Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1, 3, 11.

As stated there, this also applies to receiving its blood, carrying the blood to the altar, and pouring it on the altar.

Zevachim 7b derives this concept from Exodus 12:27 which states: “And you shall say, “It is a Paschal sacrifice,”’ implying that it must be sacrificed for that purpose.

In contrast, all other sacrifices other than a sin-offering are acceptable if sacrificed for the sake of another type of offering, as stated in that source.

The Rambam’s statements here parallel his approach in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:8 and Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:15. The Tosefta, Pesachim, 4:7, the Rambam’s source, does not mention “a later time.” Nevertheless, from Gittin 54b, the commentaries (see Meiri to Gittin, loc. cit.), understand the Rambam as following the approach of Abbaye who maintains that as long as it is within a person’s potential to bring about a change, his word should be accepted. (The rationale is that since he could disqualify the matter himself if he so chose, we accept his word that it already became disqualified.) Once the matter is out of his hands, there is no obligation to accept his word; it is only pious conduct.
It can also be explained that, as long as they have the opportunity, they should have themselves enumerated on another Paschal sacrifice, so that they will have fulfilled the mitzvah. After the time of the Paschal sacrifice passes, i.e., “at a later time,” the law stated by the Rambam applies.

And bring a second Paschal sacrifice on the fifteenth of Iyar.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements, because as mentioned in the conclusion of the previous chapter, one may not bring a sacrifice when one is unsure if he is obligated, because he may be slaughtering ordinary animals in the Temple Courtyard. Even in this instance when it is possible to make a conditional statement, saying: “If I am obligated to bring a Paschal sacrifice, this should be considered as a Paschal sacrifice and if not, as a peace-offering,” that is undesirable, because the way the blood of the two sacrifices are presented differs and as an initial preference, it is forbidden to present one in the manner the other is presented.
The Lechem Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that the conclusion of the previous chapter was speaking about a situation where four of the five companies had offered acceptable sacrifices. Hence it is not appropriate that they violate a transgression, however minor, in order to enable the others to fulfill their obligation. In this instance, by contrast, it is preferable for the person to violate this minor prohibition to ensure that he is not liable for karet for failing to bring a Paschal sacrifice. He, nevertheless, notes that this explanation can be questioned based on Chapter 6, Halachah 10.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam interprets the mishnah which is the source for this halachah as speaking about the blood of the sacrifice.

I.e., although the fats and the organs could be offered on the altar, since the primary purpose of this sacrifice is that its meat be eaten (see Chapter 2, Halachah 3), there is no point in doing so.

And he is obligated to bring a second Paschal sacrifice.

Although the sacrifice may not be eaten, the persons bringing it are not obligated to bring a second Paschal sacrifice. For at the time the blood was poured on the altar, the sacrifice had not been disqualified (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Lechem Mishneh questions the Rambam’s ruling, noting that in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:7, he states that the High Priest’s forehead plate “does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure.”
According to the above explanation, however, there is no difficulty, for the Rambam was not suggesting that the sacrifice be eaten.

Provided there is an olive-sized portion for all those enumerated upon it (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Tosefta, Pesachim 6:4).

Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam interprets the mishnah that is the source of this halachah as referring to the priest offering the sacrifice. In his gloss to his translation of that commentary, Rav Kappach states that the Rambam had rubbed out and written over his words, indicating that he had reconsidered the matter.

For they will not be able to partake of it and, as above, the entire purpose of the Paschal sacrifice is that it be eaten.

Hilchot Nizirut 6:18; see also Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:6, defines “impurity [likened to] the depths” as impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which “no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows,” See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.

Which disqualifies it, because it was taken out of the place where it may be eaten (Rav Yosef Corcus). The commentaries explain that the Rambam’s statements here represent a reversal of his original understanding of Pesachim 7:9. There he interprets that mishnah as referring to a Paschal sacrifice taken outside of the house where it was taken to be eaten.

There is no need to wait until the following day, because the disqualifying factor concerns the meat itself.
In contrast, if the sacrifice becomes impure on the fifteenth of Nisan, it cannot be burnt until after the passage of the first day of the holiday, for disqualified sacrifices are not burnt on the sacred days of a festival (Hilchot Yom Tov 3:8).

I.e., needless to say this applies if they became impure or died after the blood was offered, for then there was a time when the sacrifice was fit to be eaten.

The literal meaning of the words used by the Rambam is “[It should be left] until its form decomposes.” The translation we used is based on Rashi (Menachot 46b). In the instances described in this clause, the sacrifice itself is acceptable. Nevertheless, it may only be eaten by those designated to partake of it. Since they are disqualified, it may not be eaten. Nonetheless, it should not be burnt immediately, because it is forbidden to burn sacrifices until they themselves have been disqualified.

In this instance, it could not be burnt until the morning of the sixteenth, because disqualified sacrifices should not be burnt on a holiday.

On the fourteenth of Nisan.

I.e., either the blood or the owners became impure after the Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered.

Thus at the time the Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered, there was no one eligible to partake of it.

Since the Paschal sacrifice was offered without anyone halachicly eligible to partake of it, it is considered as if it is inherently invalid and it should be burnt immediately (Kessef Mishneh).

Based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim, the conclusion of ch. 7, it would appear that even if those who remained pure had started eating, they acquire the portion of those who became impure if the latter had not begun eating.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:8). More particularly, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:4, the term birah refers to a place on the Temple Mount outside the Temple Courtyard where sin-offerings that were disqualified are burnt.

Tosafot, Pesachim 82a, explain that when the wood was consecrated for the altar, the court had in mind that it could also be used for this purpose.

I.e., if the people would have to burn it with their own wood, were there to be extra wood, when they take it home, some might think they are taking wood designated for the altar (Rashi, Pesachim 82a).

Which are not fit for the altar and thus would not arouse suspicion.

It may, however, be taken to the Temple and burnt there using wood designated for the altar. Indeed, the miserly would burn it in that manner to save money (Pesachim 7:8).

And use it for their own purposes.

As stated in Chapter I, Halachah 1, a Paschal sacrifice must be a male in the first year of its life.

The Rambam’s ruling follows the same interpretation of the mishnah in Pesachim 97b as Tosafot. It must be emphasized that the text of the mishnah as cited by the Talmud is different than it appears in the standard text of the Mishnah (and also the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah).
The commentaries question the Rambam’s ruling, noting that Pesachim 98b states that this teaching leads to the conclusion that once an animal is deemed unacceptable for a sacrifice, it remains unacceptable forever and in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23 and other sources, the Rambam rules that “living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.” Even though an animal was deemed unacceptable for a sacrifice, it may become acceptable if circumstances change.
To relate these concepts to the issue at hand, the Talmud is stating that since the female was deemed unacceptable for a Paschal sacrifice, it is unfit to ever be sacrificed. Therefore it cannot be offered as a peace-offering itself, but must be sold (after becoming blemished) and the proceeds used to acquire another animal for the sacrifice. According to the Rambam, however, seemingly, the female animal could itself be brought as a peace-offering, instead of leaving it to contract a blemish and then selling it.
Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the apparent contradiction in the Rambam’s ruling, stating that in this instance, the female animal is inherently unfit to serve as a Paschal sacrifice. Hence it can be “deemed unacceptable forever.” In contrast, in the other instances where the Rambam refers to this principle, it is extraneous factors and not inherent ones that disqualify the sacrifice. Hence his ruling in this instance varies. Alternatively, it can be said that the Rambam follows the interpretation of the “living animals are deemed unacceptable forever” offered by Rabbenu Chananel: that since the animal was consecrated as a Paschal sacrifice (for which it is unfit), its worth and not its physical body was consecrated. Accordingly, its physical body is “deemed unacceptable forever” and can never be consecrated for another purpose.

For as stated in Shekalim 2:5 and in Halachah 10 of this chapter, any money designated for a Paschal sacrifice that is leftover should be used for a peace-offering. In this instance, it is not necessary to wait until the animal contracts a blemish.

Without enumerating anyone else on his sacrifice.

Since there was no one enumerated on this sacrifice, others cannot be enumerated on it, nor may it be offered without anyone considered as its owners. It is, therefore, offered as a peace-offering, because, as mentioned above, what is leftover from a Paschal sacrifice should be used for a peace-offering (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For then the son is considered as an owner of the Paschal sacrifice. He may offer it alone or have others enumerated with him.

The term onain refers to a person in acute mourning because one of his close relatives died that day. As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 9, “a person who is in an acute state of mourning is fit to eat a Paschal sacrifice in the evening because the observance of aninut at night is a Rabbinical institution and [the Sages] did not uphold their decree in a place of karet in this instance. Instead, [others] may slaughter for his sake…. When does the above apply? When his [relative] died after midday and he was already obligated to bring a Paschal sacrifice. If, however, his [relative] died before midday, they should not slaughter for his sake. Instead, he is deferred until the second Pesach.”

For as stated previously, what is leftover from a Paschal sacrifice should be brought as a peace-offering. This follows the principle that “living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever.” As such, there is no need to wait for the remaining animal to contract a blemish. It may itself be brought as a peace-offering.
This interpretation runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Pesachim 9:6) which follows the perspective that “living animals that are deemed unacceptable remain unacceptable forever.” As explained above, the Rambam maintains that the Mishnah reflects a minority opinion and that according to Halachah, they do not remain unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh). The Ra’avad, however, protests the Rambam’s ruling, stating that the ruling of the abovementioned mishnah should be followed.

For it is what remains after a Paschal sacrifice.

See Hilchot Temurah 2:1 for a definition of this term.

For it too, is considered as what remains after a Paschal sacrifice.

In this instance, since the animal is associated with two types of sacrifices, it does not have the power to have its holiness transferred to another animal in a complete sense. Therefore the animal to which its holiness is transferred is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice itself (Kessef Mishneh).

And thus is no longer acceptable to be offered as that sacrifice.

E. g., an animal brought from what remains from a Paschal sacrifice or an animal to which the holiness of a Paschal sacrifice was transferred as explained above.

Leaning of the animal before it is slaughtered (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:6).

The wine libations and meal-offerings brought together with a peace-offering (see ibid. 2:2).

See ibid. 9:6.

For the Paschal sacrifice that became intermingled is comparable to the money that remained from a Paschal sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., one as a peace-offering and one as the other type of sacrifice.

Since he does not know which was the more valuable and he should not bring a lesser animal in place of it, he must suffer the consequences. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 9:8), where he elaborates in his description of this situation.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:5-6.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Bechorot 1:18.
The mixture may not be sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan, because there is a difference in the laws applying to partaking of these sacrifices. The firstborn offering may only be eaten by priests (in contrast to the Paschal sacrifice which may be eaten by all Jews) and the Paschal sacrifice may be eaten only on the night of Pesach (in contrast to the firstborn offering which may be eaten throughout the following day). Since we do not desire to reduce either the time or the individuals eligible to partake of a sacrifice, our Sages ruled that the option described above was preferable (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:12).

For in contrast to a blemished firstborn animal, the holiness of a blemished Pachal sacrifice may be transferred to another animal (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Temurah 3:2).

If, however, his Paschal sacrifice was not offered, he may offer this animal for that sacrifice.

In all these instances, initially, the person is unable to consecrate an animal as a sacrifice and afterwards, he has that capacity.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23.

Pesachim 70b derives this concept as follows: Deuteronomy 16:2 states: “And you shall slaughter the Paschal sacrifice... [from] sheep and cattle.” Now cattle may not be offered as a Paschal sacrifice. Why then does the verse mention them? To teach that what is left over from a Paschal sacrifice may be used for a sacrifice that may be brought from cattle, i.e., a peace-offering.

I.e., the festive offering brought with the Paschal sacrifice, as described in Chapter 10, Halachah 12.

They are not consecrated and may be used for any purpose the recipient desires, even for his personal needs.

Usually, if one desires that money that was consecrated to be considered ordinary funds, it must be used to purchase an ordinary animal and then the holiness of the money is transferred to the animal. The Rambam, based on Pesachim 90a, is explaining why this instance is an exception.

As stated in Exodus 12:8, as quoted in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

Although the money was originally set aside for the Paschal sacrifice, it may be used for these purposes.

Thus the stipulation mentioned in the previous halachah must also have been extended to apply in such situations as well.