Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering whose owner died, as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Since this money was set aside to be used for a sin-offering, it may not be used for any other purpose. Hence, it should be cast in a place where no one will benefit from it. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:2).
Although the term Yam HaMelach is generally translated as “the Dead Sea,” it literally means “the Salt Sea.” In several places in his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam interprets the term as referring to the Mediterranean.

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

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

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

For the same reasoning as in the previous halachah.

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

See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:2.

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

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

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

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

Hilchot Shekalim 3-13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ra’avad differs and, based on Nazir 27a, maintains that the text should read: “He should not bring a sin-offering.... He should not bring a burnt-offering.” He also explains that this version is preferable, for, otherwise, there would be no reason why the money mentioned in the following clause should be consigned to be destroyed. Seemingly, there is no difference between that clause and the situation mentioned in the previous halachah.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that text. Because of the difficulties the Ra’avad raised, the Kessef Mishneh suggests a third version: If he desires to bring a sin-offering, he should. If he desires to bring a burnt-offering, he should not.

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