Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., a single Paschal sacrifice may not be divided to be eaten in two companies.

I.e., each company may eat it in only one place; it cannot be taken to a second place. See Pesachim 86a which quotes a difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of the charge (Exodus 12:46): “It shall be eaten in one house,” with one Sage offering the first explanation and another the second. The Rambam accepts the stringencies of both views (Meiri).

As stated in Hilchot Shabbat 18:1, one is not liable for transferring an article on the Sabbath unless it is of a significant size. With regard to all foods, that source defines the minimum measure as the size of a dried fig. Hence it is difficult to understand why the Rambam chooses another measure, an olive-sized portion. It is, however, possible to explain that since this is the measure with which one fulfills the mitzvah, it is also the measure for which one is liable for transferring the meat (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 123) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 15) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.

As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 13:1, for a person to be liable for transferring an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath, he must pick it up from the initial domain and place it down in the second domain.

Although the previous clauses had defined the term “house” used in the prooftext as “company,” the term still retains its simple meaning. Thus if one removes the meat from the house in which it is being eaten, he violates the above prohibition (Rav Yosef Corcus).
Rav Yosef Corcus continues, stating that as long as there is only one company eating in a house, the physical parameters of the house define the limits relevant with regard to this prohibition. If there are two companies in the same house, it is the manner in which they are seated that is significant.

Note a parallel in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:7 which states that the roofs and the lofts of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard were not consecrated.

Even if the meat is returned to its designated area, the prohibition against partaking of it still applies. The meat must be burnt. Note Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh who state that some versions of the Mishneh Torah incorporated that concept into the text itself.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:6. See also Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 5:9; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:12). There, based on the Mechilta to Exodus 22:6, the Rambam cites a non-literal interpretation of Exodus 22:30: “Meat in a field [from an animal that is] treifah, you shall not eat.” The use of the term “field” implies that once meat has left its designated place, it is considered as treifah.

I.e., a portion of the limb remains in the area where it was designated to be eaten and a portion is removed.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (foe. cit.).

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1.

For the bones of the Paschal sacrifice need not be burnt (Pesachim 83a).

I.e., each company is partaking of a separate sacrifice. The Rambam is quoting the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:13). Although the Talmud (Pesachim 86b) offers a different interpretation of that mishnah, in view of the final halachic decision, that interpretation must be considered as having been offered as part of the dialectal give-and-take that characterizes the Talmud and the interpretation given by the Rambam is accepted as the conclusion.

In a response, the Rambam’s son, Rabbenu Avraham states that the partition need not be a wall, it is sufficient to place utensils around the groups in a manner that distinguishes one from the other.

The Kessef Mishneh asks: Since each company constructs a partition around its borders, why is it necessary for them to also face different directions? He explains that the Rambam could be understood as providing alternatives: either separate the companies by a partition or have them face opposite directions.

The wines of the Talmudic era were very strong and it was common practice to mix water into the wine before partaking of it.

Who serves both companies but eats as a member of one.

Le, before he turns to serve the other company, he must have his mouth closed.

I.e., until a divider is again positioned between them.

This is the rationale for the second clause which requires the company not to be separated from each other. See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus which offers a different interpretation.

This is the rationale for the first clause which requires the companies to remain distinct.

I.e., even though had all the others come on time, they would not have received such ample portions (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Meiri writes that this is not desirable and they should leave over at least one olive-sized portion for each member of the company.

This represents the Rambam’s understanding of Pesachim 86b (and is reflected in Rabbenu Chananel’s treatment of the passage). The Ra’avad interprets that passage differently (as does Rashi) and hence, objects to the Rambam’s ruling.

Until at least a third member of the company arrives (Meiri).

Here also the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since they agreed to partake of the Paschal sacrifice as a company, one might think that it is necessary for each participant to wait until all completed eating. Hence, the Rambam clarifies that the other members of the company do not have such a responsibility.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 128) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 13) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.
The commentaries have drawn attention to the fact that, in contrast to the command mentioned immediately afterwards, in his listing of the commandments at the beginning of these halachot, the Rambam words this command as “that an apostate should not partake of [the Paschal sacrifice],” i.e., the commandment is addressed to the apostate himself (compare to note 34). The wording here and in Sefer HaMitzvot, however, implies that the prohibition is against enabling such a person to partake of the sacrifice.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7, this term refers to “a non-Jew who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other [six] universal laws commanded to Noah’s descendants. He does not circumcise himself or immerse [in a mikveh].” See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6; Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

The Mechilta explains that this refers to a non-Jew who has not accepted these commandments.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 126) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 14) include the prohibition against enabling these individuals to partake of the Paschal sacrifice as a separate mitzvah and count it as one of 613.
Significantly, the Ra’avad interprets this prohibition differently, explaining that it prohibits one from giving the meat of the Paschal sacrifice to one of the members of his household or his workers (even if they are Jewish), if they were not enumerated on the Paschal sacrifice beforehand.

The Meiri and the Sefer HaChinuch, op. cit., explain that the person giving the food to these individuals is not liable for lashes for he did not perform a forbidden act. Even if he gave these individuals the meat of the sacrifice, they still did not have to partake of it. See also note 34 below.

Exodus 12:43. From the Mechilta to the verse, it appears that “the foreigner” mentioned in the command could be either an apostate Jew or a gentile idolater.

The prohibition is obviously not addressed to the gentiles themselves (for the Torah is the heritage of the Jews). Thus the charge must be interpreted as meaning: “Do not bring about a situation that will enable a gentile to partake of it.” Since the prohibition is not explicitly stated, a person is not liable for lashes for violating it (Kessef Mishneh).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 127) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 17) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot. Here it is obvious that the commandment is addressed to the uncircumcised person. Even if a Jew has halachic dispensation not to be circumcised - e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision - he may not partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

Indeed, he is obligated according to Scriptural Law to partake of matzah.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 5.

I.e., how can there be a situation where one is prevented from partaking of the Paschal sacrifice because he has not circumcised his son or servant, but he was not prevented from slaughtering it for that reason.

E.g., the son's fever abated at 4:30 in the afternoon on the seventh of Nisan. It is not until 4:30 PM on the fourteenth—which is after the time of the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice, but before it is eaten that he is obligated to be circumcised.

The baby was scheduled to be circumcised on the fourteenth in the morning. His eyes hurt and because of the danger, the circumcision was postponed, but he was healed by the afternoon. In such a situation, there is no need to wait seven days. See Shabbat 137a; Hilchot Milah 1:16.

A person whose genitalia is covered by a mound of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender.

There is a printing error in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. Our text follows the version found in authoritative manuscripts.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 121-122) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 16, 383) include these prohibitions as separate commandments in the reckoning of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

As described in Chapter 7, Halachah l. When, however, an individual Paschal sacrifice that had been slaughtered in a state of purity becomes impure, the prohibition applies, as stated in Halachah 6.

When the sacrifice is eaten.

When it is forbidden to partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

I.e., to prevent them from being broken. See Halachah 5.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:9.

Pesachim 84b derives this concept from the prooftext cited above. It begins: “It shall be eaten in one home” and then continues “You shall not break a bone.” Implied is that the prohibition refers only to a bone that has meat that could be eaten.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 7:.11) states that even one person can be liable twice if he breaks the same bone of a Paschal sacrifice a second time.

See Halachah 2.

Burning is not breaking and sinews are not bones. Moreover, it is not appropriate to speak of breaking sinews (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Thus a prohibition was violated in its preparation (see Chapter 8, Halachah 4).

In which instance, it is disqualified; see Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

It was slaughtered or its blood received, brought to the altar, or poured on the altar with the intent that it be eaten in an improper place (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

Any of the above services were performed with the intent of partaking of the sacrifice at an improper time (ibid.).

Any of the above services were performed for the sake of any other sacrifices aside from the Paschal sacrifice (ibid. 15:11).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s rulings, noting that the matters discussed in this and the previous halachah are all subjects of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and the other Sages. In the previous halachah, the Rambam follows the view of the Sages, while in this halachah, he accepts Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi’s position. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that the discussion of these points in the Talmud appears to corroborate the Rambam’s rulings even though they represent opposing positions among Mishnaic Sages.

The bones of a large ox are firm. If even after cooking, one could not eat it, it is a bone and not cartilage.

I.e., the Paschal sacrifice must have at least an olive-sized portion of meat for each person enumerated on it. Although these sinews may be eaten, they are not considered in the above reckoning.

This is not considered as breaking a bone.

The gid [hanesheh] which is forbidden to be eaten; see Genesis 32:33; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot, ch. 8.

The Ra’avad takes fierce objection to the Rambam’s words, stating: By the life of my head, there is no greater prohibition than this - to roast a Paschal sacrifice with the sciatic nerve, its fat, the fat below its loins, and the membranes in the head. If I will merit to partake of the Paschal sacrifice and a Paschal sacrifice like this will be brought to me, I would smash it to the ground before [the bearer].
The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus defend the Rambam’s perspective, explaining that the fundamental point is that, as evident from Pesachim 74a, it is desirable to roast the Paschal sacrifice whole. Now if the sciatic nerve and the other membranes that are usually removed before meat is roasted or cooked would be removed, it would not be whole.
Rav Yosef Corcus states that there are certain expert butchers who can remove forbidden fats and the like without cutting the animal into pieces. Hence the Ra’avad maintained that one should have such measures taken. According to the Rambam, he maintains, since there is great difficulty in preparing the meat in this manner, it is not necessary. Although there are forbidden fats and the like in the sacrificial animal, there is no difficulty in roasting it whole. In explanation, he cites the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:32: If [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs, i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it, until he reaches the fat. Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted together with the sciatic nerve, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the sciatic nerve. [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it. When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.
It must be emphasized that the leniency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the meat is roasted and not when it is cooked. Moreover, even when the meat is being roasted, the goat must be lean, as stated in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot. Having emphasized these points, there is, as Rav Yosef Corcus explains, no reason to forbid the sacrifice. To cite the points raised by the Ra’avad individually:
The sciatic nerve - It has no flavor. Hence there is no difficulty in it being cooked with another entity (ibid.:17).
Its fat - Although the fat of sciatic nerve has flavor and hence, causes entities to be forbidden, that prohibition is Rabbinic in origin (ibid. 8:1-2) and is not applied in this instance.
The fat below the loins - This is also a Rabbinic prohibition (ibid. 7:8).
The membranes in the head - The difficulty is the blood they contain and the Paschal sacrifice is roasted with its head hanging down and the blood will flow out (ibid. 6:14).
The Kessef Mishneh maintains that all fat that is prohibited by Scriptural Law was removed before the animal was roasted.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 117, 119) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 8, 382) include these prohibitions as separate commandments in the reckoning of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

This is a general rule, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2. The commentaries also note that the violation of this prohibition does not involve a deed, which is another reason why lashes are not given.

The commandment to burn sacrificial meat that was left over beyond the time it is permitted to be eaten is not unique to the Paschal sacrifice, but applies to all sacrificial meat. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:1; Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143).

In contrast to the Paschal sacrifice that may not be brought from cattle.

Here the intent is not a large—or small-sized animal. Instead, the intent is that we need not be concerned with the animal's age. Although the Paschal sacrifice itself must be brought from an animal in the first year of its life, there is no such restriction with regard to this peace-offering.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:11.

It is singled out in this manner, so that it will not be confused with the festive offering that the person is obligated to bring on Pesach itself as on all the other festivals, as mentioned in Hilchot Chagigah 1:1. Even if one brings this offering, he is required to bring a separate sacrifice to fulfill his chagigah obligation.

We are forced to say that this is the verse’s intent, for as mentioned above, the Paschal sacrifice itself may not be brought from cattle (Sifri to the above verse).

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 6:3). In such an instance, many people would be enumerated on all the Paschal sacrifices and there would not be enough meat for each one to eat to the point of satiation as required (see Chapter 8, Halachah 3). In such an instance, the festive-offering is brought to compensate for that lack.

For individual offerings are never brought on the Sabbath except the Paschal sacrifice.

Similarly, individual offerings are never brought in a state of impurity except the Paschal sacrifice.

And thus there will be no difficulty in each person eating to the point of satiation.

Pesachim 69b states that this is obvious from the points stated in the previous halachah. Were the festive offering to be an obligation, it would have to be brought in all those instances as well.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:6. Thus the consumption of this festive offering is not dependent on the Paschal sacrifice.

I.e., the sixteenth of Nisan. The sacrifice is offered on the fourteenth. That day is counted. Thus the third day is the sixteenth.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 118) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 486) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Pesachim 71b explains that since the verse also mentions “the first day,” the implication is that it will be eaten for the entire first day after it was sacrificed and then burnt on the morning of the second day.

See Halachah 11 and Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:9.

Which theoretically could be left until the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan.

Which in and of themselves are not obligated to be burnt.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.

I.e., we are concerned that some of the meat of the Paschal sacrifice become mixed with them or attached to them and would accidentally be eaten after midnight (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Leaven and leavened products.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 3:8.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 15.

Halachah 12 above.

Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

There is an obligation to eat the second Paschal sacrifice together with matzah, but there is no obligation to remove chametz from one’s possession at that time.

On the basis of Isaiah 30:29, Pesachim, Zoe. cit., derives that Hallel is recited at night only on a holiday and the second Pesach is not a holiday.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

For the second Paschal sacrifice is offered during the day and there is no difficulty in reciting Hallel during the day (Pesachim, Zoe. cit.). See Chapter 1, Halachot 11-12. Alternatively, as Pesachim, Zoe. cit., asks rhetorically, “Is it possible that the Jews will bring their Paschal sacrifices and not recite Hallel!”

See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

These last three points are explicitly mentioned in Numbers 9:11-12.

That verse and the previous one mention several specific laws concerning the second Paschal sacrifice. Since the Torah made the general statement cited in the prooftext, there would be no need to single out these particulars. Their mention implies that the general principle mentioned previously is restricted (see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 9:3)].

In Exodus, ch. 12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 53) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 489) include this as one of 613 mitzvot. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 13) where the Rambam explains that the fact that the mitzvah is observed on three separate occasions does not cause it be considered as three separate mitzvot.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 52) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 88) include this as one of 613 mitzvot.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 54) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 488) include this as one of 613 mitzvot.

I.e., the first day of the three pilgrimage festivals: Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot. The laws applying to compensating for failure to bring the offering on the first day are mentioned in Halachot 4-8.

Young doves or turtle-doves. See the Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus who discuss this ruling, noting that seemingly, Chagigah 7a requires that these burnt-offerings be brought from domesticated animals and not from fowl. They suggest that the Rambam had a different version of that passage. The Or Sameach brings support for the Rambam’s ruling here from Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 4:7 which states that a leap year could be declared because of a lack of doves for the festival pilgrims. Why would the festive pilgrims need doves? For these burnt-offerings.

A goat, a sheep, or a bull.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 156) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 490) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.

As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, one is only liable for lashes for violating a negative commandment that involves the performance of a deed.

And not from fowl. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:11.

See more particulars in Chapter 2, Halachah 1. Women are not obligated in the observance of these mitzvot, because they are positive commandments whose observance is associated with a specific time and there is no specific verse teaching that women are obligated.

See also Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:17 which states: The “rejoicing” mentioned in the verse refers to sacrificing peace-offerings .... Nevertheless, [included in this charge] is that a person, his children, and the members of his household should rejoice, each one in a manner appropriate for him. In the following halachah in that source, the Rambam explains that each person should celebrate the festivals in a way which gives him natural satisfaction.

Although this prooftext is not referring to peace-offerings brought on festivals, it does teach us that rejoicing in God’s presence involves peace-offerings (Kessel Mishneh).

See Chagigah 6b and Rosh HaShanah 6b which interpret the term “your household,” in Deuteronomy 14:26: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household,” as referring to the person’s wife. The Ra’avad explains that although women are obligated to rejoice on the festivals, they are not obligated to bring sacrifices. Instead, her husband should bring her rejoicing. Rav Yosef Corcus states that one could interpret the Rambam’s words as meaning that a woman fulfills her obligation with her husband’s sacrifice, but the simple meaning is that there is an independent obligation incumbent upon her.

This applies both to the value of the sacrifice, as stated here, and also the number of sacrifices brought, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

Implying that everything is dependent on the person’s generosity.

Equivalent to the weight of sixteen barley corns of pure silver [Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 1:2)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that the peace-offerings must be more substantial, because in contrast, to the burnt-offerings which are consumed merely by the altar, the peace-offerings are consumed by the owners as well.

From Chagigah 1:5 (quoted in Halachah 11), it appears that the Rambam is referring to the continuation of the phrase: “According to the blessing of God your Lord which He granted you.”

We have translated kessef as “silver,” because of the contrast to gold mentioned tater on. It could, however, be translated as “money,” because the reason for the preference of silver is that it was the medium of exchange commonly used when trading in the marketplace.

According to Rabbinic decree.

We are concerned that he will conduct his transaction in haste and not realize that the money he received contains impurities. In contrast, if he brought money from home, it cart be assumed that he inspected it.

The Rambam does not mention the celebratory peace-offerings, because the mitzvah to bring them applies equally throughout the holiday (Rav Yosef Corcus).

From this concept, a parallel is derived with regard to the burnt-offerings.

For; as stated in Halachah I and the following halachah, the fundamental mitzvah is to bring these offerings on the first day of a holiday.

I.e., the sacrifices should be brought as soon as possible, without undue delay.

We have translated the verse according to its interpretation in Berachot 28a, the Rambam’s source. A literal translation would lead to a different meaning.

There are some authorities (see Turei Even to Chagigah 9a) who recommend bringing the sacrifices afterwards. as freewill offerings.

Although in some contexts Shemini Atzeret is considered as a separate holiday (see Sukkah 47a), in this context, it is still considered as part of Sukkot.

Chagigah 17a understands the fact that the three holidays are mentioned together in the same verse as an allusion to the concept that Shavuot is also granted days of compensation. Nevertheless, only six days of compensation are granted like Pesach, rather than seven like Sukkot; for the minimum - rather than the maximum - addition is made.

Though the Rambam does not mention the celebratory peace-offerings in this clause, everything stated applies to them as well.

Thus if the first day of the festival is the Sabbath or the majority of the people, priests, or sacrificial utensils are impure, the offering should not be brought.

Which are brought in such instances, as stated in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:9-10.

In Halachot 4-7. Although it is preferable to bring the sacrifices on the first day, since it is not an absolute requirement, no leniency is granted in this instance.

And are offered on those days although there are prohibitions against performing labor.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter between the School of Shammai who rule that the offering of these sacrifices should also be postponed and the School of Hillel who rule that they should be offered. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 494:19 which explains that since the burnt-offerings are offered entirely on the altar and not eaten by their owners, many people adopted the stringency suggested by the School of Shammai and did not offer them on a holiday. (Note similar statements by Tosafot Rid, Chagigah 18a.)
See also Likkutei Sichot, Shavuot, 5746, which explains that the stringency is associated particularly with the holiday of Shavuot and was instituted to emphasize how that holiday is a day of celebration for the Jewish people on the material plane.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:4-5 for an explanation of these two different types of sacrifices.

Since they are not associated with the holidays per se, and can be brought afterwards, there is no reason to allow them to be offered on the holiday itself (Beitzah 20b).

Which a person voluntarily commits himself to bring.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:6, 11, 13, which state that, generally, before offering a sacrifice, a person must lean on the sacrificial animal with all his might, placing both hands on its head. This act is called semichah.

Ibid.:12. Since it is not an indispensable element of offering the sacrifice, one might think that it would be forbidden, because generally, we are prohibited against making use of animals on the Sabbath and festivals (see Hilchot Shabbat 21:9).

The term shvut refers to a prohibition instituted because an activity resembles an activity forbidden on the Sabbath or might lead to the performance of such an activity (See Hilchot Shabbat 21:1).

There are certain restrictions against performing work on these intermediate days (Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 7:1). Nevertheless, based on the verse cited, our Sages (Beitzah 19b, Chagigah 7a) did not impose those restrictions in this instance.

The sacrifices mentioned previously in that Biblical passage.

To enable the members of his household to derive satisfaction from the festival.

As long as he brings the minimal measure, he fulfills his responsibility. There is no need to impoverish himself to bring these sacrifices.

To express his thanks to the Almighty.

Lest the sacrificial meat be left over beyond the required time and thus disqualified.

Chagigah 8b; see Halachah 2.