Enter your email address to get our weekly email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life.
COVID-19 Passover Resources Go
Please help Chabad.org   Donate Today!

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Shegagot - Perek 9, Shegagot - Perek 10, Shegagot - Perek 11

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Shegagot - Perek 9

1

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.

א

עַל חָמֵשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן אָשָׁם וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אָשָׁם וַדַּאי שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ בָּא מִשּׁוּם סָפֵק. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. עַל שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה וְעַל הַגֵּזֶל וְעַל הַמְּעִילָה וְעַל טֻמְאַת נָזִיר וְעַל הַצָּרַעַת כְּשֶׁיִּטְהַר מִמֶּנָּה. עַל שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה כֵּיצַד. הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה גְּדוֹלָה וּמְזִידָה וּבִרְצוֹנָהּ וְתִהְיֶה בְּעוּלָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ וּבִגְמַר בִּיאָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּלְקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט כ) "בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה" (ויקרא יט כא) "וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ" הִיא לוֹקָה וְהוּא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן:

2

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.

ב

וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁבִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת מַלְקוֹת הוּא חַיָּב בְּקָרְבָּן וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּלְקוֹת הוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן:

3

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.

ג

בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה. הִיא לוֹקָה וְהוּא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל וְיִהְיֶה בֶּן דַּעַת:

4

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."

ד

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת מַה הִיא הַשִּׁפְחָה הַחֲרוּפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה. וְשֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּבְעל כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְיִגְמֹר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם בָּעַלְתָּ שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא בָּעַלְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל פִּיהֶן. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא יוֹדֵעַ אִם גָּמַר בִּיאָתוֹ אוֹ לֹא גָּמַר וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר לֹא בָּעַלְתִּי כְּלוֹמַר לֹא גָּמַרְתִּי:

5

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.

ה

הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אָשָׁם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד. הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּזָדוֹן אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְנוֹדַע לוֹ וְחָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְנוֹדַע לוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים בְּמֵאָה הַעֲלָמוֹת. מַקְרִיב אָשָׁם אֶחָד וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַל הַכּל עַל הַזְּדוֹנוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ וְעַל הַשְּׁגָגוֹת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשִׁפְחָה אַחַת. אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שְׁפָחוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיָּב אָשָׁם עַל כָּל שִׁפְחָה וְשִׁפְחָה:

6

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.

ו

בָּעַל שִׁפְחָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲשָׁמוֹ וְחָזַר וּבְעָלָהּ אַחַר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֲשָׁמוֹ חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת שֶׁהַהַפְרָשָׁה מְחַלֶּקֶת וְנִמְצָא כְּמִי שֶׁהִקְרִיב וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּעַל. וְכֵן אִם בָּעַל חָמֵשׁ בְּעִילוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת בְּשִׁפְחָה אַחַת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲשָׁמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה מַפְרִישׁ אָשָׁם אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת הָיוּ כֻּלָּן הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נוֹדַע לוֹ אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ נִמְצָא כְּבוֹעֵל אַחַר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ. שֶׁדִּין הַשּׁוֹגֵג וְהַמֵּזִיד בְּשִׁפְחָה אֶחָד הוּא:

7

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 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.

ז

עַל הַגֵּזֶל כֵּיצַד. כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה וָמַעְלָה מִמָּמוֹן יִשְׂרָאֵל. בֵּין שֶׁגְּזָלוֹ בֵּין שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֶצְלוֹ אוֹ הִלְוָהוּ אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֻׁתָּפוּת אוֹ מִשְּׁאָר דְּרָכִים. וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְנִשְׁבַּע לַשֶּׁקֶר בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם עַל חֶטְאוֹ. וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא אֲשַׁם גְּזֵלוֹת. וּמְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בְּאָשָׁם זֶה עַד שֶׁיָּשִׁיב הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לִבְעָלָיו. אֲבָל הַחֹמֶשׁ אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב הַכַּפָּרָה. כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵימָתַי יִהְיֶה חַיָּב בִּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ שֶׁמַּקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ אָשָׁם זֶה וְאֵימָתַי יִהְיֶה פָּטוּר מִמֶּנָּה. וְעַל אֵי זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ יִתְחַיֵּב אֲשָׁמוֹת רַבּוֹת כְּמִנְיַן חִיּוּב הַשְּׁבוּעוֹת. וְעַל אֵי זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה חַיָּב אֶלָּא אָשָׁם אֶחָד:

8

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.

ח

עַל הַמְּעִילָה כֵּיצַד. כָּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִשְּׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה. מַחְזִיר מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה וְיוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ וְיַקְרִיב אָשָׁם וְיִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מְעִילָה שֶׁהַקָּרְבָּן וְהַקֶּרֶן מְעַכְּבִין הַכַּפָּרָה וְאֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב:

9

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.

ט

הָאוֹכֵל מִדָּבָר שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד אִם יֵשׁ בְּכָל אֲכִילָה וַאֲכִילָה שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה חַיָּב אָשָׁם עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. שֶׁהַתַּמְחוּיִין מְחַלְּקִין בִּמְעִילָה וַהֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִינִין הַרְבֵּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מֻחְלָקִין בְּחִיּוּב הַכְּרֵתוֹת. חֻמְרָא יְתֵרָה יֵשׁ בִּמְעִילָה שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה בָּהּ הַמְהַנֶּה כְּנֶהֱנֶה וּמִצְטָרֶפֶת לִזְמַן מְרֻבֶּה. וְשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ חַיָּב הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ מַה שֶּׁאֵין דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ בִּשְׁאָר הָאִסּוּרִין:

10

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.

י

כָּל הַמְחֻיָּב אָשָׁם וַדַּאי צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ חֶטְאוֹ תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַקְרִיב אֲשָׁמוֹ אֲבָל אִם הִקְרִיבוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ וְנוֹדַע לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ. וְכָל חֵטְא שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֶחָד הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ אוֹ שְׁאָר עַם הָאָרֶץ שָׁוִין בּוֹ:

11

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 for at all, as stated in Hilchot Me'ilah.

יא

כָּל חֵטְא שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם עֲשָׂאָהוּ אוֹ לֹא עֲשָׂאָהוּ פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. לְפִיכָךְ הַבָּא עַל יָדוֹ סְפֵק מְעִילָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מְעִילָה:

12

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.

יב

הָיְתָה לְפָנָיו חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֻלִּין וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא פָּטוּר. חָזַר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם עַל מְעִילָתוֹ. אָכַל אַחֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין:

13

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 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.

יג

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל הַחֵלֶב וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי שֶׁל מְעִילָה עַל הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. בָּא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה אַף הַשֵּׁנִי מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה אַחַר שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי עַל מְעִילָתוֹ. בָּא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה זֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְזֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת בִּלְבַד. כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מַאֲכָלוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם נוֹסָף אִסּוּר הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל אִסּוּר חֵלֶב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ הָאִסּוּרִין:

Shegagot - Perek 10

1

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.

א

שִׁשָׁה מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הַמְצֹרָע. וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת. וְהַנִּשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה. וְהַנִּשְׁבָּע שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי לַשֶּׁקֶר בִּשְׁגָגָה. וְהַטָּמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה. וְהַטָּמֵא שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה:

2

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.

ב

קָרְבַּן הַיּוֹלֶדֶת אִם הָיְתָה עֲשִׁירָה מְבִיאָה כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְעוֹלָה וּבֶן יוֹנָה אוֹ תּוֹר לְחַטָּאת. וְאִם אֵין יָדָהּ מַשֶּׂגֶת הֲרֵי קָרְבָּנָהּ יוֹרֵד וּמְבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד עוֹלָה וְאֶחָד חַטָּאת. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה יָדָהּ מַשֶּׂגֶת לְשֶׂה וְאֵינָהּ מַשֶּׂגֶת לִנְסָכָיו מְבִיאָה קָרְבַּן עָנִי:

3

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.

ג

הַמְצֹרָע כְּשֶׁיִּטְהַר מֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת מֵהֶן שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים אֶחָד עוֹלָה וְאֶחָד אָשָׁם וְכַבְשָׂה לְחַטָּאת. אִם אֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד עוֹלָה וְאֶחָד חַטָּאת. וְכֶבֶשׂ לְאָשָׁם:

4

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.

ד

עַל שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְעַל שִׁגְגַת שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי וְעַל שִׁגְגַת טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְטֻמְאַת קָדָשָׁיו מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה כִּשְׁאָר הַחַטָּאוֹת הַקְּבוּעוֹת. וְאִם אֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד עוֹלָה וְאֶחָד חַטָּאת. וְאִם אֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת לְעוֹף מֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה סלֶת וְהִיא הַקְּרוּיָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ בְּהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת:

5

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.

ה

כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת הָאֵלּוּ מְפֹרָשִׁין בַּתּוֹרָה וּמְפֹרָשׁ זֶה שֶׁחַיָּב לַהֲבִיאָן. חוּץ מִטָּמֵא שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתוּב שָׁם (ויקרא ה א) "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה" וְגוֹ'. (ויקרא ה ב) "אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בְּכָל דָּבָר טָמֵא" וְגוֹ'. (ויקרא ה ד) "אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא בִשְׂפָתַיִם" וְגוֹ'. (ויקרא ה ה) "וְהָיָה כִי יֶאְשַׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה" וְגוֹ'. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁחִיֵּב כָּאן קָרְבָּן לְטָמֵא כְּשֶׁנִּטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ וְהוּא לֹא יָדַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּבָר מִפִּי הַקַּבָּלָה הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּפֵרוּשׁ חִיְּבָה תּוֹרָה כָּרֵת לְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ וּלְטָמֵא שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. בְּאוֹכֵל נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כ) "וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה' וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה". וּבְנִכְנָס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ נֶאֱמַר (במדבר יט כ) "וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל כִּי אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ ה' טִמֵּא". וְכֵיוָן שֶׁחִיְּבָה תּוֹרָה כָּרֵת עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו פֵּרֵשׁ הַקָּרְבָּן שֶׁמְּבִיאִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָן:

6

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 has her bring the sacrifice of a wealthy person. 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.

ו

כָּל קָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה חַיֶּבֶת בַּעְלָהּ מֵבִיא עַל יָדֶיהָ. אִם הָיָה עָנִי מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָנִי וְאִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר מֵבִיא עַל יָדֶיהָ קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר. וּמֵבִיא אָדָם עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וְעַל יְדֵי בִּתּוֹ וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ קָרְבַּן עָנִי וּמַאֲכִילָן בִּזְבָחִים:

7

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.

ז

הַמֶּלֶךְ וְכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּנָן עַל שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת אוֹ עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי אוֹ עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו כִּשְׁאָר הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. שֶׁלֹּא חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב קָרְבַּן מֶלֶךְ מִקָּרְבַּן הֶדְיוֹט וּמִקָּרְבַּן כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ אֶלָּא בְּמִצְווֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִים עַל שִׁגְגָתָן חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אֲבָל בְּקָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד כֻּלָּן שָׁוִים. כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁבוּעוֹת אֵימָתַי יִהְיֶה חַיָּב עַל שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְעַל שְׁבוּעַת שִׁגְגַת בִּטּוּי וְאֵימָתַי יִהְיֶה פָּטוּר עֲלֵיהֶן וְעַל אֵי זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ יִהְיֶה חַיָּב קָרְבָּנוֹת הַרְבֵּה כְּמִנְיַן הַשְּׁבוּעוֹת וְעַל אֵי זֶה דֶּרֶךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה חַיָּב אֶלָּא קָרְבָּן אֶחָד. וּבְהִלְכוֹת מְחֻסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה אֲבָאֵר בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ תִּתְחַיֵּב הַיּוֹלֶדֶת וְהַמְצֹרָע קָרְבָּנוֹת הַרְבֵּה וּבְאֵי זֶה דֶּרֶךְ יִתְחַיֵּב כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרְבָּן אֶחָד:

8

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.

ח

כָּל הַמֵּבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל הַזָּדוֹן כִּשְׁגָגָה. אִם הָיָה אָנוּס פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שְׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב חַטָּאת אֶלָּא עַל שִׁגְגָתָן שֶׁאִם הָיָה אָנוּס פָּטוּר:

9

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.

ט

מִי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְכַבְשָׂה שֶׁל חַטָּאתוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לָהֶן. הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שְׂעִירָה וִיחַלֵּל אוֹתָם הַמָּעוֹת עַל הַשְּׂעִירָה וְיֵהָנֶה בָּהֶן. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ לִשְׂעִירָה וְלָקַח כִּשְׂבָּה יֵהָנֶה בָּהֶן:

10

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.

י

הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִבְהֵמָה וְהֶעֱנִי יִקַּח שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וִיחַלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹתָם הַמָּעוֹת וְיֵהָנֶה בָּהֶם. הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִבְנֵי יוֹנָה אוֹ לְתוֹרִים וְהֶעֱנִי. יָבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וִיחַלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹתָם הַמָּעוֹת וְיֵהָנֶה בָּהֶן. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה עָנִי וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָבִיא עוֹף. הִפְרִישׁ לְעוֹף וְהֶעֱשִׁיר יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מוֹרִישׁוֹ גּוֹסֵס הֲרֵי זֶה עָנִי עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת מוֹרִישׁוֹ וְיִירָשֶׁנּוּ:

11

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.

יא

עָשִׁיר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם [וְהֶעֱנִי] אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ עוֹף אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִישׁ עוֹף וְנִפְסַל לֹא יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁאֵין לָעוֹף פִּדְיוֹן:

12

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.

יב

הִפְרִישׁ עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה בִּכְלִי הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת וְתִפָּדֶה וְתֵאָכֵל. וּמִשֶּׁקָּדְשָׁהּ בִּכְלִי תְּעֻבַּר צוּרָתָהּ וְתֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה:

13

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.

יג

עָשִׁיר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ קֵן לְמָכְרָהּ וְלִקַּח בְּדָמֶיהָ כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה וְהֶעֱנִי יָבִיא קֵן זוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא קְדֵשַּׁת דָּמִים שֶׁהִיא נִדְחֵית. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִדְחֵית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדִּחוּי מֵעִקָּרוֹ אֵינוֹ דִּחוּי וַהֲרֵי נִרְאֶה קֵן זוֹ לוֹ עַתָּה. עָנִי שֶׁהִקְרִיב קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר יָצָא וְעָשִׁיר שֶׁהִקְרִיב קָרְבַּן עָנִי לֹא יָצָא:

Shegagot - Perek 11

1

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 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.

א

שִׁנּוּי יֵשׁ בְּשִׁגְגַת טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר כְּרֵתוֹת. שֶׁכָּל הַכְּרֵתוֹת כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְנוֹדַע לוֹ בַּסּוֹף שֶׁחָטָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב חַטָּאת. אֲבָל בְּטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לוֹ יְדִיעָה לַטֻּמְאָה וִידִיעָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ אוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בַּתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה לַטֻּמְאָה וִידִיעָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ אוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בַּסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּינְתַיִם. כֵּיצַד. נִטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָכַל אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס. וְשֶׁקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָה זֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ אוֹ מִקְדָּשׁ הָיָה זֶה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִקָּרְבָּן עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא [וְשֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ] וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס אוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאכַל. כֵּיצַד. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְשָׁכַח שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ אוֹ שֶׁזֶּה בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג אוֹ שָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשָׁכַח שֶׁזֶּה בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד בְּכָל צַד וְצַד מִשֵּׁשׁ מַחֲלוֹקוֹת אֵלּוּ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁדִּין שִׁגְגַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו כָּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּשְׁאָר שְׁגָגוֹת נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד כז) "בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ אַחַת מִמִּצְוֹת ה' אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁם" (ויקרא ד כח) "אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא". כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּדַע בַּסּוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה. וּבְטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה ג ד) "וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם" מֵאַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְנֶאֱמַר וְהוּא יָדַע [וְאָשֵׁם] הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה בַּסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּינְתַיִם:

2

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.

ב

נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא [וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ] אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע בְּאֵי זֶה אָב נִטְמָא וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ וְנוֹדַע לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנַס אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁאָכַל בְּאֵי זֶה אָב נִטְמָא [הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב קָרְבָּן] אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּאֵי זֶה אָב נִטְמָא הוֹאִיל וְיָדַע שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא הֲרֵי הָיְתָה שָׁם יְדִיעַת טֻמְאָה בַּתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אִם נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ הִלְכוֹת טֻמְאָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְיָדַע שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא וְלֹא יָדַע בַּשִּׁעוּר וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנָּגַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ כְּלָל וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ [שֶׁנָּגַע] בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם חַיָּב קָרְבָּן אוֹ פָּטוּר. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ מִיָּמָיו וְלֹא הֵבִין מְקוֹמוֹ. אִם נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁזֶּהוּ מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא רָאָהוּ מֵעוֹלָם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ זָכַר הַטֻּמְאָה וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם יְדִיעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִקְדָּשׁ בָּעוֹלָם יְדִיעָה. אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע מְקוֹמוֹ תְּחִלָּה. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵלּוּ הַחַיָּבִים קָרְבָּן מִסָּפֵק אֵינָן מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן שֶׁמָּא יַכְנִיסוּ חֻלִּין לַעֲזָרָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף בָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא אוֹתָהּ מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בְּקָדָשִׁים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא כַּפָּרָתוֹ. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן מִסָּפֵק:

3

When a person contracts ritual impurity in the Temple Courtyard, to be liable for the abovementioned 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.

ג

מִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא בָּעֲזָרָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֵּדַע תְּחִלָּה שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם נֶעְלָם מִמֶּנּוּ אַחֲרֵי כֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא זָכוּר שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ. אוֹ שֶׁנֶּעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא שָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וְזֶה. כְּשֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ יָבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה כַּשִּׁעוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ:

4

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.

ד

מִי שֶׁטִּמֵּא עַצְמוֹ בְּמֵזִיד וְלֹא שָׁהָה כַּשִּׁעוּר. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם שִׁעוּר הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְאָנוּס בִּלְבַד אוֹ אַף לְמֵזִיד. וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְיָצָא וְלֹא שָׁהָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְכֵן אִם תָּלָה עַצְמוֹ בַּאֲוִיר עֲזָרָה. הַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם אֲוִיר עֲזָרָה כַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ כַּעֲזָרָה:

5

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.

ה

מִי שֶׁנִּסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ בְּטֻמְאָה אוֹ לָאו אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עַל לֹא הוֹדַע אֶלָּא בְּכָרֵת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:

6

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 ritually impurity.

ו

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִים אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְחָזַר וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבְעֵת שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי שָׁכַח שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנָּה טֻמְאָה זוֹ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ חַיָּב. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה יְדִיעָה גְּמוּרָה לַטֻּמְאָה אֶלָּא מִקְצָת יְדִיעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהָלַךְ בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין שֶׁבְּהִלּוּךְ שְׁנֵיהֶן יְהֵא טָמֵא בְּוַדַּאי וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן חַיָּב חַטָּאת שֶׁמִּקְצָת יְדִיעָה כְּכָל יְדִיעָה. הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק טָמֵא:

7

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.

ז

הִזָּה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי וְטָבַל וְאַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְחָזַר וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָּב. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִכְנַס כְּשֶׁהוּא טָמֵא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּוַדַּאי אוֹ בְּפַעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ בְּפַעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל יְדִיעָה מֵהֶן סְפֵק יְדִיעָה הִיא שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל שְׁבִיל מֵהֶן סָפֵק הוּא כָּאן בְּטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו עָשׂוּ סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה:

8

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.

ח

הָיָה טָמֵא וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם נִכְנַסְתָּ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶם לֹא נִכְנַסְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה יֹאמַר מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם טָמֵא הָיִיתָ כְּשֶׁנִּכְנַסְתָּ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וּבְפָנֵינוּ נִטְמֵאתָ וְיָדַעְתָּ שֶׁאַתָּה טָמֵא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּין טֻמְאָה זוֹ שֶׁמְּעִידִין בָּהּ וּבֵין כְּנִיסָתוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ יָמִים רַבִּים שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר כְּבָר טָבַלְתִּי הוֹאִיל וְהִכְחִישׁ אֶת הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי מֵעוֹלָם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִים וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל פִּיהֶם. אִם הֱבִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם לִידֵי מִיתָה חֲמוּרָה קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁיְּבִיאוּהוּ לִידֵי קָרְבָּן הַקַּל שֶׁהֲרֵי הִכְחִישָׁן:

9

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 offered 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 offered 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."

ט

טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא הָיָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּסּוֹף שָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלִין עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ וְיָבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַּסּוֹף שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו פַּר כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר אִם הָיָה הַמֵּזִיד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם הָיָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל דַּם שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז טז) "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל":

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 the 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