqualified, before its appropriate time (for peace-offerings may be eaten on the following day as well).

This explanation of this concept is slightly different for a mixture of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering is not eaten at all. Instead, in that instance, offering the peace-offering as a burnt-offering is forbidden, based on Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:4 which states that it is forbidden to offer the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity on the altar. As a result, the meat of the sacrifice is disqualified.

18.

As explained in the previous note. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:12.

19.

For example, a firstborn offering which may be eaten only by priests, became mixed with a tithe offering that can be eaten be anyone.

20.

Sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten only in the Temple Courtyard, while sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.

21.

I.e., for this reason, we do not merely take one animal for one type of sacrifice and another for the other.

22.

The difference between the price of the most choice animal and the other animal.

23.

Using another animal so that he will not delay the fulfillment of his obligation.

24.

I.e., before these animals became blemished.

25.

As is the law with regard to an animal set aside as a sin-offering that was lost and another was offered in its place (Chapter 4, Halachah 1). Since the animal cannot be sacrificed because its identity is unknown, it is as if it was lost (see Rav Yosef Corcus who discusses this issue). Since it is not known which one of the mixture was consigned to death, both are given that fate.

26.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, with regard to money set aside for a sin-offering that was lost.

27.

Rambam LeAm states that this refers to the money that remains after some of the money was used to purchase a sin-offering.

28.

I.e., he desires to transfer its holiness to the other animal, in which instance, we follow the rule (Leviticus 27:33): "It and the animal exchanged for it shall be holy."

29.

There is an obligation to wave the thanksgiving-offering together with its bread (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-7). When an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering is exchanged for another animal, the holiness of the original offering is not nullified. Nevertheless, the second animal should also be offered as a sacrifice, but bread should not be offered together with it (Chapter 12, Halachah 8). In this instance, since we do not know which is the original animal and which is the one exchanged for it, the bread should be waved with both of them.

30.

The Ra'avad states that bread should not be brought with the second thanksgiving-offering. The Kessef Mishneh states that, since the thanksgiving-offering had already been brought, this is obvious. The Ra'avad mentioned the matter only lest one will think that it is parallel to the situation described in the first clause.

31.

The forearm of the nazirite's ram may be eaten only by the priests (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:4). Thus to a certain extent, the amount of people eligible to partake of the sacrifice is being reduced (see Ra'avad), because a thanksgiving-offering can be eaten by everyone (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot). Nevertheless, since only one limb is involved, it is not considered significant (Kessef Mishneh).

32.

A blemished firstborn animal may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions that apply; see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Bechorot 1:18.

Pesachim 98b states that one should also transfer the holiness of the blemished Paschal sacrifice to another animal and offer it as a peace-offering. The Rambam mentions this point in his restatement of the law in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:8.

33.

For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. As Pesachim 98b relates even if there is company of priests, they should not offer these animals on the fourteenth of Nisan for the reason stated by the Rambam.

34.

I.e., according to Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:15).

35.

As the firstborn offering could be, if forced to be eaten within the time restrictions of the Paschal sacrifice.

36.

As would be done with regard to the people eligible to partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

37.

After contracting a blemish, a animal set aside as a tithe offering may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions which apply; see Hilchot Bechorot 6:6. As above, the holiness of the Paschal sacrifice must be transferred to another animal.

38.

But only by a priest.

39.

In this instance, there is no obligation to offer an animal in their stead.

40.

For doing so would reduce the amount of time in which the peace-offering could be partaken.

41.

This ruling combines that of Halachah 9 with regard to sin-offerings with that of Chapter 4, Halachah 14.

42.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10.

43.

Ibid.:9.

44.

One arbitrarily being taken for one sacrifice and the other, for the second sacrifice.

45.

Thus even though as an initial preference, the animals should not have been sacrificed because of the confusion about their identities, after the fact, the sacrifices are acceptable.

46.

A small town not far from Jerusalem.

47.

I.e., since it was found close to Jerusalem, we must consider the possibility that it had been consecrated for a sacrifice. Hence, it must be treated as a sacrificial animal with regard to all the possible consequences.

48.

We suspect that its owner had attained atonement through another sacrifice. Hence the animal is consigned to death, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

49.

At this age, it is unacceptable to be offered as a sin-offering or a burnt-offering. We do not suspect that it was lost earlier and wandered aimlessly until this time.

50.

Although a thanksgiving-offering must be eaten by midnight, while a peace-offering may be eaten for an extra day, the Rambam's wording does not imply that a second animal should be brought. Instead, he should bring one animal and stipulate: "If it is a peace-offering,.... If it is a thanksgiving offering..." (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, however, states that one could infer from Kiddushin 55b, that two offerings should be brought.

51.

And thus it could not be used for another purpose. If the owner had attained atonement, it should be allowed to pasture until it becomes blemished as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 14.

52.

For a male animal of that age could be consecrated for either of these types of sacrifices.

53.

The meal, oil, and wine.

54.

Shekalim 7:5 states that originally our Sages would obligate the person who found the animal to bring the accompanying offerings from his own resources. The financial burden, however, was apparently too great and the people would abandon the animals they found so that they would not be obligated in this manner. When the Sages realized this, they ordained that the accompanying offerings be brought by the community.

55.

Without having to be redeemed.

56.

So it would not have been lost.

57.

For these individuals also must bring male animals that are a year old.

58.

In the previous halachot, the Rambam favored the alternative of letting the intermingled animals pasture until they contract a blemish so that none of the sacrifices will be placed under unnecessary restrictions. In this instance, since the animals have already been slaughtered, this alternative is no longer viable (Rav Yosef Corcus).

59.

The meat of the latter two types of animals is forbidden to be eaten.

60.

In practice, this phrase, used by the Talmud in several instances (Pesachim 34b, et al), is interpreted (Rashi, Menachot 46b) as meaning "to be left overnight." For it is forbidden to burn sacrifices until they have been disqualified.

61.

The meat from the burnt-offering may not be eaten and the meat from the sin-offering may not be burnt on the altar. Hence, the mixture should be left overnight, at which point, it is disqualified and consigned to be burnt.

62.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.

63.

Since the limbs of the disqualified animals are significant entities, their presence is never nullified in the mixture.

64.

And burnt there. The rationale is that since the limbs of the blemished animals are forbidden to be eaten and forbidden to be burnt on the altar, the entire mixture must also be done away with.

65.

I.e., if sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness that are only eaten for one day (thanksgiving offerings) become mixed with other sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, which (with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice) are all eaten for two days and one night. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:3).

66.

The rationale is that there is enough acceptable meat or bread to render the presence of the unacceptable meat or bread insignificant.

Some commentaries have suggested that, based on Yevamot 81b, we are forced to say that this is speaking about small pieces of meat that are not significant enough to be used to honor guests. If they are larger and significant, their presence in the mixture is never nullified. However, it is more likely that since the concept that significant pieces of meat are nullified is a Rabbinic safeguard, it was not applied in this instance (see Lechem Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh to the law from Hilchot Terumah cited in the following note).

67.

Hilchot Terumot 14:14.

68.

Since there is an option for the entire mixture to be eaten by priests, there is no reason for leniency.

69.

The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here is in direct contradiction to his ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:13 where he states that when a piece of the showbread becomes intermingled with pieces of ordinary bread, the mixture is permitted if there is 101 times the amount of ordinary bread.

In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Kessef Mishneh explains that here, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.

(As evident from a comparison to that source, the laws governing sacrificial foods are more stringent than those applying to terumah.

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 7

1

Whenever anyone who is unacceptable to perform Temple service performs the rite of melikah,1 the melikah is unacceptable. [Nevertheless,] even though the dove [killed by such a melikah] is unacceptable, it is not considered as a nevelah2 of a kosher fowl with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.3

Similarly, if one performed melikah at night or slaughtered an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard], they are not nevelot.4

א

כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁמָּלְקוּ מְלִיקָתָן פְּסוּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הָעוֹף פָּסוּל אֵינוֹ כְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר לְטֻמְאָה. וְכֵן אִם מָלַק בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. אֵינָהּ כִּנְבֵלָה:

2

If one performed melikah on turtle-doves before they reached the appropriate age or on young doves who passed the appropriate age5 or on a dove whose wing shriveled, whose eye was lost6 or whose leg was cut off,7 it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. This is the general principle: Any disqualifying factor that takes place after [a dove] entered the Temple Courtyard8 disqualifies it, but does not render it a nevelah. If the disqualifying factor did not take place after it was brought into the Temple Courtyard, [the dove] is a nevelah in all contexts.

ב

מָלַק תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּם וְשֶׁיָּבַשׁ גַּפָּהּ וְשֶׁנִּסְמֵית עֵינָהּ וְשֶׁנִּקְטְעָה רַגְלָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ נְבֵלָה. לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר:

3

For this reason, when a person performs melikah and the animal is discovered to be tereifah,9 he performed melikah with a knife,10 or performed melikah on an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard],11 they are considered as a nevelah in all contexts. For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar.12

ג

לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹלֵק וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה. אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק בְּסַכִּין אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר. שֶׁאֵין הַמְּלִיקָה מַתֶּרֶת וּמְטַהֶרֶת אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

4

In contrast, if melikah was performed on a dove that was sodomized, set aside for pagan sacrifice, worshiped, given to a prostitute as her fee, exchanged for a dog, was a tumtum13 or an androgynus,14 it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. It causes a person's garments to become impure when it [enters his] gut.15 The rationale is that the holiness [of a sacrifice] does not fall upon them16 and thus it is not considered as having been disqualified [after entering] the Temple Courtyard.

ד

אֲבָל הַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמֻּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד וְהָאֶתְנָן וְהַמְּחִיר וְהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁנִּמְלְקוּ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. שֶׁאֵין הַקְּדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי אֵין פְּסוּלָן בְּקֹדֶשׁ:

5

We already explained in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh Hakorbanot,17 that [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the lower [half of the altar] and [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar].18 When [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar], it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the blood was presented in the manner of a sin-offering19 or in the manner of a burnt-offering,20 whether it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering or for the sake of a sin-offering.

ה

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁחַטַּאת הָעוֹף נַעֲשֵׂית לְמַטָּה וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְמַעְלָה. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה פְּסוּלָה. בֵּין שֶׁעָשָׂה הַזָּיָתָהּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת:

6

Similarly, when [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl was presented on the lower [half of the altar], even if he performed melikah on one of the signs of ritual slaughter21 on the lower half and the other sign on the upper half, it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the melikah was performed in the manner of a burnt-offering or in the manner of a sin-offering,22 whether it was offered for the sake of a sin-offering or for the sake of a burnt-offering.

ו

וְכֵן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה אֲפִלּוּ מָלַק סִימָן אֶחָד לְמַטָּה וְסִימָן אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה פְּסוּלָה בֵּין שֶׁמְּלָקוֹ כִּמְלִיקַת עוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה:

7

When melikah was performed on a sin-offering of a fowl on the lower half of the altar in the manner as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,23 or as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,24 it is unacceptable.

ז

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ לְמַטָּה כִּמְלִיקַת עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה פְּסוּלָה:

8

Similarly, when a burnt-offering of a fowl was presented on the upper [half of the altar] in the manner as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering or as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is unacceptable. If, however, he performs it as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is acceptable,25 but it is not considered as if the owner fulfilled his obligation.26

ח

וְכֵן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת כְּשֵׁרָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה:

9

All of these fowl that are disqualified because of the place [in the altar] where their blood was presented, because of the difference in the manner in which [melikah] is performed, or the intent for which they are offered, are not considered as a fowl that has become a nevelah with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Similarly, when a sin-offering or a burnt-offering of fowl becomes piggul,27 impure,28 or notar29 it does not cause impurity in one's gut30 as does a fowl that has become a nevelah, for all of these became disqualified [after having entered] the Temple Courtyard.31

ט

כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעוֹפוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ מִפְּנֵי מְקוֹם עֲשִׂיָּתָן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן אוֹ שִׁנּוּי שְׁמָם. אֵינָן כְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף לְטֻמְאָה. וְכֵן חַטַּאת הָעוֹף אוֹ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּתְפַּגְּלָה אוֹ נִטְמְאָה אוֹ נַעֲשֵׂית נוֹתָר אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה כְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלָן בְּקֹדֶשׁ:

10

When a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt, it should be offered as required, but not eaten.32 Instead, it should be burnt like all other sacrificial animals that become disqualified.33

When is such a sacrifice brought because of a doubt? When there is an unresolved question whether a woman is a zavah,34 impure because of childbirth,35 or the like. There is no concept of an animal being brought as a sin-offering because of a doubt, because if a person is unsure whether or not he committed a sin, he should bring a conditional guilt-offering, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot.36

י

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק נַעֲשֵׂית כְּמִצְוָתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא תִּשָּׂרֵף כְּכָל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. וְכֵיצַד תָּבוֹא עַל הַסָּפֵק. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה סְפֵק זָבָה אוֹ סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאֵין לָנוּ חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה עַל סָפֵק. שֶׁאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם חָטָא אִם לֹא חָטָא יָבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת:

11

[The following rules apply when] a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt and then it is discovered that the woman is definitely obligated to bring [the sacrifice]. If she realized this before melikah was performed on the [the dove], it should be offered with certainty and eaten.37 If she did not discover this until after melikah was performed, the sprinkling and presentation of its blood [on the altar] should be completed. Then it should be burnt,38 so that it will not be said that a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt is eaten. For at the outset, [this offering] was brought because of a doubt.

יא

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת בָּהּ וַדַּאי. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ תֵּעָשֶׂה וַדָּאִית וְתֵאָכֵל. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹמֵר הַזָּיַת דָּמָהּ וְתַמְצִיתוֹ וְתִשָּׂרֵף כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק תֵּאָכֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּתְּחִלָּה עַל סָפֵק בָּאָה:

12

If, after melikah was performed, she discovered that she was not obligated to bring a sacrifice, it should be buried.39

יב

נוֹדַע לָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיֶּבֶת בָּהּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר:

Footnotes
1.

The process of snipping of the head of a sacrificial dove. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:8.

2.

An animal that dies without ritual slaughter.

3.

A person who eats the corpse of a kosher fowl that was not slaughtered according to Torah Law contracts ritual impurity as stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1.

4.

In all of these instances, it is forbidden to partake of the meat of these doves. For melikah is acceptable only during the day (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1), ordinary doves slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard are considered as tereifah (Hilchot Shechitah 2:1-2), and sacrificial doves slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard are disqualified (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:9). Nevertheless, since melikah is a valid process for killing sacrificial doves and the doves that were slaughtered in the wrong locations were slaughtered properly, the corpses do not convey impurity as a corpse of a nevelah would.

5.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2, young doves are acceptable as offerings only when they are still underdeveloped, before they begin to sprout yellow feathers and turtle-doves are acceptable only after they pass this stage of development.

6.

I.e., not merely blinded, but having lost the eye.

7.

And thus was disqualified as a sacrifice, as other doves which have lost a limb or organ (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1.

8.

Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.

9.

A dove which is tereifah is not acceptable as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1).

10.

Melikah may only performed with the priest's hands.

11.

See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:12.

12.

I.e., melikah is not an acceptable means of slaughter. It is acceptable only for sacrificial doves. Therefore when it is performed on a dove that is not acceptable as a sacrifice or in a place where a sacrifice is unacceptable, it is considered as if the animal has merely been killed.

13.

An animal whose sexual organ is covered by a mound of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined.

14.

An animal which has both male and female sexual organs. All of the animals mentioned above are not acceptable as sacrifices, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 3-4.

15.

As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure.

16.

Since these types of animals are fundamentally unacceptable, they are not considered as sacrificial animals. See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 3:10.

17.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20; 7:6.

18.

As mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, after purification, a zav (a male with discharges resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman with vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle) and a woman after childbirth, are required to bring a pair of doves, one as a sin-offering and one, as a burnt-offering. The remainder of this chapter and the three subsequent chapters deal with the possibilities that a dove designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with one designated as a burnt-offering.

A convert also must bring a pair of two doves and they are offered as burnt-offerings, but since this is a rare occurrence, it is not taken into consideration [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:2)].

19.

As described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20.

20.

As described in ibid. 7:6.

21.

Ritual slaughter involves slitting two "signs" - the windpipe and the gullet. These two organs must also be slit during melikah.

22.

In addition to the place on the altar where the blood of the two is offered, there are two differences between the way melikah is performed for a burnt-offering and for a sin-offering:

a) The head of the dove may not be severed while performing melikah on a sin-offering. For a burnt-offering, by contrast, there is an obligation that the head be separated.

b) The blood of a burnt-offering is squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The blood of a sin-offering, by contrast, is sprinkled on the altar.

23.

For a sin-offering is not acceptable if it is not offered for the proper intent (see Chapter 15, Halachah 1).

24.

I.e., not only is the offering unacceptable as a sin-offering; it is also unacceptable as a burnt-offering (Radbaz).

25.

For a burnt-offering is acceptable even if it is not offered for the proper intent.

26.

See also Hilchot Meilah 3:7.

27.

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.

28.

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

29.

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.

30.

As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure.

31.

Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.

32.

The sacrifices may not be eaten, for if the women were not obligated to bring them, the doves are considered as ordinary animals slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard which are forbidden to be eaten (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6-7).

Hilchot Shegagot 11:2 explains that the women the Rambam mentions are allowed to bring the sacrifices because of a doubt even though it is forbidden to offer a sin-offering if one is not liable, because their purification process is not completed until the sacrifice is offered. Hence they are granted this leniency to allow them to become ritually pure.

33.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 20; Chapter 19, Halachah 10.

34.

A woman had a series of vaginal secretions, but there is a doubt whether they render her a zavah or not.

35.

A woman becomes impure because of childbirth even when she miscarries. There are times when there is a question whether a miscarriage is serious enough to render her impure or not.

36.

Hilchot Shegagot 8:1.

37.

As would an ordinary sin-offering.

38.

As it would have been originally.

39.

So that no one will benefit from it. None of the remaining rites should be performed, since there is no need to bring the offering.

Keritot 26b explains that this is a Rabbinic safeguard. According to Scriptural Law, it is permitted to benefit from the dove, as long as its blood was not presented on the altar.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah