Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence.1 Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul,2 if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.

The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.3

What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service.4 The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal.5 If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.6

If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has a disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.7

They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally,8 as will be explained.9 Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.10

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent,11 it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings.12

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy13 while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed,14 there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent,15 because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.16

If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.17

These are elements of sacrificial [animals] that are not fit to be eaten, but are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre:18 its blood,19 its eimorim,20 the meat of a burnt-offering, and the handful of meal and the frankincense from the meal-offerings from which such a handful is removed.

These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal-offering,21 the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.

These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard],22 the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim,23 the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers24 of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail.25 Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices.26 This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.

A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt.

If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services,27 one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable.

What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard]28 or on the following day,29 the sacrifice is acceptable.30 [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day.

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable.31 Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt,32 outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable.33 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If34 one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul,35 as we explained.36 If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul.37

The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.38 Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.39

If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one.

If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion,40 they can be combined because both are called eating.

If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,41 the eating is combined.42 If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion and at the time of casting [the blood on the altar], he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion, the two intents - whether concerning the place or the time - are combined. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning an olive-sized portion43 at the time he received [the blood] and [such an intent] concerning an olive-sized44 portion while bringing [it to the altar, they are combined]. For all the four services [mentioned above]45 are combined and can be considered as a single service.

If one had a [disqualifying] intent regarding offering half an olive-sized portion of the handful [of meal] and [a similar intent] regarding half an olive-sized portion of the frankincense,46 they are combined. For with regard to the meal-offering, the frankincense and the handful [of meal] are considered like the eimorim for an animal sacrifice. Therefore, if one had the intent to offer an olive-sized portion of frankincense at an improper time, [the meal-offering] is considered piggul, as we explained.

Whether one had the intent to cast all [of an animal's] blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day or had the intent to cast [only] a portion of its blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, since he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning the amount of blood sufficient to present on the altar,47 [the sacrifice] is disqualified.