Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

(Based on Diagram which Accompanies Rav Kapach's Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)

a) one who has the center of his forehead depressed below as if it was pushed down with one's hand;

b) one who has the center of his forehead raised up above, like an egg;1

c) one who has the sides of his head emerge toward his face like a hammer;

d) one whose head projects outward abnormally from his neck;

e) one whose head is abnormally large to the extent that it sits on his neck like a turnip on top of its leaves;2

f) one who is bald and has no hair whatsoever on his head. If, however, he has a row of hair extending across the back of his head from ear to ear, it is acceptable.

g) a person's whose hair extends from ear to ear on the front of his head, but he is bald on the remainder of his head, he is unacceptable;

h) a person whose hair extends around his entire head from the front and the back, but he has no hair on the top of his head. He also is deemed bald and is unacceptable.

There are two involving the neck. They are:

a) one whose neck is sunk [into his trunk] so much that it appears to be placed on his shoulders;

b) one whose neck is so long that it appears unconnected with his shoulders.

There are four involving the ears. They are:

a) one whose two ears are very small;

b) one whose two ears are very swollen like sponges;

c) one whose ears hang down low;

d) one who has one ear differ from another in appearance.3

There are five involving the eyebrows. They are:

a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyebrows. This is the meaning of the term gibein mentioned in the Torah; 4

b) one whose eyebrows hang low;5

c) one who has only one eyebrow;6

d) one who has more than two eyebrows;

e) one who has one eyebrow that is different in appearance than the other, whether the hair on one is long and on the other, short, or the hair on one is black and, on the other, white or red, since there is a difference in appearance, he is unacceptable.

There are four involving the eyelids. They are:

a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyelids;

b) one who has very thick hair on his eyelids;

c) one who has an eyelid whose hair is different from that of the other eyelid, e.g., one is black and the other white, one is thin and the other is thick;

d) one whose eyelids are closed slightly and do not open wide like those of other people.

There are eleven involving the eyes. They are:

a) one whose two eyes are positioned above their appropriate place, close to his forehead;

b) one whose two eyes are positioned below their appropriate place;

c) one whose two eyes are round and are not extended slightly as other eyes are;

d) one whose eyes pop out like the eyes of a tiger and like the eyes of a person who looks at someone when he is very angry;

e) one whose eyes are very large, like those of a calf;

f) one whose eyes are small, like those of a duck;

g) one who is continuously tearing;

h) one who has fluid [continuously]7 dripping from the tip of his eyes near his nose or the ends of his eyes near his temples;

i) one who contracts his eyelids and squints slightly when he sees light or when he wishes to look at something carefully;

j) a person who is cross-eyed to the extent that he sees two storeys of the same building as one.8 This defect can be noticed when such a person is speaking with one person and it appears that he is speaking with another;

k) one who has one eye that is different than the other, whether in place, in appearance, e.g., one is black and the other is of mixed color, or one is small and one is large. Since there is a difference between them, he is unacceptable.

There are six involving the nose. They are:

a) one whose bridge of the nose is sunken, even [if it is not sunken] to the extent that he can apply ointment to both of his eyes at once.9 This is the meaning of the term charum mentioned in the Torah;10

b) one whose middle of the nose projects upward;

c) one whose tip of the nose points downward;

d) one whose tip of the nose is crooked;

e) one whose nose is disproportionately large;

f) one whose nose is disproportionately small. How is this measured? With one's pinky. If one's nose is larger or smaller than his pinky, it is considered a blemish.

There are three involving the lips. They are:

a) one whose upper lip extends beyond his lower lip;

b) one whose lower lip extends beyond his upper lip;

c) one whose mouth [hangs] loosely and [hence,] spittle is continually descending from his mouth.

There are three involving the belly. They are:

a) one whose belly is swollen;

b) one whose navel projects outward, rather that being concave like that of other people;

c) one whose breasts are extended and lie on his stomach like the breasts of a woman.

There are three involving the back. They are:

a) one whose spine is crooked;

b) one who has a vertebra that slipped out of the spinal column, regardless of whether it projected outward, penetrated inward, or slipped to the side. This is included in the term baal chatoteret11;

c) a person with a hunchback. Even though a vertebra has not slipped from its place, this is still considered a blemish.

There are six involving the hands. They are:

a) one who has an extra finger on his hands, even if he has six on each hand.12 If he cuts the extra finger off, he is acceptable. If, however, it had a bone, he is unacceptable, even if he cuts it off;

b) one who is lacking one of the fingers of his hand;

c) one who has two fingers webbed and connected until below the joint.13 If he cut and separated them to the joint, he is acceptable. Which joint is implied? The first joint that is next to the palm of one's hand;

d) one whose fingers are bent over each other;

e) one who has a projection emerging from his thumb;

f) a left-handed person. If he is ambidextrous, he is acceptable.

There are four involving the reproductive organs. They are:

a) one who has a very large and long scrotum that reaches his knees;

b) one whose organ is so long it reaches his knees;

c) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles were crushed;

d) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles are inflated. This is the meaning of the term miruach ashech mentioned in the Torah;14

There are fifteen involving the thighs and the legs. They are:

a) one who is bow-legged to the extent that even when he stands with his feet together, his knees will not touch each other;

b) one whose ankle-bone projects outward. The ankle bone is the round bone that is above the heel, toward the inside of the body. It resembles the weaving needle with which women weave;

c) one whose heel juts outward to the extent that his shin appears to be in the center of his foot;

d) some whose feet are wide like a duck's even though they are not webbed like a duck's;

e) one who has a projection emerging from his large toe;15

f) one who has an extra toe on his feet, even if he has six on each foot. If he cuts the extra toe off, he is acceptable, provided it does not have a bone;

g) one who is lacking one of the toes of his foot;

h) one whose toes are bent over each other;

j) one whose toes are webbed until below the joint. If they were connected and he cut and separated them, he is acceptable;

k) one whose foot is entirely straight; i.e., the width of his forefoot and his toes is the same as the width of his heels, and they appear as one straight unit;

l) one whose foot is curved so that his forefoot and toes and his heel appears as the two ends of a bow;

m) one whose foot is hollow; i.e., his mid-foot is upraised above the earth and it is as if he is standing on his heel and his toes;

n) one whose ankles click with each other when he walks;

o) one whose knees click with each other when he walks;

p) one who is left-footed.

There are four that involve the entire body:

a) one whose trunk is disproportionately larger than his limbs;

b) one whose trunk is disproportionately smaller than his limbs;

c) one who is extremely tall;16

d) a dwarf, i.e., one who is extremely short, so that they are distinguished from people at large.

There are eight involving the skin. They are:

a) a Kushite;

b) an albino whose skin is white like cheese;

c) one who is red-skinned like scarlet;

d) one who has pure blotches on his skin,17 i.e., [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an internal factor, like a bohak;18

e) [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an external factor, like the scarring of a burn; this is also one of the distinguishing marks that are pure [with regard to tzara'at];19

f) one who has a facial mole that has hair, even if it is not the size of an isar,20 but rather of the smallest size;21

g) one who has a facial mole the size of an isar or more;22 h) one afflicted with warts, [when] a person's flesh or skin should distend or the fluids in the skin should distend to any part throughout the body, this is a blemish.

There are four other blemishes possible for a human:

a) one who is deaf;

b) one who is intellectually or emotionally unstable;

c) an epileptic, even if his seizures come at far intervals;

d) one who suffers from severe depression,23 whether on a consistent basis or from time to time.

Thus there are a total of 140 blemishes that may disqualify a priest.24 They are: eight involving the head, two involving the neck, nine involving the ears, five involving the eyebrows, seven involving the eyelids, nineteen involving the eyes, nine involving the nose, nine involving the mouth, three involving the belly, three involving the back, seven involving the hands, sixteen involving the reproductive organs, twenty involving the legs, eight involving the entire body, eight involving the skin, seven involving the body's strength and odor. They have all been outlined one by one.

The following disqualify [a priest] because of the impression they may create:25

a) one who has lost the hair of his eyelids even though the roots remain;

b) one whose teeth have been removed.

When a non-priest serves in the Temple, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Numbers 18:7] states: "A non-priest who draws close will die." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that one does not become liable unless he draws close to perform service.1 Where is the warning concerning this?2 [Ibid.:4] states: "A non-priest shall not draw close to you."3

What is meant by a non-priest? Anyone who is not a male descendant of Aaron, as [Leviticus 1:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall arrange" and [Leviticus 3:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall set afire." [These service are performed by] "the sons of Aaron" and not the daughters of Aaron.4

Although non-priests are warned not to perform any of the services associated with offering sacrifices, they are liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] only for performing "complete service,"5 not on service that is followed by other service.6 [Thus] a non-priest is liable for death only for four services: a) sprinkling;7 b) setting afire [sacrifices on the altar];8 c) pouring water [on the altar] on Sukkot, and d) pouring wine on the altar at all times.

How is one liable for sprinkling? Whether he dashed [blood] inside [the Temple building]9 or outside, [in the Temple Courtyard],10 performed one of the sprinklings of blood or performed one of the sprinklings of the sacrifices brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at,11 he is liable for death.

How is one liable for setting afire [sacrifices on the altar]? Whether he set afire limbs [of animal sacrifices], a handful of flour, or of frankincense12 on the altar - or even if he turned over limbs that had not been consumed by fire and hastened their being burnt,13 he is liable for death, provided he set afire an olive-sized portion of these entities. Similarly, if one sets afire incense on the golden altar, when he sets afire an olive-sized portion,14 he is liable. In contrast, one who sets fire to incense on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies is not liable for death for this until he sets fire to a handful, for that is the measure explicitly [required] by the Torah.15

[A non-priest] who arranges two logs of wood on the altar's pyre is considered comparable to one who set [sacrificial] limbs afire and he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven for doing so]. For the wood is also considered as a sacrifice.16

In contrast, [a non-priest] who pours [oil onto the flour offerings], one who mixes [the flour offerings with oil],17 one who breaks [the wafers of meal offerings] into pieces, one who salts [the sacrifices], one who waves [the sacrifices], one who brings [a meal offering] close to the altar, one who arranges the showbread or the bowls of incense on the [golden] table, one who prepares the lamps [of the Menorah],18 one who kindles light on the altar, one who takes a fistful [of flour or incense], and one who receives the blood [of a sacrifice], even though he disqualifies his service, he is warned against doing so and is liable for lashes for doing so, he is not liable for death at the hand [of Heaven]. [The rationale is that] all of these services are followed by another service and they do not represent the completion of the offering [of a given sacrifice].

The slaughter of sacrificial animals is acceptable if performed by non-priests.19 [This applies even to] sacrifices of the most holy order, both individual sacrifices and communal sacrifices, as [Leviticus 1:5] states: "And he shall slaughter the bull before God and the sons of Aaron shall offer it." Implied is that from receiving [the blood], the mitzvah belongs to the priesthood. Similarly, skinning an animal, cutting it up, and bringing wood to the altar are acceptable when performed by non-priests, for with regard to the limbs, [ibid.:9] states: "And the priest shall set afire everything on the altar," this refers to bringing limbs [from sacrificial animals] to the [altar's] ramp. [We may infer that] bringing such limbs requires a priest, but not bringing wood.

Similarly, the kindling of the lamps [of the Menorah] is acceptable20 if performed by a non-priest. Therefore, if a priest cleaned the lamps and brought them outside,21 a non-priest is permitted to kindle them.

The removal of the ashes [from the altar] must be performed by a priest,22 as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And the priest will put on his linen fit tunic...." If an Israelite removes [the ash], he is liable for lashes.

He is not liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] even though this is a service that is not followed by another service.23 [This is derived as follows. The verse that speaks of the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, Numbers 18:7,] speaks of "work of giving."24 [Implied is that] the work of giving must be performed by a priest alone. If a non-priest offered [a sacrifice], he is liable for death. The service of removal25 does not make a non-priest liable for death. Similarly, if a non-priest cleaned the inner altar or the Menorah, he is not liable for death.

[If a non-priest] arranged the wood on the altar, the arrangement should be taken apart and rearranged by a priest, because the [initial] arrangement is unacceptable.26

An impure [priest], one with a disqualifying physical blemish, and one who did not wash his hands or feet27 are not liable28 except for services that a non-priest is liable for death.29 For other services, he [violates merely] a warning.

A priest who immersed that day30 or one who is lacking atonement,31 who became impure,32 who also did not wear [all the required priestly] garments, nor did he wash his hands and feet [that day] and yet served [in the Temple] is liable for each transgression.33 If he was a non-priest,34 he is liable for lashes only for serving as a non-priest.35

When a non-priest performs [Temple] service on the Sabbath, he is liable for violating the Sabbath laws36 and for serving as a non-priest.37 Similarly, when a priest with a physical blemish serves while ritually impure, he is liable [both] for [serving] while impure and for serving with a blemish.38

Any priest who served a false deity, whether willingly or inadvertently - even if he repented completely - may never serve in the Temple,39 as [Ezekiel 44:13] states: "They40 shall not draw near to Me, to serve Me." [This prohibition applies] whether [a priest] serves the false deity in its rites, e.g., he became a priest to the false deity, he bowed down to it, or acknowledged its [divinity] and accepted it as god. [In all these instances,] he is disqualified [to serve in the Temple] forever.

If [such a priest] transgressed and performed service, his sacrifice is not considered as a pleasing fragrance41 even if he acted inadvertently when he served, bowed down to, or acknowledged [the false deity]. If, by contrast, one slaughtered an animal for a false deity inadvertently and then transgressed and offered a sacrifice [in the Temple], the sacrifice is considered a pleasing fragrance and is accepted, for he did not perform service for the false deity or become its priest; all he did was slaughter an animal for it42 and that was performed inadvertently. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, he should not perform service [in the Temple].

If one transgressed and built a shrine outside the Temple and offered a sacrifice to God there,43 it is not considered as a Temple to a false deity. Nevertheless, any priest who serves in such a shrine should never serve in the Temple. Similarly, utensils that were used there should never be used in the Temple. Instead, they should be entombed. It appears to me44 that if a priest who served in such [a shrine] performs service in the Temple, it does not invalidate it.45

Thus there are eighteen factors that disqualify [a person] from serving [in the Temple]. They are: a) one who served a false deity;46 b) a non-priest;47 c) one with a disqualifying physical blemish;48 d) one who is uncircumcised;49 e) one who is impure;50 f) one who immersed that day [and must wait until nightfall to become pure];51 g) one who is lacking atonement;52 h) one who is in a state of acute mourning;53 i) one who is intoxicated;54 j) one who is lacking the priestly garments;55 k) one who is wearing extra garments;56 l) one whose garments were torn;57 m) one whose hair has grown long;58 n) one who did not wash his hands and feet;59 o) one who sits;60 p) one who had an entity intervening between his hand and the sacred utensil [he is using];61 q) one who had an entity intervening between his foot and the earth;62 r) one who served with his left hand.63

All of the above are disqualified from serving and if they serve, they invalidate their service with the exception of those with long hair, those with torn garments, and one who slaughtered for a false deity inadvertently. If these individuals serve, their service is acceptable.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.

Introduction to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach

They contain fourteen mitzvot: four positive commandments and ten negative commandments. They are:

1) To offer for all sacrifices only unblemished cattle;
2) Not to set apart a blemished beast for the altar;
3) Not to slaughter (such a beast for the altar);
4) Not to sprinkle its blood;
5) Not to burn its fat (on the altar);
6) Not to offer up a beast with a temporary blemish;
7) Not to offer a beast with a blemish, even when presented by gentiles;
8) Not to inflict a blemish in cattle set apart for the altar;
9) To redeem cattle, set apart for the altar, which have become unfit to be offered up;
10) To offer up a beast, only when at least eight days old; before then, it is immature and is not to be offered up;
11) Not to offer up for sacrifice the hire of a harlot or "the price of a dog";
12) Not to burn on the altar leaven or honey;
13) To salt all sacrifices;
14) Not to omit seasoning all sacrifices with salt.

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

It is a positive commandment for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of choice quality,1 as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "unblemished to arouse favor."2 This is a positive commandment.3

[Conversely,] anyone who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar violates a negative commandment4 and is liable for lashes5 for consecrating it, as [ibid.:20] states: "Whatever has a blemish should not be sacrificed." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against consecrating a blemished animal. Even one who consecrates such an animal for the money to pay for libations6 is liable for lashes, for this represents a disgrace to the sacrifices.7

[When a person consecrates an animal and] intends to say [that it is consecrated as] a peace offering, but actually says "as a burnt offering," or [intended to consecrate it] as a burnt offering, but said, "a peace offering," his statements are of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are identical.8 Therefore if one intended to consecrate a blemished animal as a burnt offering, but consecrated it as peace offering or intended to consecrate it as a peace offering, but consecrated it as burnt offering, he is not liable for lashes even though he intended to perform a transgression.

If someone thought that it was permitted to consecrate a blemished animal for the altar and did so, the consecration is effective and he is not liable for lashes.9

One who slaughters a blemished animal for the sake of a sacrifice10 is liable for lashes,11 for [ibid.:22] states: "Do not offer these12 to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who slaughters.

Similarly, one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar is liable for lashes,13 for, with regard to them,14 [ibid.:24] states: "Do not offer to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar.

And also one who sets afire the selected portions of blemished sacrifices on the altar is liable for lashes,15 for, with regard to them,16 [ibid.:22] states: "Do not place them as a fire offering on the altar." This refers to the fats. Thus we can deduce that one who consecrates a blemished animal, slaughtered it, poured its blood [on the altar], and set afire its selected portions is worthy of four sets of lashes.

One transgresses the above commandments whether the animal has a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish, he violates all of these commandments, as [Deuteronomy 17:1] states: "Do not sacrifice to God your Lord an ox or a sheep that has a blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning [against offering] an animal with a temporary blemish,17 for example, an animal had a moist skin eruption or a boil.18 If he sacrificed, it, he is liable for lashes.

[The above applies], not only to sacrifices of the Jewish people, but also to the sacrifices brought by gentiles.19 If [a priest] offered [such sacrifices] and the animals were blemished, he is liable for lashes,20 as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "From the hands of foreigners, you may not offer the food of your God from all of these."21

One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand,22 is liable for lashes.23 For with regard to a sacrifice, [Leviticus 22:21] states: "It shall not have any blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning not to cause a blemish."

Lashes are given [for the violation of this prohibition] only when the Temple was standing, for then [the animal] was fit to be offered as a sacrifice and [the person] disqualified it. In the present age, by contrast, even though one transgressed a negative commandment, he is not liable for lashes.24

If a person brought about a blemish25 in a sacrificial animal and another person came and brought about a second blemish, the second person is not liable for lashes.26

[This prohibition applies] both with regard to one who causes a blemish in sacrificial animals themselves or in animals to which their holiness was transferred27 with the exception of a firstborn or a tithed animal. In those instances, one who causes a blemish in an animal to which their holiness was transferred is not liable for lashes, for they are not fit to be sacrificed, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28 Similarly, one who causes a blemish in the ninth animal which was mistakenly called the tenth,29 is not liable for lashes.

Although one who consecrates a blemished animal30 [for the sacrifices of] the altar is liable for lashes,31 [the animal] becomes consecrated. It must be redeemed [after] evaluation by a priest.32 It then reverts to the status of an ordinary [animal]33 and its money should be used to purchase [an animal for the same type of] sacrifice. This law also applies when a consecrated animal contracts a disqualifying blemish.34

It is a positive commandment to redeem sacrificial animals that contracted disqualifying blemishes and cause them to revert to the status of an ordinary animal so that one may partake of them,35 as [Deuteronomy 12:15] states: "Nevertheless, whenever your heart desires, you may slaughter and partake of meat." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that must be redeemed.36 We already explained in [Hilchot] Arachin37 that [Leviticus 27:11] states: "With regard to any impure animal38 of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, [you shall have the animal stand before the priest...]",39 is speaking about blemished animals that have been redeemed.

What are the differences between [the laws pertaining to an animal] with a permanent blemish and one with a temporary blemish? If an animal with a permanent blemish40 gives birth while it is consecrated,41 the offspring must be redeemed; it then receives the status of an ordinary animal even if it is unblemished.42 [The rationale is that] a secondary entity should not be treated with greater severity than the primary entity.43 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth after it was redeemed, the offspring has the status of an ordinary animal.44 If [the consecrated animal that was blemished] died before it was redeemed, it should be redeemed after it died.45 [The rationale is that] holiness never encompassed its actual body, only its worth, because it had a permanent blemish.46

If, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that possesses a temporary blemish or he consecrates an unblemished animal and after he consecrated it, it contracted a permanent blemish [different laws apply]. If it died before it was redeemed, it should be buried like other unblemished consecrated animals,47 because it must be stood before the court and evaluated,48 as we explained in [Hilchot] Arachin.49 If it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, it may be redeemed as long as it is making convulsive motions.50 Afterwards, one may partake of it. If it gave birth, its offspring may be sacrificed.51 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed52 and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden.53 It may not be redeemed. What should be done? Before the mother is redeemed, the offspring should be dedicated to the same [type of] sacrifice as its mother,54 because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.55

Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified56 is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers' market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat.57 [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes.58

[The rationale for the distinction is that] selling the animal in the market causes its price to rise. Therefore other sacrifices whose value remains consecrated - for they are sold and the proceeds of the sale are used to bring another animal as a sacrifice - it should be sold in the market like an ordinary animal.59 In contrast, with regard to a first born animal and a tithed animal - since the proceeds of their sale do not remain consecrated, instead, the animals may be eaten [as ordinary meat,] because of the blemish, as will be explained60 - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers' market or sold there.61 Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated,62 it should not be weighed on a scale and sold in a market.63 [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.64