Get the best of Chabad.org content every week!
Find answers to fascinating Jewish questions, enjoy holiday tips and guides, read real-life stories and more!
ב"ה

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

Show content in:

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

1

We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.

When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the intent concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4

What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, If one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5

Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.

The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place is combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.

א

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת מַחֲשֶׁבֶת המָּקוֹם הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הַקָּרְבָּן פִּגּוּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן מַחֲשָׁבָה אַחֶרֶת. אֲבָל אִם עֵרֵב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּפֶסַח וּבְחַטָּאת עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. כֵּיצַד. שָׁחַט וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ וְזָרַק וּמַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וּבִשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת הָיְתָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה. אוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם מַחֲשָׁבָה כְּלָל בִּשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת. הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא פָּסוּל בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. אֵין זֶה פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא פָּסוּל. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּעוֹפוֹת וּבִמְנָחוֹת. אֵין שָׁם פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא קָרְבָּן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בְּסוֹף וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּקָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסָלִין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם:

2

When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;

an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8

half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or

half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.

ב

הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּם לֶאֱכל כְּזַיִת מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה בַּחוּץ וּכְזַיִת לְמָחָר. אוֹ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר וּכְזַיִת בַּחוּץ. אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר. אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְכֵן אִם עֵרֵב הַמַּחְשָׁבָה בְּהַקְטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

3

If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10

ג

חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְלֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. בֵּין שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת כְּזַיִת בֵּין שֶׁאִחֵר אוֹתָהּ. שֶׁאֵין חֲצִי זַיִת חָשׁוּב אֵצֶל כְּזַיִת:

4

If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul.11

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12

ד

חִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְעַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת חֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְחֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:

5

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained.13 If one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14 If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15 [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

ה

חִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְמַעְלָה אוֹ עַל הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְתִתָּם לְמַטָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּמַחְשָׁבוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן פּוֹסְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְעֵרֵב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לְבַדָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

6

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,

[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,

he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or

he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16

Since we have explained in these halachot17 that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood which was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18 [There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

ו

חִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַעְלָה לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַטָּה. אוֹ עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַטָּה לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַעְלָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל. אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הוֹאִיל וְשִׁנָּה מְקוֹם נְתִינַת הַדָּם בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּהֲלָכוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נִתַּן בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָמָּה לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה פִּגּוּל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה זוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִתֵּן הַדָּם שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לְמָחָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַדָּם הַנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר אֵינוֹ מַתִּיר הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל זְרִיקָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה אִם חִשֵּׁב לִתְּנָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ לֹא פִּגֵּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב בְּזֶבַח זֶה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

7

If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19 [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].

ז

חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל עַד שֶׁיְּחַשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בְּכָל הַמַּתִּיר שֶׁהוּא הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה. בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצַת הַקֹּמֶץ וְלִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נְתִינַת שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּכְלִי. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָתָן אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָתָן:

8

If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20 Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.

If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21

ח

חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרַת הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁיַּקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְמָחָר אֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל שֶׁאֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַלֶּגֶת הַקְטָרָה. וְכֵן אִם הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל שְׁיָרִים לְמָחָר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְטִיר אֶת הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיַּקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה וְחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּשְׁטָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בְּכָל הַמִּנְחָה:

9

If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23

ט

הִקְטִיר כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֹׁם מִן הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֹׁם מִן הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר. עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כָּל הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָךְ מְעַט מְעַט אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטַר [קֵ] מְצָהּ:

10

When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24 and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul.25 If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26

י

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא אוֹ מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וְחִשֵּׁב בָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁלִּקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה חִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:

11

If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27 and thus it is piggul or it was not established28 and it is not piggul.

יא

שְׁיָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה וְהִקְטִיר הַקֹּמֶץ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִקְבְּעוּ לְפִגּוּל וַהֲרֵי הֵן פִּגּוּל. אוֹ לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

Test Yourself on This Chapter

Footnotes
1.

Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

2.

Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah.

3.

Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul.

4.

As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.

5.

I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first, as long as another intent is mixed together with the intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. In Zevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.

6.

More precisely, that the meat be eaten whether by himself or by someone else.

7.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.

8.

Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time.

9.

As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined.

10.

In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.

The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text.

11.

I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. The fact that - had the person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, the first half portion would have been combined with the second half portion is not of consequence Ravva (Zevachim 31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.".

12.

Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded.

13.

Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

14.

Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent the sacrifice from being considered as piggul.

15.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is not piggul.

16.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.

It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.

17.

Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

18.

Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

19.

Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought.

20.

For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggul only when one thinks of it while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah.

21.

Even though neither of the intents in their own right would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, when combined, they have this effect.

To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.

22.

As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable.

23.

There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance in Menachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).

24.

Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10.

25.

Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed.

26.

Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar.

27.

For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.)

28.

For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah