Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 94th prohibition is that we are forbidden from burning the fats of a blemished animal [on the altar].

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "Do not place any of them on the altar as a burnt-offering." The Sifra says, "The verse, 'Do not place any of them as a burnt-offering,' refers to the fats. The phrase, 'Do not place,' implies [that a prohibi­tion exists only if one burns] all of them. How do I know [that it is prohibited to burn] even some of them? This is derived from the phrase, 'any of them' — i.e., even some of them." It is therefore clear that one who sacrifices a blemished animal transgresses four prohibi­tions [N91-94].

But this is true only if we count burning the fats as a single pro­hibition. However, if we would count burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats as two prohibitions, as this Sage does here, you would have a total of five prohibitions. This is because he considers "some" of the fats to be one thing, and "all" of them to be something else, as he said, "even any of them."

This is so even though it [burning the fats] is essentially one pro­hibition, because this Sage holds that one is lashed for [each element of] a lav she'b'klalus [inclusive prohibition].2 Therefore the Sifra says, "One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions: designating, slaughtering, sprinkling the blood, burning the fats, and burning a portion of the fats."

The Gemara says in Temurah,3 "In a case of one who brought the limbs of a blemished animal to the altar — Abaye says he is lashed separately for burning 'all' and for burning 'some.' Rava says, we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus." The Gemara then presents a contradiction: "But it says, 'One who offers a blemished animal on the altar transgresses five prohibitions,' which shows that we do give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus! This disproves Rava!"4

This discussion shows that [the Sifra] counts them as five prohi­bitions because of the opinion that we give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, and therefore the prohibitions of burning "all" and "some" are counted separately. As is well known, this is Abaye's opinion in all cases, as we explained in the Ninth Principle that preceded this work. But according to Rava, who holds that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, one would receive only one set of lashes for burning the fats, as we ex­plained.

We have already explained that the final law is that we do not give [more than one set of] lashes for a lav she'b'klalus, as explained in tractate Sanhedrin5 and as we demonstrated in the Ninth Principle. Therefore, there are only four prohibitions, as indicated by Scripture, and one who designates and offers a blemished animal receives four sets of lashes for these four prohibitions, as we explained.

All these prohibitions refer to animals which are permanently blemished, as the verse6 enumerates, [an animal with] "an over­grown7 limb or unsplit hoof8 ...or genitals which are crushed, mashed,9 detached or severed10..." — which are all permanent blem­ishes.11

All animal blemishes, both permanent and temporary, are ex­plained in the sixth chapter of Bechoros. The laws regarding these four prohibitions dealing specifically with sacrificing a blemished animal are explained in various passages in tractates Zevachim and Temurah.

Footnotes

1.

Ibid.

2.

As the Rambam explains below, and at length in the Ninth Introductory Principle, there is a disagreement in the Talmud regarding a lav she'b'klalus, an "inclusive prohibition," or a prohibition that has several elements. The Torah prohibits a Nazirite, for example, from eating grape skins and grape pits. If he eats both, how many sets of lashes does he re­ceive? According to Abaye, he receives two sets, but according to Rava, only one set, because he rules that we do not give lashes separately for each element of a lav she'b'klalus. (In our versions of the Talmud, the positions of Abaye and Rava are reversed. See Kapach, 5731, note 66.)

In our case of burning "all" of the fats and "some" of the fats, Abaye would dictate two sets of lashes, and Rava one set. Therefore, the Rambam says, the Sifra counts five prohi­bitions in accordance with Abaye's view. However, since the law is like Rava, there are only four prohibitions.

3.

7b.

4.

The Talmud answers this apparent contradiction, and, as the Rambam concludes below, the law is that there are four prohibitions.

5.

63a.

6.

Lev. 22:23-24.

7.

See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, 7:9, and notes 58, 59 in Rambam L'Am, 5723, ibid.

8.

See Bechoros 40a. See Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash, ibid., where this blemish is apparently omitted, or perhaps explained in a different fashion.

9.

Ibid. See note 48.

10.

Ibid. See notes 49, 50, 52, 53.

11.

In Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5, as well as in N95 below, the Rambam rules that these prohibitions apply to an animal with a temporary blemish as well. See Kapach 5731, note 70.

The 95th prohibition is that we are forbidden from sacrificing an animal with a temporary blemish.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement in Deuteron­omy,1 "Do not sacrifice to G‑d your L‑rd any ox or sheep that has a blemish." The Sifri2 explains that this verse refers to a temporary blemish.

The penalty for transgressing this prohibition by bringing the animal as an offering is also lashes.3

Footnotes

1.

Deut. 17:1.

2.

Our versions of the Sifri do not have this statement. See Heller, 5706, who points to "the Sifri that is called 'Midrash Tannaim.'"

3.

See Hilchos Issurei HaMizbe'ach 1:5.

The 96th prohibition is that we are forbidden from offering blemished animals that are brought by non-Jews. We should not say, "since he is not Jewish, it may be offered even if blemished."1

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not offer any such animal as a sacrifice to your G‑d, [even if it is] presented by a non-Jew."

One who transgresses and brings it as an offering is also pun­ished by lashes.

Footnotes

1.

Non-Jews are allowed to bring sacrifices to G‑d even outside the Temple, and they can even offer blemished animals. This prohibition teaches that if they bring the animal to the Temple, it must conform to the requirements of all Temple animals, and blemished ani­mals are therefore invalid.

2.

Lev. 22:25.

The 97th prohibition is that we are forbidden from causing a blemish in a sanctified animal. This is known as being matil mum bakodshim, and the punishment for doing so is lashes — upon condi­tion that the Temple is standing and it therefore could be sacrificed, as explained in tractate Avodah Zorah.1

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "It shall not have any blemish in it."

The Sifra says, "The verse, 'It shall not have any blemish in it,' means that one may not place a blemish in it."

Footnotes

1.

13b.

2.

Lev. 22:21.

The 86th mitzvah is that we are commanded to redeem sancti­fied animals that develop a blemish, whereupon they become like regular animals and may be slaughtered and eaten.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants, so that you will be able to eat the meat that G‑d gives you as His blessing."

The Sifri says, "The verse, 'You may only slaughter animals to satisfy your own wants,' speaks of sanctified animals that have become invalid and were subsequently redeemed."

The details of this mitzvah of redeeming sanctified animals are explained in tractates Bechoros2 and Temurah,3 and a number of places in Chullin,4 Erachim,5 and Me'ilah.6

Footnotes

1.

Deut. 12:15.

2.

15a.

3.

32a.

4.

130a.

5.

4-5.

6.

19b.