Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., those outlined in the previous chapter.

I.e., with regard to an animal, there are sacrifices which require a male and others which require a female. Such distinctions are not made with regard to sacrifices brought from fowl. All sacrifices are acceptable whether one brings a male or a female. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8.

The commentaries explain that the fact that the fowl lost its sight is not enough to disqualify it. It must be as if the eye has been removed.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 11.

See ibid.:10.

I.e., young, underdeveloped birds. They are considered as "lacking in age" (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8).

We have translated the verse literally so that the source for the concept derived is clear. None of the other animals prescribed for sacrifices are described as b'nai, "the children of." By using that term, the Torah sought to imply that the birds must be young and underdeveloped.

An intermediate stage of development.

It is unacceptable for turtle-doves, because such a fowl is still considered in its preliminary stages of development. It is not mature yet. Yet it is unacceptable for ordinary doves, because such a fowl has developed beyond its initial stages.

An animal whose sexual organs were covered by a mass of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined.

An animal with both a male and female sexual organ.

Which could be offered if it possessed a blemish.

Even though it makes no difference if a fowl is male or female, it must be definitely a male or definitely a female.

For Caesarian section is not considered as "birth."

See Halachah 8.

I.e., the mother was pregnant. It was slaughtered and the fetus was removed alive from its womb and then consecrated as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that since this animal is also born through Caesarian section, it is not mentioned as a separate category in the first clause of this halachah and in Halachah 11.

Either a male or a female. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3.

In Chapter 4, Halachah 2, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation where the forbidden sexual act was observed by only one witness, by the owners, or the animal was consecrated before being brought to court, or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If, however, the forbidden sexual act was performed by a Jew and observed by two witnesses, once the matter was ruled upon by the court, the animal must be executed and is certainly unacceptable as a sacrifice. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 3,5 for more details regarding the disqualification of such an animal.

Even if it had not been used for such worship as of yet. See Chapter 4, Halachah 4, which explains when such an animal is disqualified. As the Radbaz explains in his gloss to that halachah, this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

This refers even to an animal that was worshipped or set aside for pagan worship, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1.

The commentaries to that verse explain that its intent is that even animals were mating with partners from different species. It is, however, unlikely that this is the Rambam's intent in citing that prooftext. Most probably, the intent is that only animals that shared relations with humans are forbidden.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, for more particulars concerning this category.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 100) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 571) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the prohibition involves two subjects, not one, it is still considered as only one prohibition. See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, for more details on why the two prohibitions are considered as one mitzvah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 60) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 293) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger postulates that this mitzvah applies only with regard to animals. Young doves, by contrast, may be offered even before their eighth day of life. This conclusion can be derived from the Rambam's wording in the following halachah and in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 3:10 which allows a chick to be slaughtered for food even on the day of its birth.

See ibid. 1:11-12 for more particulars. There the Rambam states that it is preferable to offer a sacrifice after it is at least one month old.

The Rambam adds this explanation, because in contrast to the disqualifying factors mentioned in Halachah 7, this factor is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).

As can be inferred from the prooftext cited.

See Halachah 2 which explains when these doves are fit to be offered.

That same halachah explains when these doves become unacceptable.

See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:7-9 which mentions other time factors that render an animal unfit to be sacrificed.

There is no specific prohibition forbidding such offerings. Instead, the manner in which the positive commandment is stated in the Torah makes it clear that a younger fowl is prohibited, as stated in the previous halachah.

Since these types of animals are not acceptable as sacrifices as explained in the previous halachot, the consecration is not effective.

Immediately; there is no need that one wait until the animal is blemished.

The Ra'avad emphasizes that the person's words are not entirely of no consequence. Instead, the animal must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. This, he explains, applies only when the person states: "This animal is consecrated to the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," his words are of no consequence and no holiness is attached to it at all.

I.e., if an animal with a blemish is consecrated, the animal itself becomes holy. Also, the one who consecrates it is liable for lashes (Radbaz).

See also Hilchot Temurah 1:14, 3:5, when one desires to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a blemished animal, the transfer is effective and the blemished animal is considered as consecrated. This does not apply with regard to these animals.

Were it to be unblemished. Therefore even when it is blemished, the holiness of an animal can be transferred to it.

Which are all unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachot.

For ultimately, it will come of age, and then be acceptable for sacrifice.

In Halachah 8. There the Rambam states that one who offers such a fowl is not liable. From that, we can infer that one who consecrates it is also exempt.

As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

As explained ibid.:11.

And the forbidden animal cannot be identified. Note the parallels in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:2.

Zevachim 73a,b states that the rationale is that animals are important and therefore are never nullified in a mixture. The Sages then ask: Let us have the herd in which the animal is mixed moved and then we will follow the principle: Whenever one is separated, we consider it to have separated from the majority (which in this instance is permitted). They reply that this is not done because of a Rabbinical decree, lest an animal be removed from the mixture while it is at rest.

Temurah 30b states that it is disrespectful to offer an animal that has been associated with such a transgression as a sacrifice. From the following halachah, it appears that the rationale is that it is considered to have actually taken part in the transgression.

The disqualification of the offspring in those four instances.

In keeping with the principle (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:12; Temurah, loc. cit.): "A fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother."

For in that instance, the animal was brought into being by two factors, one of which is associated with a source forbidden as a sacrifice (the mother) and another (the father) which was not (ibid.).

For a chick is an entirely new entity that was not directly associated with the forbidden animal (ibid. 31a).

As mentioned in the previous halachot. I.e., just as the offspring is the product of the forbidden animal, the flour is the product of the grain. See Avodah Zarah 46b-47a.

In this instance, it is not even remotely connected to the forbidden entity. See Temurah, loc. cit.

Similarly, an animal brought by a gentile to sacrifice as a burnt offering is acceptable (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2).

King Saul gave this explanation to the prophet Samuel after failing to destroy the herds of the Amalekites. Although that excuse was rejected, it was rejected only because God had explicitly stated that the Amalekites' herds must be destroyed. Had there not been such a command, presumably they - and by extension, animals belonging to any other gentile nation - would have been acceptable.