Enter your email address to get our weekly email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life.

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17, Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18, Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17

1

Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable.1

If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance.2

In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained3 - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable,4 even if all the other presentations were made as required.

א

כל הדמים הניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתן מהם מתנה ראשונה במחשבה נכונה ונתן ממתנה שניה ואילך במחשבת שינוי השם או במחשבת המקום או מחשבת הזמן הרי זה כיפר והורצה הקרבן ואם נתן את הראשונה במחשבת הזמן והשלים המתנות במחשבת המקום הרי זה פגול שמתנה ראשונה היא העיקר אבל כל הדמים הניתנין על מזבח הפנימי הואיל וכולן מעכבין זה את זה כמו שביארנו אם נתן אחת מהן שלא כתקנה אלא הפסיד בה המחשבה אף על פי שנתן כל השאר כתקנן הזבח פסול:

2

If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar]5 and had no specific intent6 regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.

ב

חשב בראשונה מחשבת הזמן ושתק בשאר או שנתן כולן כתקנן חוץ מן האחרונה שנתן במחשבת הזמן הרי זה פסול ואינו פגול עד שיזה במחשבת הזמן שהרי כלם במתנה אחת הן:

3

[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering7 [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul.8

What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar].

ג

טבילת אצבע בדם החטאות הפנימיות מפגלת כיצד חשב בשעת טבילת אצבע בדם מחשבת הזמן הרי זה כמחשב בשעת הזייה:

4

If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.

ד

היה עומד בעזרה וחשב מחשבת הזמן בחטאות הנעשות בפנים בדבר הנעשה בפנים אינו פגול חשב בדבר הנעשה בחוץ הרי זה פגול:

5

What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow,"9 [the offering] is not piggul, because presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.

ה

כיצד היה עומד בעזרה ואמר הריני שוחט להזות דמו למחר אינו פגול שההזיה לפנים בהיכל:

6

If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood]10 on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.

ו

היה עומד בהיכל ואמר הרי אני מזה לשפוך שירים למחר אינו פגול שהרי חשב בפנים בדבר הנעשה בחוץ אבל אם היה עומד בעזרה ושחט והוא מחשב לשפוך שירים למחר או להקטיר אימורין למחר הרי זה פגול שהרי חשב בחוץ בדבר הנעשה בחוץ:

7

A [disqualifying intent] concerning a thanksgiving-offering causes the bread [that accompanies it] to become piggul, but a [disqualifying intent] concerning the bread does not cause the thanksgiving-offering to become piggul.11

What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is not piggul.12

ז

התודה מפגלת את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את התודה כיצד השוחט את התודה והוא מחשב שיאכל מבשרה או יזרוק דמה או שיקטיר אימוריה למחר הזבח עם הלחם פגול אבל אם חשב לאכול מן הלחם למחר הלחם לבדו פגול וזבח התודה אינו פגול:

8

Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads are piggul and the sheep are not piggul.13 If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread14 tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul15 and the thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul.

ח

וכן הדין בשני כבשי עצרת עם שתי לחם הבאות עמהן שאם חשב מחשבת זמן בכבשים נתפגלו שתי הלחם חשב שיאכל משתי הלחם למחר שתי הלחם פגול והכבשים אינן פגול חשב באחת מארבע העבודות לאכול כזית מבשר הזבח עם הלחם למחר הלחם לבדו פגול והתודה או הכבשים אינן פגול:

9

When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.16

ט

המקטיר שני בזיכי לבונה שעם לחם הפנים וחשב בשעת הקטרתן שיאכל לחם הפנים למחר הרי הלחם פגול:

10

When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.17

י

השוחט שני כבשי עצרת וחשב לאכול אחת משתי החלות למחר שתיהם פגול:

11

If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.18

יא

הקטיר שני הבזיכים והוא מחשב לאכול אחד משני הסדרים למחר שני הסדרים פגול:

12

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.

יב

וכן אם חשב מחשבת הזמן באחת מחלות התודה או באחת מחלות מנחת מאפה התנור הרי כל החלות פגול:

13

If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering19- whether before the casting on the altar20 or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.

יג

אבל אם נטמאת אחת משתי החלות או אחד משני הסדרים או אחת מחלות התודה בין לפני זריקה בין לאחר זריקה אותה החלה ואותו הסדר אסור והטהור בטהרתו יאכל:

14

If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.

יד

חשב בעבודת אחד משני הכבשים שיאכל כזית משתי הלחם למחר וכן אם חשב בהקטרת אחד משני הבזיכין שיאכל כזית מלחם הפנים למחר הרי הלחם פסול ואינו פגול עד שיחשב בכל המתיר שהוא עבודת שני הכבשים והקטרת שני הבזיכין:

15

If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul.21 Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].

טו

שחט אחד וחשב לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו למחר ושחט השני וחשב לאכול חצי זית מחלה שנייה למחר הרי אלו מצטרפין לפגול והוא הדין בשני הבזיכין עם שני הסדרים:

16

If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.22

טז

חשב באחד משני הכבשים מחשבת הזמן ועשה השני במחשבה נכונה זה שעשאוהו במחשבת הזמן פגול והשני כשר:

17

If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.

יז

שחט אחד מהן וחשב בשעת שחיטתו שיאכל מבשר השני למחר שניהן כשירים שאין מחשבין מזה על זה:

18

The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered.

What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified.23

If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified.

יח

שני כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה כיצד שחטם וזרק דמם במחשבת שינוי השם לא קדש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמם שלא לשמן הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש שחטן שלא לשמן אע"פ שזרק לשמן לא קדש הלחם:

19

When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].24

יט

שתי הלחם שיצאו בין שחיטה לזריקה וזרק דם הכבשים במחשבת הזמן נתפגלו שתי הלחם אף על פי שהן בחוץ שהזריקה מועלת ליוצא אע"פ שעדיין הוא בחוץ:

20

When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent.25 If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time26 after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not.27

כ

כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן ואבד הלחם אם זרק דמן לשמן הרי אלו פסולין זרק דמן במחשבת הזמן אחר שאבד הלחם הרי אלו ספק אם הותרו באכילה או לא הותרו:

Footnotes
1.

Hence the person(s) bringing the sacrifice are not required to bring another one.

2.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

Chapter 16, Halachah 1, states that when a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul. In the present instance, it is placed in the more severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the sacrifice piggul, the subsequent intentions the priest had are of no consequence.

3.

Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

4.

However, it is not piggul. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations.

5.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7.

6.

Literally, the Rambam's words mean: "Remained silent with regard to the others."

7.

See ibid.:8.

8.

The commentaries note that this ruling appears to run contrary to the statements of Zevachim 44a: "If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offering piggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul." Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar the author of the statement cited does not accept the concept that one's intent when immersing one's finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam's ruling here.

9.

When they should be presented on the day the sacrificial animal is slaughtered.

10.

On the outer altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:10).

11.

For the bread is secondary to and dependent on the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not dependent on the bread [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.

12.

Rashi's commentary to Menachot 15a implies that it is forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely.

13.

Here, also, the bread is considered as secondary to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not secondary to the meat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

14.

I.e., half an olive-sized portion of meat and half an olive-sized portion of bread (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.).

15.

Menachot, loc. cit., mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuos and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuos, for they are interrelated as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20). It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh).

16.

For it is the offering of the bowls of frankincense that enable the breads to be eaten.

17.

For the two loaves are considered as a single offering.

18.

Here too both arrangments are considered as a single offering.

19.

The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction to Chapter 12, Halachah 14. See the notes to that halachah.

20.

Of the blood of the sacrifices or the frankincense for the showbreads [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2)].

21.

For he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to the entire offering that would enable the bread to be eaten.

22.

In this context, each of the sheep is considered as an independent entity.

23.

It appears that the Rambam follows the view of Ravva (Menachot 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten .

24.

The place where the bread is located is not of consequence.

25.

For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire.

26.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error and the text should read "with an intent for another sacrifice." This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah.

27.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room to say that they have been disqualified. A question concerning this issue was raised by Menachot 47b. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that according to the Rambam, the question was left unresolved. Rashi maintains that the question is rhetorical and that the meat is disqualified.

The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam's descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider their meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 18

1

Anyone who has an incorrect intent [while performing] sacrificial service violates a negative commandment,1 for [Leviticus 7:18] states: "He may not intent this."

א

כל המחשב מחשבה שאינה נכונה בקדשים הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה שהרי הוא אומר לא יחשב:

2

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that included in this prohibition is not to cause sacrificial offerings to be disqualified through thought, for this is comparable to causing a blemish in sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, [a transgressor] is not punished by lashes,2 for thought is not considered as deed.3

ב

מפי השמועה למדו שבכלל דין זה שלא יפסיד הקדשים במחשבה שהרי זה דומה למטיל מום בקדשים ואע"פ כן אינו לוקה שאין המחשבה מעשה:

3

Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable - whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent."4

ג

כל קרבן שנאמר שהוא פסול בין שנפסל במחשבה בין במעשה בין שאירע בו דבר שפסלו כל האוכל ממנו כזית במזיד לוקה שנאמר לא תאכל כל תועבה:

4

According to the Oral Tradition, we learned5 that the verse was warning solely against [partaking of] sacrificial animals that were disqualified.6

ד

מפי השמועה למדו שאין הכתוב מזהיר אלא על פסולי המוקדשין:

5

Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,]7 they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained.8 Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.

ה

וכן קדשים שהוטל בהם מום האוכל מהם כזית לוקה הרי הם בכלל כל תועבה עד שיולד להם מום אחר ויאכלו במומן כמו שביארנו וכל שפיסולו מספק אין לוקין עליו:

6

Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained,9 anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet,10 as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin."11 If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering.12

ו

כל קרבן שנתפגל במחשבת הזמן כמו שביארנו כל האוכל ממנו כזית במזיד חייב כרת שנאמר והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא ואם אכל ממנו בשגגה מביא חטאת קבועה:

7

One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar.13 If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet. Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved.

What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal]14 intentionally, he is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burnt-offering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar.

[The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep15 on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit the showbread to [be eaten by] the priests. Sacrificial entities that do not have entities that permit them [to be consumed either by the altar or by man], e.g., the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt or the meal-offerings that are burnt, are never deemed as piggul.

ז

אין חייבין כרת אלא על אכילת דברים שהותרו בין לאדם בין למזבח אבל אם אכל מן המתיר עצמו אינו חייב כרת אלא לוקה כאוכל פסולי המוקדשין שאין בהם פגול כיצד מנחה שנתפגלה האוכל כזית משיריה במזיד חייב כרת אבל אם אכל מן הקומץ שלה או מן הלבונה אינו חייב כרת לפי שהן הן המתירים את השירים לאדם וכן זבח שנתפגל האוכל כזית מבשרו או מאימוריו או מבשר העולה חייב כרת אבל אם אכל כזית מן הדם אינו חייב עליו משום פגול שהדם מתיר את האימורין ליקרב למזבח והאימורין מתירין את הבשר לאדם ודם העולה מתיר בשרה למזבח ודם חטאת העוף מתיר בשרה לכהנים ודם עולת העוף מתיר בשרה למזבח ודם חטאות הנשרפות מתיר אימוריהם למזבח לפיכך חייבין על אימוריהן משום פגול הקומץ והלבונה מתירין השירים לכהנים שני כבשי עצרת מתירין שתי הלחם לכהנים וכן שני בזיכי לבונה מתירין לחם הפנים לכהנים אבל דברים שאין להם מתירין כגון בשר חטאות הנשרפות ומנחות הנשרפות אינן מתפגלין לעולם:

8

These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul:16 the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine - whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings17 or wine that is offered independently;18 and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite.

If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place.19

ח

ואלו דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פגול לעולם: הקומץ והלבונה והקטרת והדם והיין בין יין הבא עם הנסכים בין יין הבא בפני עצמו ומנחות הנשרפות כולן שהרי אין להם קומץ להתירן כגון מנחת כהנים ומנחת נסכים ובשר חטאות הנשרפות ולוג שמן של מצורע ואם תאמר והלא דם האשם מתירו אינו תלוי בו שהרי אדם מביא אשמו היום ולוג אחר כמה ימים כמו שיתבאר במקומו:

9

It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten,20 as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices.21

One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected22 by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment,23 as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."

ט

אסור להותיר מבשר הקדשים לאחר זמן אכילתן שנאמר בקרבן תודה לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר והוא הדין לשאר הקדשים כולם והמותיר אינו לוקה שהרי ניתקו הכתוב לעשה שנאמר והנותר ממנו עד בקר באש תשרופו:

10

One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet.24 If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto God; [that soul] shall be cut off."

From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn.25 If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity,26 he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day.

Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy."27 This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it.

י

האוכל כזית מבשר קדשים שנותר במזיד חייב כרת בשוגג מביא חטאת קבועה שנאמר ואוכליו עונו ישא כי את קדש ה' חלל ונכרתה ומאימתי יתחייב כרת על אכילת הנותר אם קדשי קדשים הם חייב עליהן מאחר שיעלה עמוד השחר ואם קדשים קלים הם חייב עליהן משקיעת החמה של יום שני שהוא תחלת הלילה של יום שלישי והיכן הזהיר הכתוב על הפגול ועל הנותר במלואים שהרי נאמר שם לא יאכל כי קדש הם להזהיר על כל שפסולו בקדש שהוא בלא תעשה על אכילתו:

11

Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion28 [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that became piggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].

יא

והפגול והנותר מצטרפין זה עם זה לכזית וכל הפוגלים והנותרין מצטרפין:

12

It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure,29 for he disqualifies them.30 One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes,31 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten."

The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained32 or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity33 or a derivative of impurity34 of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct.35

[Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food.36 He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

יב

אסור לטמא את הקדשים או לסבב להם טומאה שהרי פוסלן והמטמא את הקדשים אינו לוקה אבל אדם טהור שאכל כזית מקדשים שנטמאו לוקה שנאמר והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל והוא הדין לשאר הקרבנות שאם אכל כזית מלבונת המנחה שנטמאה אחר שנתקדשה בכלי לוקה אחד קדשים שנטמאו לפני כפרה או לאחר כפרה בין שנטמאו באב הטומאה או בולד הטומאה של דברי תורה אבל אם נטמאו בטומאות של דבריהם אינו לוקה על אכילתן אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות ואינו לוקה אלא האוכל אחר זריקת דמים אבל אם אכל קודם זריקה אינו לוקה משום אוכל קודש טמא אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

13

Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable for karet for entering the Temple37 who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure38 - intentionally is liable for karet,39 as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering.40

What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure?41 [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off."42 The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar.

Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."43

יג

כל אדם שנטמא טומאה שחייבין עליה כרת על ביאת המקדש ואכל כזית מן הקדשים בין בקדש טהור בין בקדש טמא במזיד הרי זה נתחייב כרת שנאמר והנפש אשר תאכל מזבח השלמים אשר לה' וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה ואם אכל בשגגה מביא קרבן עולה ויורד ומניין שאינו מדבר אלא בטומאת הגוף שנאמר ונפש כי תגע בכל טמא בטומאת אדם או בבהמה טמאה או בכל שקץ טמא ואכל מבשר זבח השלמים אשר לה' ונכרתה והוא הדין לשאר קדשי מזבח והיכן הזהיר על עון זה ביולדת שהרי נאמר בה בכל קדש לא תגע:

14

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement,44 he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him.45

יד

מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה לטמא שלא יאכל קדש קודם שיטבול והאוכל קדש אחר שטבל קודם שיעריב שמשו קודם שיביא כפרתו לוקה ואינו חייב כרת שנאמר וטומאתו עליו עד שתהיה כל טומאתו עליו:

15

If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food].46 Needless to say, he is not liable for karet. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

טו

היה טמא בטומאות של דבריהם אינו לוקה ואין צריך לומר שאינו חייב כרת אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

16

One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure.47

This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet.48 Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar],49 he is liable for karet.

טז

אינו חייב כרת על קדש שיש לו מתירין עד שיאכל ממנו אחר שקרבו מתיריו אבל אם אכל את הבשר קודם זריקת הדם אינו לוקה משום טמא שאכל את הקדש זה הכלל כל שיש לו מתירין אין חייבין עליו משום פגול או משום נותר או משום טמא עד שיקרבו מתיריו כהלכתן וכל שאין לו מתירין כיון שקדש בכלי חייבין עליו משום טומאה אפילו נטמא הבשר קודם שיטמא האוכל הואיל וקרבו המתירין ואחר כך אכל חייב כרת וכן אם אכל מבשר חטאות הנשרפות והוא טמא אחר שנזרק דמם הרי זה חייב כרת:

17

It was already explained for you,50 that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notar or because the object contracted ritual impurity?

What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances.

Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained,51 one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it.52

יז

כבר נתבאר לך שאף דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פגול חייבין עליהן משום נותר וטמא כיצד דברים שאין להם מתירין אין חייבין עליהן משום פגול וחייבין עליהם משום נותר וטמא וכן המתירין עצמן אף על פי שאין חייבין עליהם משום פגול כמו שביארנו חייבין עליהן משום נותר וטמא חוץ מן הדם שאין חייבין עליו לעולם אלא משום דבר אחד בלבד:

18

When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet.

יח

טמא שאכל אימורין חייב כרת:

19

[If an impure person] partook53 of Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage].54

It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul and notar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice.55 [The rationale is that] piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.

יט

אכל פסח שלא נצלה ולחמי תודה שלא הורמה חלתן הרי זה חייב כרת משום טומאת הגוף אע"פ שאינן ראויין למה שהן אי אפשר שיתחייב אדם על אכילה אחת משום פגול ומשום נותר שהפגול הוא הקרבן שנפסל במחשבת הזמן ואינו עולה לשם קרבן ולא נרצה כלל והנותר הוא הנשאר מקרבן שקרב כמצותו לאחר זמן אכילתו:

20

When one combined [different types of sacrificial food that were] piggul, notar, and impure and partook of them,56 he is liable. Even though there was more of one type of prohibited substance than another, it does not nullify it, because [these] prohibited substances do not nullify each other.57

כ

הפגול והנותר והטמא שבללן זה בזה ואכלן חייב אף על פי שריבה מין על חבירו אינו מבטלו שאין האיסורין מבטלין זה את זה:

21

When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight.

The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure.

כא

ופגול או נותר או טמא שהעלן לראש המזבח משמשלה האור ברובן פקע איסורן מהן והאימורין מצטרפין עם הבשר לכזית בין בעולה בין בשאר קדשים לחייב עליו משום פגול או נותר או טמא:

22

When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], the allal,58 the murah,59 from the giddim,60 the horns, and the hoofs, the nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers,61 or its eggs, he is not liable for karet.62 Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.

כב

זבח שנתפגל או שנותר לאחר זמנו ואכל ממנו מן העור או מן המרק או מן התבלין או מן האלל או מן המוראה מן הגידים ומן הקרניים ומן הטלפיים מן הצפרניים מן החרטום ומן הנוצה ומביצי העוף אינו חייב כרת וכן טמא הגוף שאכל דברים אלו מקרבן כשר אינו חייב כרת אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

23

If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.63

כג

אכל מן השליל או מן השליא חייב משום פגול ונותר וטמא כאוכל משאר בשר הזבח:

24

[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles.64 Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained.65 Similarly, one is not liable for karet66 for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure67 for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].68

כד

קדשי עכו"ם אין חייבין עליהם משום פגול ונותר וטמא וכן דם הקדשים כמו שביארנו וכן הלבונה והקטורת והעצים אין חייבין עליהן כרת לא משום פגול ולא משום נותר ולא משום טומאת הגוף:

Footnotes
1.

The wording used by the Rambam is often employed when referring to one of the 613 mitzvot. Nevertheless, neither in the listing at the beginning of these halachot, nor in Sefer HaMitzvot, does he count this charge in that reckoning. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 4) does give this charge that distinction. Megilat Esther explains that this charge is part of the directive to offer sacrifices in the proper manner and hence need not be considered as a separate mitzvah. See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 144) where the issue is discussed.

2.

As is one who causes a blemish to sacrificial animals (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:7).

3.

And lashes are given only when one violates a transgression while performing a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).

4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 469) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

5.

See the Sifri to the verse cited.

6.

The Rambam is emphasizing this point lest one think that the charge also refers to other prohibited substances. This stress is necessary, for otherwise the prohibition could be considered a prohibition of a general nature (lav shebiklalut). Lashes are not given for violating a prohibition of this nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).

7.

After they have been redeemed. As the Rambam LeAm elaborates, in addition to contracting a blemish, an animal dedicated as a sacrifice must be redeemed before the prohibition against partaking of its meat is lifted. (This constitutes a difference between the laws pertaining to such an animal and a firstborn animal.) Even after the Scriptural prohibition is lifted, there is a Rabbinic prohibition to partake of its meat until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. (This prohibition was instituted as a penalty lest one intentionally inflict such a blemish. See Bechorot 34b.)

8.

The Rambam's wording has aroused the attention of the commentaries, for this law is stated in Hilchot Bechorot 2:7, where the entire law stated here is mentioned. As such, it would have been more correct for the Rambam to have stated "as will be explained." Some have suggested that the intent here is to the concept that a sacrificial animal that has contracted a blemish may be eaten after being redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:10.

9.

In various halachot from Chapter 13, Halachah 1, onward.

10.

Literally, that the soul is cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

11.

Since this phrase is also used with regard to notar (sacrificial meat left beyond its limit) in Leviticus 19:8 and the punishment of karet is explicitly stated with regard to that prohibition in that verse, the Sifra makes an equation with regard to the punishment for the two transgressions.

12.

This term is used to differentiate between this offering and an adjustable guilt-offering in which instance, the sacrifice the person required to bring is dependent on the person's means. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3-4.

13.

Entities eaten by a person or consumed by the altar's pyre.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:3), the Rambam explains this concept as follows: The prohibition of piggul is derived from Leviticus 7:18 which pertains to the peace-offerings. Our Sages explain that the peace-offerings are unique in that they involve both consumption by the altar and consumption by man and that there is an act that permits such consumption (the offering of the blood permits the fats and organs to be offered and offering them permits the meat to be eaten). Hence this is established as a general rule with regard to all sacrifices.

14.

I.e., the portion to be eaten by man.

15.

The sheep themselves, however, can also become piggul, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 16.

16.

For there is no other act performed that enables these to be offered.

17.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.

18.

Ibid. 17:12.

19.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

It must be noted that the latter point is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the log cannot become piggul, while Rabbi Meir maintains that it can for the reasons stated here. Although the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah states that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon's view (as the Rambam rules here), Rav Kappach notes that all the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah state that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.

20.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 120) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 142) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

21.

Nevertheless, Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 117-119) does count the prohibitions against leaving over the meat of the Paschal sacrifice, the chagigah offering, and the second Paschal sacrifice as separate commandments.

22.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam mentions this point. True, it is mentioned by Pesachim 84a, but that passage follows the opinion that lashes can be given for the violation of a prohibition even if a deed is not involved. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) maintains that lashes are not given unless the transgression involves a deed. Hence, seemingly, he does not have to add the explanation given here.

23.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

24.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 131) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 215) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

25.

The first shining of the light on the eastern horizon, between 72 and 120 minutes before sunrise according to the various authorities.

26.

With the exception of the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram for which one is liable from dawn of the day following their sacrifice.

27.

The commentaries note that the Rambam's citation of the verse is not entirely exact. See also Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.

28.

From the wording of the Mishnah (Meilah 4:3), one might think that these two prohibitions are not combined. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Meilah 17b) states that the Mishnah is speaking about the impurity of one's hands, but that with regard to the prohibition against partaking of the food, they may be combined.

29.

Although the Rambam's wording implies that a Scriptural prohibition is involved, he does not include it as one of the 613 mitzvot. See a parallel in Hilchot Terumah 12:1.

30.

The Or Sameach comments that the Rambam's wording implies that if the sacrificial foods were disqualified for other reasons, it is permitted to cause them to contract impurity. See Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6.

31.

Partaking of sacrificial foods that have become impure is considered by Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 145) as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

32.

The attainment of atonement refers to the casting of the blood on the altar.

Although the sacrifice became impure before the blood was cast on the altar, after the fact, it is acceptable, because the forehead plate of the High Priest causes such sacrifices to be considered acceptable (Menachot 25b). And since, after the fact, it is acceptable, one is liable for partaking of it if it became piggul.

33.

In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," an object deemed inherently impure by Scripture decree which has the potential to make other objects impure. See the Rambam's introduction to the Order of Taharot in his Commentary to the Mishnah and also, Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7 for more details regarding this and the term mentioned in the following note.

34.

In the original, a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity," an object that contracts ritual impurity through contract with a primary source of impurity, which in certain instances can impart impurity to other substances.

35.

The punishment given anyone who violates a Rabbinic ordinance.

36.

Because such a sacrifice is disqualified and, as an initial preference, its blood should not be offered on the altar. The Mishneh LiMelech states that he is, however, liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.

37.

See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:13-14. As mentioned in the Kessef Mishneh, there are certain states of ritual impurity for which one is not liable for karet for entering the Temple. This prohibition, however, focuses only on those concerning which this penalty can be incurred, because of an association between the words mikdash, "sanctuary," and kodesh, "sacrificial food."

38.

There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:2) because there are two prohibitions involved: the prohibition against partaking of impure sacrificial meat and the prohibition against a person who is impure partaking of sacrificial meat. Rabbi Yossi maintains that since the meat is impure and unfit to be eaten, we are not concerned whether the person is impure or not. The Sages, by contrast, maintain that since the impure person is forbidden to partake of pure sacrificial food, the prohibition also applies when partakes of impure sacrificial food. The Rambam accepts the Sages' opinion. See also Halachah 16.

39.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 167) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

40.

An obligation for which the offering changes dependent on the person's financial capacity (see Leviticus, ch. 5; Hilchot Shegagot 10:1).

41.

For one could interpret the above verse as referring to sacrificial food that contracted ritual impurity.

42.

This verse clearly indicates that the passage is speaking about a person who has contracted ritual impurity.

43.

The interpretation of the verse is explained in the following halachah.

44.

As stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, to be permitted to partake of sacrificial food or to enter the Temple, a zav (a male who has secretions similar to those produced by gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle), a woman who gives birth or miscarries, and a person afflicted by the skin condition of tzara'at must do the following after they are fit to emerge from their ritual impurity: a) immerse in the mikveh, b) wait until nightfall after immersion, and c) bring the appropriate sacrifice.

45.

Since the person has already immersed in the mikveh, a certain dimension of his or her ritual impurity has been removed. Hence, although he or she is liable for lashes for this transgression, there is no liability for karet.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even in such a situation, one is liable for karet. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:9, the Kessef Mishneh cites Talmudic passages which could be used as support for both positions.

46.

For according to Scriptural Law, he is not liable. Compare to Halachah 12.

47.

In this instance as well, according to the Mishneh LiMelech, the person would be liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.

48.

See Halachah 13 and notes.

49.

For afterwards, they are ready to be burnt.

50.

I.e., this conclusion can be reached by comparing Halachah 7 with the previous halachah. An equation is made between sacrificial meat that is notar and that which contracted ritual impurity.

51.

In Halachah 7.

52.

I.e., the prohibition against partaking of blood, which appears uniformly, both to the blood of sacrificial animals and to that of ordinary animals. Since it is already prohibited, none of the other prohibitions apply to it. See Zevachim 4:5.

53.

This is the version accepted by the R. Shabsi Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different version of the text.

54.

I.e., although these activities are necessary for these sacrifices to be acceptable, a person can still be held liable for partaking of the sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity.

55.

This is a general rule. There are several particular aspects to it, as explained in Keritot 14a.

56.

This is speaking about a situation where there is an olive-sized portion of all the prohibited substances. Nevertheless, one might think that the presence of one might nullify the other. The person receives a set of lashes for each prohibition he violates.

57.

Instead, as stated in Halachah 11, they are combined together.

The commentaries have noted that this ruling appears to contradict the Rambam's own ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:18, that orlah nullifies the presence of terumah. See also the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 98.

It can be explained that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where there is sufficient amount of kosher food to nullify the prohibited substance according to Scriptural Law (for only a majority is required). Hence, for the additional amount required by Rabbinic Law, a forbidden substance is also sufficient. In this instance, however, the substances are not nullified according to Scriptural Law. Hence, one forbidden substance cannot nullify another.

58.

In Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Rambam defines this as: "the meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide."

59.

The thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten (ibid.).

60.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews.

61.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed.

62.

For these entities are not considered as fit to be eaten.

63.

Based on a comparison to Chapter 14, Halachah 7, the Ra'avad explains this should be understood as meaning that if one intended to eat the meat of a sacrifice after the time when it was supposed to be eaten, the entire sacrifice, even the fetus and the placenta, become piggul. If, however, one's intent is to partake of the fetus or the placenta, the sacrifice does not become piggul.

64.

As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2, burnt-offerings brought by a gentile may be offered on the altar. According to the Rambam, even though such sacrifices are acceptable, these prohibitions do not apply.

The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling appears to reflect the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 4:3 and, most authorities - including the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah - follow the view of Rabbi Yossi who differs. It can, however, be explained that Rabbi Shimon's opinion concerns only "one who offers them outside the Temple." The preceding clause of the mishnah concerning piggul and the like is accepted by all opinions (Kessef Mishneh).

In truth, the Rambam's opinion concerning this issue is somewhat problematic. His acceptance of Rabbi Yossi's view in his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:16. Nevertheless, his ruling in Hilchot Me'ilah 5:15, like the one here, appears to follow Rabbi Shimon's view.

65.

Halachah 17 above.

66.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it reflects the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in the above mishnah. Rav Kapach notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, his original writing was rubbed out and his final statement is: "The halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon." The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution to the difficulty explaining that the Rambam is postulating that the transgressor is liable for lashes and not for karet. The exemption for karet is accepted by all opinions. Rabbi Shimon exempts the transgressor from lashes as well, but the initial opinion of the mishnah - which is accepted by the Rambam - holds him liable on that account.

67.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam equates a person partaking of them while he is impure with one partaking of them while they are impure. The Kessef Mishneh debates the Rambam's intent here.

68.

Although wood does not usually contract impurity, sacrificial wood may [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 19

1

It is a positive commandment to burn all the sacrifices that have become impure,1 as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "And the meat that will touch anything that [imparts] impurity may not be eaten. It must be burnt with fire."

Similarly, it is a mitzvah to burn notar,2 as [ibid.:17] states: "What remains from the meat of the sacrifice on the third day3 shall be burnt with fire." Included in [the category of] notar is piggul and all other sacrifices that were disqualified. They must all be burnt.

א

מצות עשה לשרוף כל הקדשים שנטמאו שנאמר והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף וכן הנותר מצות עשה לשרפו שנאמר והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף ובכלל הנותר הפגול וכל פסולי המוקדשין הכל נשרפין:

2

When a sacrifice becomes piggul or is [otherwise] disqualified, it should be burnt in the Temple4 immediately. Whenever there is a doubt whether a sacrifice has been disqualified, it should be left until the next day5 and then burnt in the Temple.

ב

קרבן שנתפגל או נפסל ישרף במקדש מיד וכל שפיסולו מספק תעובר צורתו ואחר כך ישרף במקדש:

3

There is an unresolved doubt with regard to the bulls and the goats which are to be burnt6 whether leaving them overnight or taking them outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the time to take them out7 disqualifies their meat as it would their fats and organs or not.8 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if they were disqualified and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.9

Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt if half [such] an animal was taken out [including] the majority of one limb.10 Therefore, as a stringency, it is considered as if it was disqualified and it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.

Similarly, if five people carried [such] an animal to take it outside the Temple Courtyard and three departed from [the Courtyard] and two remained, but the three removed half of the animal, [such animals] are disqualified because of the doubt and they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard.11 It appears to me that in such instances,12 it is not necessary to wait until the following day. [The rationale is that] regardless [such animals] will be burnt,13 even if they are not disqualified.

ג

פרים ושעירים הנשרפים יש בהם ספק אם הלינה והיציאה קודם שיגיע זמנם לצאת פוסלת בשרם כאימוריהן או אינה פוסלת בשרן לפיכך פוסלין אותן להחמיר וישרפו בעזרה וכן אם יצא חצי הבהמה ברוב האבר אם מחזיקין אותן כיוצא הואיל ויצא רוב האבר או עדיין אינן יוצאין שהרי לא יצא רוב הבהמה לפיכך נפסלו מספק וישרפו בעזרה וכן אם נשאום חמשה להוציאן ויצאו שלשה ונשארו שנים והוציאו השלשה חצי הבהמה הרי אלו נפסלו מספק וישרפו בעזרה ויראה לי שאין אלו צריכין להמתין עד שתעובר צורתן הואיל והן עומדין לשריפה לעולם אפילו לא נפסלו:

4

[The following laws apply when] meat is found in the Temple Courtyard: [Whole] limbs are [considered as parts of] burnt-offerings. Pieces [of meat] are considered as parts of sin-offerings.14 Pieces which are found in Jerusalem are considered as parts of peace-offerings.15 Everything should be left until the following day and then taken out to the place where sacrifices are burnt lest it be notar.16

[One might ask: If so,] of what benefit will it be that it be considered as [part of] a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, or a peace-offering? [To define the law for one] who transgressed and partook of it.17

Notar is burnt only during the day, as stated: "On the third day,18 [it] shall be burnt with fire."

ד

בשר הנמצא בעזרה איברים עולות וחתיכות חטאות והנמצא בירושלים שלמים הכל תעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה שמא נותר הוא אם כן מה הועיל שתהיה חזקתו עולה או חטאת או שלמים למי שעבר ואכל אין שורפין את הנותר אלא ביום שנאמר ביום השלישי באש ישרף:

5

Although peace-offerings are forbidden to be eating from the beginning of the night of the third day,19 [the remainder] is only burnt during the day, whether [it is burnt] at the appropriate time or not at the appropriate time.20 Similarly, piggul is burnt only during the day.21

Burning [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, or piggul does not supersede [the prohibitions against forbidden labor on] festivals.22 Needless to say, it does not supersede [the prohibition against work on] the Sabbath.

It is permitted to burn [sacrificial meat] that is impure, notar, and piggul together.23

ה

אע"פ שהשלמים אסורין באכילה מתחילת ליל שלישי אין שורפין אותן אלא ביום בין בזמנו בין שלא בזמנו וכן הפגול אינו נשרף אלא ביום ואין שריפת טמא ונותר ופגול דוחה את יום טוב ואין צריך לומר את השבת ומותר לשרוף טמא ונותר ופגול כאחד:

6

When the meat of a sacrifice of the most sacred order became impure in [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt in [the Temple Courtyard]. When it became impure outside [the Temple Courtyard], it should be burnt outside [the Temple Courtyard].24 [This applies] whether it became impure because of a primary source of ritual impurity or a derivative of ritual impurity.25

The priests never refrained from burning meat that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity - and thus it is defined as impure to the first degree - with meat that contracted impurity from a derivative of impurity,26 even though this would increase the level of its impurity.27 For [an entity that is] of third degree impurity that touches an entity of first degree impurity is considered as of secondary impurity, as explained in [the appropriate] place.28 Moreover, even oil that became impure because it touched a person who immersed on that day,29 which is of third degree impurity is permitted to be burnt in a metal lamp30 that was touched by a person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse, in which instance, the lamp is a primary source of impurity.31 Although the oil becomes impure to the first degree when it touches the lamp, since it was already deemed impure, we are not concerned with the increase of the impurity. We are only careful that an entity that is pure will not become disqualified.

ו

בשר קדשי קדשים שנטמא בפנים שורפין אותו בפנים ואם נטמא בחוץ שורפין אותו בחוץ בין שנטמא באב הטומאה בין שנטמא בולד הטומאה ומימיהם של כהנים לא נמנעו מלשרוף את הבשר שנטמא באב הטומאה שהרי הוא ראשון לטומאה עם הבשר שנטמא בולד הטומאה שהרי הוא שלישי אף על פי שמוסיפין לו טומאה על טומאתו שהשלישי שנגע בראשון יחזור שני כמו שיתבאר במקומו ולא עוד אלא אפילו שמן שנפסל בטבול יום שהוא שלישי מותר להדליקו בנר של מתכת שנגע בה טמא מת שהנר אב הטומאה אע"פ שזה השמן נעשה ראשון כשיגע בנר הואיל ויש שם שום טומאה אין מקפידין על תוספתה ואין נזהרין אלא מן הטהור שלא יפסל:

7

Notar left over from sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness32 should be burnt by the persons bringing the sacrifice in their homes.33

ז

נותר של קדשים קלים שורפין אותו בעליו בבתיהן:

8

[The following rules apply when a person] left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacrificial meat34 in his possession. If he already passed Mt. Scopus,35 he should burn it where he is. If not36 and it is the size of an olive-sized portion, he should return and burn it in Jerusalem.37 If he is a guest who does not have a home, he should burn it before the Temple38 with wood designated for the arrangement of wood [of the altar].39

ח

מי שיצא מירושלים ונזכר שיש בידו בשר קדש אם עבר הצופין שורפו במקומו ואם לאו אם יש בו כזית או יתר חוזר ושורפו בירושלים ואם הוא אורח שאין לו בית שורפו לפני הבירה מעצי המערכה:

9

All of the bones of the sacrifices that do not have marrow need not be burnt40 with the exception of the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.41 We already explained42 that when a sacrifice was disqualified after it was skinned, its hide should be given to the priests43 or to the owners, in the instance of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness. If, however, [a sacrifice] was disqualified before it was skinned, the hide is considered as the meat and it should be burnt in its entirety.44

Similarly, if a sacrifice was skinned and then it was discovered to be tereifah or it was disqualified because of an improper thought concerning time or place, since the sacrifice was not accepted, the hide should be burnt. [This applies] both to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If, however, a sacrifice was offered for the sake of a different intent, even though the obligation of the owners was not fulfilled, since it is acceptable,45 the hide is given to the priests or the owners, as explained [above]. When a sacrifice was skinned before the blood was cast [on the altar46 and the sacrifice was disqualified afterwards, the hide] is not disqualified.

ט

כל עצמות הקדשים שאין בהן מוח אינן טעונין שריפה חוץ מעצמות הפסח כבר ביארנו שהקרבן שנפסל אחר שהופשט העור לכהנים או לבעליו כקדשים קלים אבל אם נפסל קודם הפשט הרי העור כבשר וישרף הכל וכן זבח שהופשט ונמצא טריפה או שנפסל במחשבת הזמן או במחשבת המקום הואיל ולא נרצה הזבח ישרף העור בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים אבל אם נעשה במחשבת שינוי השם אף על פי שלא עלה לבעלים הואיל ונרצה הרי העור לכהנים או לבעליו כמו שביארנו וזבח שהופשט קודם זריקה אינו פוסל:

10

These are the entities that should be burnt:47 sacrificial meat that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, and also a meal-offering that became impure, notar, or was disqualified, a conditional guilt-offering in an instance when it became known to the transgressor that he definitely did not sin before its blood was cast [on the altar],48 a sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt,49 the hair of a nazirite who is ritually pure,50 and [produce that is] orlah51 or kilei hakerem.52 Entities that are not fit to be burnt - e.g., liquids that are orlah or kilei hakerem - should be buried.

י

אלו הן הנשרפים: בשר קדש שנטמא או נותר או נפסל וכן המנחה שנטמא או נפסלה או נותרה ואשם תלוי שנודע לו שלא חטא קודם שנזרק דמו וחטאת העוף הבאה על הספק ושער נזיר טהור והערלה וכלאי הכרם ודבר שאין דרכו להשרף כגון משקין של ערלה ושל כלאי הכרם הרי אלו יקברו:

11

These are the entities that should be buried: sacred animals that died, whether they were consecrated to [be offered on] the altar or for the sake of the Temple treasury - when sacred animals miscarry and discharge a fetus or a placenta, it should be buried - an ox that is stoned to death,53 a calf whose neck is broken,54 the fowl [used for the purification of] a person afflicted with tzara'at,55 the hair of a nazirite who became impure,56 a firstborn donkey [which was not redeemed],57 a mixture of milk and meat,58 and ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.59

יא

ואלו הם הנקברים: קדשים שמתו בין קדשי מזבח בין קדשי בדק הבית וקדשים שהפילו נפל הפילו שליא תקבר ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה וצפורי מצורע ושיער נזיר טמא ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה:

12

When a person weaves the full length of a sit60 from the hair of a nazirite or a firstborn donkey with a weave of goatshair,61 it should be consigned to flames.62

יב

האורג מלא הסיט משער נזיר ומפטר חמור בשק ידלק:

13

[If] any of the entities that must be buried [are burnt], it is forbidden to benefit from their ashes. It is permitted to benefit from the ashes of all of the entities that must be burnt, [even if] they are sacred, with the exception of the ashes of the outer and inner altars and the ashes of the Menorah.63

יג

כל הנקברין אפרן אסור וכל הנשרפין של הקדש אפרם מותר חוץ מדשן המזבח החיצון והפנימי ודישון המנורה:

14

None of the entities to be burnt should be buried64 and none of the entities to be buried should be burnt. [The rationale for the latter point is that] even though he is stringent by burning it, he is being lenient with regard to its ash, for the ashes of the entities that are buried are forbidden.65

יד

כל הנשרפין לא יקברו וכן כל הנקברים לא ישרפו שאע"פ שהוא מחמיר בשריפתו הרי הקל באפרן שאפר הנקברים אסור:

15

If a person was offering sacrifices together with [a priest] and he told him: "[The sacrifices became] piggul," or if he was involved with entities that are ritually pure with a person and he told him, "They became impure," his word is accepted.66 A Jew is not suspected of lying in such an instance.67 If, by contrast, he told him: "The sacrifices which I offered for you on this and this day became piggul" or "those pure objects became impure," [different rules apply]. If [the person is one] whom he trusts, he should rely on his word. If not, according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon. One who wishes to be stringent68 is praiseworthy.69

טו

היה מקריב עמו בזבחים ואמר לו נתפגלו עושה עמו בטהרות ואמר לו נטמאו נאמן לא נחשדו ישראל על כך אבל אם אמר לו זבחים שהקרבתי לך באותו היום נתפגלו ואותן הטהרות נטמאו אם היה נאמן לו סומך על דבריו ואם לאו שורת הדין שאינו נאמן והרוצה להחמיר על עצמו הרי זה משובח:

Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.

סליקו להו הלכות פסולי המוקדשין בס"ד:

Footnotes
1.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 146) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

2.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There the Rambam states that the commandment was instituted to correct the transgression of leaving the meat past its required time. See Chapter 18, Halachah 9.

3.

This is speaking about a peace-offering which may be eaten on the day it was offered and on the following day. If it was left for a third day, it must be burnt.

4.

In the Temple Courtyard, but not on the altar. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4 which states that there are three places where sacrifices are burnt.

5.

We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.

Leaving the sacrifice until the next day disqualifies it and requires it to be burnt. Since initially there was a doubt involved, this is the desired course of action.

6.

I.e., they are burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem after their fats and organs were offered on the altar's pyre.

7.

I.e., before their blood is cast upon the altar.

8.

The fats and the organs would definitely be disqualified in such circumstances. Zevachim 104b questions whether this would also apply with regard to the meat of a sacrifice and leaves that question unresolved.

9.

Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's decision, because the Talmud's query seems to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish (Zevachim 89b) who maintains that when the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness was removed from the Temple Courtyard before their blood was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. According to Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that in such an instance, the sacrifice is not disqualified, seemingly, these sacrifices are also not disqualified.

Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the issue, explaining that even Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the meat of those sacrifices is disqualified. Hence, there is reason to question what his opinion would be in this instance.

10.

If the majority of an animal is not taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it is not disqualified. Zevachim 105a speaks about a situation where only half an animal was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, but included that half was the majority of one limb. If the remainder of that limb was considered as outside the Temple Courtyard, the majority of the animal would be considered to be outside.

11.

The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on both of these instances, maintaining that the Talmudic passage which is the Rambam's source (Zevachim 104b-105a) can be interpreted differently. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's interpretation can be substantiated.

12.

All three instances mentioned above.

13.

I.e., they will definitely be burnt. The question is only where they will be burnt, whether in the Temple Courtyard, like sacrifices that are disqualified or outside Jerusalem, as is required for these bulls and goats. When, by contrast, a doubt arises with regard to other sacrificial animals, there is no obligation to burn them unless they are disqualified. On the contrary, burning them would be considered as degrading for sacred articles (Rav Yosef Corcus). Hence they are required to be left until the next day, so that they will definitely be disqualified.

14.

Even though it is permitted to cut the meat of burnt-offerings into portions (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:19), the priests were not accustomed to doing so. Rather a burnt-offering was cut up into several large portions and then brought to the altar. Hence if the meat of an animal was cut up into smaller pieces, one could assume that it was a sin-offering (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:3)]. The meat of such offerings must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.

It is also possible that the meat was from a guilt-offering, but sin-offerings are more common and hence, they were mentioned. The meat could also have come from a peace-offering - for such offerings are also cut up into smaller pieces - but out of respect to the stringencies associated with sin-offerings, it is considered in that category.

15.

Since peace-offerings may be eaten throughout Jerusalem, we can assume that meat found there was left over from such an offering.

16.

Which is forbidden to be eaten or offered on the altar. Since it is possible that the meat was left beyond its appointed time, it must be burnt as required for such meat. Nevertheless, since it is also possible that it had been sacrificed on this day, it cannot be burnt immediately. Instead, we wait until the following day when it is certainly required to be burnt and burn it at that time. For peace-offerings, it is necessary to wait two days.

17.

I.e., since it is possible that the sacrificial meat had not been left for an extra day, if a person who is permitted to eat such a sacrifice partakes of it, he is not obligated to bring a guilt-offering to atone for misusing sacrificial meat.

18.

Since the verse mentions the day, it must be burnt during those hours.

19.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:6.

20.

I.e., even if it is discovered at night, several days after the meat should have been consumed, it should be burnt on the following day and not immediately at night.

21.

The verse regarding notar serves as the basis for the ruling regarding all sacrifices that must be burnt.

22.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:10), the Rambam states the rationale: The prohibition of work on festivals is mandated by both a positive and negative commandment, while the charge to burn notar is merely a positive commandment and a positive commandment never overrides the observance of both a positive and negative commandment. See also Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 3:8.

23.

Although it is forbidden to cause sacrificial meat to contract ritual impurity - and by mixing notar or piggul with impure meat, one would be doing so - since notar or piggul are already considered impure, this provision is granted (Pesachim 15b).

24.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3-4.

25.

In the original, an av tumah, literally, "a father of impurity," and a v'lad tumah, literally, "the offspring of impurity." See Chapter 18, Halachah 12, for more details regarding these terms.

26.

The Rambam is borrowing the wording of the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6), even though - as he states in his Commentary to the Mishnah - the intent is "a derivative of a derivative," i.e., an entity of third degree impurity as mentioned here. Thus we are speaking about meat that touched an entity that had touched an entity that had touched a primary source of impurity. Indeed, the Kessef Mishneh and others suggest that text of the Mishneh Torah should be emended to reflect that understanding.

27.

The meat becomes impure only according to Rabbinical decree. According to Scriptural Law, food does not cause other food to contract ritual impurity [Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

28.

See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:15.

29.

To emerge from most types of ritual impurity, a person must immerse in a mikveh and then wait until nightfall. Even if a person has already immersed in a mikveh, he does not regain impurity until night. Until that time, he can impart ritual impurity to certain entities (Tivul Yom 2:1).

30.

But not an earthenware lamp touched by a person who became impure because of contact with a corpse, for an earthenware utensil never becomes a primary source of impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

31.

For the impurity resulting from contact with a corpse is so severe that even an entity that touches it becomes a primary source of impurity.

32.

Which may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.

33.

There is no necessity to bring it to the Temple and have it burnt there.

34.

Meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.

35.

The last place from the surroundings of Jerusalem from which the Temple can be seen. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:8.

36.

And thus the difficulty in returning is not so great.

37.

If, however, it is smaller, it is not significant and can be burnt wherever he is.

38.

The Hebrew term birah is used to refer to the entire Temple complex.

39.

This provision was made lest guests refrain from burning the sacrificial meat because of a lack of wood. See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:3 which touches on related matters.

40.

It is sufficient to merely discard them.

41.

See Hilchot Pesachim 10:1-2 which explain that the bones of the Paschal sacrifice are burnt together with its meat, because according to the Rambam, the prohibition against breaking a bone from the Paschal sacrifice applies even after the mitzvah to partake of the sacrifice is concluded, it is therefore desirable to burn the bones so that the do not become a cause of transgression. The Ra'avad mentions, based on Pesachim 83a, it can be concluded that only bones that had marrow and which were cracked open and the marrow removed must be burnt. If they have no marrow at all, there is no need to burn even the bones of the Paschal sacrifice.

According to this view, the difference between the law governing the bones of the Paschal sacrifice and those of other sacrifices can be explained as follows. It is forbidden to break open the bones of the Paschal sacrifice. Therefore if the bones of a Paschal sacrifice were broken open, we can assume that this was done after the Paschal sacrifice became notar, for, according to many authorities, there is no prohibition against breaking the bones of a Paschal sacrifice once it has been disqualified. In such a situation, the bones are forbidden, because they served notar (i.e., the marrow). (See the gloss of the Mishneh LiMelech who notes that in Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:6, the Rambam writes that even in such a situation, it is forbidden to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice, and offers a possible resolution.)

With regard to other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no prohibition against breaking their bones even during the time the sacrifice is acceptable. Hence we can assume that they were broken during that time and the marrow removed. Thus there is little likelihood that they served notar and thus became forbidden. According to this understanding, if a sacrifice was notar, any bone that contains marrow should be burnt. See the gloss of the Meiri to Pesachim, loc. cit., who implies that the Rambam should have been more explicit in his statements.

42.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:20.

43.

In the instance of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity.

44.

As the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:2) states: "Whenever the altar did not acquire the flesh [of a sacrifice], the owners do not acquire the hide."

45.

See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

46.

This is a violation of the norms of sacrificial practice (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:18). Nevertheless, it does not disqualify a sacrifice.

47.

It is forbidden to benefit from these entities. They should be burnt so that they are destroyed entirely.

48.

A conditional guilt-offering is brought when a person suspects he has violated a negative commandment, but has no definite knowledge that he did so. If he receives knowledge that he is guiltless after the animal has been slaughtered, but before its blood is cast on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified. Once its blood has been cast on the altar, the sacrifice is acceptable even if the person receives definite knowledge that he is guiltless. See Chapter 4, Halachah 19.

49.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

50.

A nazirite's hair is considered "holy" and it is forbidden to be benefit from it. Therefore at the conclusion of his nazirite vow, he shaves his head and burns his hair in the Chamber of the Nazirites that was in the southeastern corner of the Women's Courtyard (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3).

51.

Produce that grows in the first three years after the planting of a tree. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 10, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 10.

52.

Species of grain or vegetables sown in a vineyard. See Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 5.

53.

An ox - or any other animal - that killed a person. The ox is stoned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh at all (Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10).

54.

When a wayfarer is found murdered and it is not known who killed him, a calf is brought as atonement. See Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 9.

55.

As stated in Leviticus, ch. 14, Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at, ch. 11, when a person's whose body had been afflicted with tzara'at becomes pure, he must bring two birds as part of the purification ritual.

56.

As stated in Hilchot Nizirut 6:11, when a nazirite becomes impure because of contact with a human corpse, he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days. He then has his hair shaved on the seventh day. This shaving need not be performed in the Temple Courtyard.

57.

The firstborn male offspring of a donkey must be redeemed for a sheep. If it is not redeemed, it is executed and it is forbidden to benefit from its flesh (Exodus 13:13, Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).

58.

Which is forbidden not only to be eaten but also to derive benefit from (Exodus 23:19; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 9:1).

59.

It is forbidden to benefit from the meat of such animals, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.

60.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning "the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger." Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam's words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This he maintains is two thumbreadths.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between "the width of a sit" and "the full length of a sit." As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, "the full length of a sit" is two thumbreadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), "the width of a sit" is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three thumbbreadths.

61.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:3).

62.

Generally, the hair of an unredeemed firstborn donkey need only be buried, as stated in the previous halachah. Nevertheless, in this instance, the cloth must be burnt lest the forbidden substance not be recognized and the cloth considered as permitted (Temurah 34a).

63.

Temurah, op. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of the statements of Leviticus 25:3 with regard to the ash of the inner altar. From those statements, a parallel is established with regard to the other ashes mentioned here.

The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that it is only forbidden to benefit from the ashes which the priest removes when taking out the ash in the morning. He maintains that the ash on the altar is permitted. The Rambam, by contrast, maintains that all of the ash of the altar is forbidden.

64.

Because in all these instances, the mitzvah is that the article be burnt.

65.

While the ash of entities that are to be burnt is permitted.

66.

The Ra'avad states that, on the basis of Gittin 54b, both of these statements should be understood as applying while the article in question is in that person's hands. The rationale is that since he could now make the article piggul or impure, his word is accepted when he says that it was previously brought to that state.

The Kessef Mishneh states that although that is the opinion of Abbaye in Gittin, loc. cit., Ravva differs, maintaining that the law applies even when the articles in question are not in his hand. Generally, the halachah follows Ravva's opinion, but in this instance, Abbaye's view is favored.

67.

For this would cause acceptable sacrifices to be burnt unnecessary articles and pure entities to be destroyed.

68.

And accept the other person's statements.

69.

The wording of the Talmud that the Rambam quotes, "according to the letter of the law, his word [need] not be relied upon," implies that it is desirable to go beyond the letter of the law. See the parallels in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:1; Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8.

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.
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