Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 6

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 63) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 115) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This refers both to the burnt-offerings brought by individuals and those brought by the Jewish people as a whole.

Having described the general principles that apply with regard to all the sacrifices, the Rambam begins to focus on each one individually, describing its laws in a particular chapter or set of halachot. Here the Rambarr: focuses on the manner in which the sacrifices are brought. In later sets of halachot, he speaks of the obligations of individuals and of the Jewish people as a whole to bring these sacrifices.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of the animal and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.

All of these are not fundamental parts of the animal’s body. Hence while they are connected to the body, they are considered as part of it and must be offered on the altar’s pyre. The implication is that ordinarily, they would not be separated and the animal would be offered on the altar while they were attached. Nevertheless, if they had been separated and they had descended from the altar, they are considered as distinct and there is no longer any obligation to offer them.

If, however, they flew off the pyre, but remained on the altar, they should be placed back on the pyre (Meilah 9b).

This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:5).

Indeed, if they were brought up to the altar as separate entities, they should be taken down again, rather than offered (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:16). Nevertheless, if they were separated on the altar itself before they were offered, they should not be taken down, but instead should be offered on its pyre (Radbaz, Rav Yosef Corcus).

The prooftext is defining the meat and the blood as the fundamental elements of a burnt offering. The implication is that it is necessary for them to be consumed by the altar’s fire and hence, they must be returned to the altar if they flew off. There is, by contrast, no fundamental necessity for the secondary elements of the animal’s body to be consumed by fire. Hence there is no obligation to return them to the altar if they flew off.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 9:6), the Rambam explains that often we see that when entities that contain moisture are placed on a fire, the moisture will vaporize. At times, the process will be powerful enough to lift up that entity and propel it upward.

When at times a distinction is made, as the Rambam explains in the second portion of the halachah.

To be consumed by its fire, as the mitzvah requires.

For the mitzvah of having them consumed by fire has been completed.

I.e., they did not become like ash.

Zevachim 86a notes that the prooftext cited speaks of the burnt offering being on the altar’s fire “the entire night, until the morning.” From the redundancy, our Sages derive that within the night, a distinction should be made. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

See Halachot 10-18 which describes the manner in which the limbs are brought to the altar.

For salt must be applied to all offerings (see Hilchot lssurei Mizbeiach 5:11-12).

Different priests would perform this service, i.e., one priest would bring a limb to the ramp and salt it and another one would bring it to the top of the altar (Radbaz, Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:6,8).

The Rabbis identified the gid hanesheh as the sciatic nerve, the large main nerve running down the back of an animal’s hind leg. This nerve must be separated before the meat of an animal is eaten or offered on the altar. See Hilchot Ma’acholot Assurot 8:1 for more details.

It should not be removed beforehand, because the limb will not look attractive as it is being carried to the altar (Chulin 90b).

As described in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.

Indeed, the altar's ramp was separated slightly from the altar itself to insure that the limbs were thrown on the fire rather than merely placed there (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:13).

As obvious from the continuation of the halachah, the hole is not made in the animal's foot, but on its thigh above its knee. Thus it will remain hanging after its legs were cut off.

There were pillars in the Temple Courtyard with hooks to serve this purpose (Hilchot Beil HaBechirah 5:13).

Perhaps because of its weight, hanging it up would present a difficulty.

In Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:6, the Rambam states that the skinning of the animal and its division into portions need not be performed by a priest.

If he would skin the breast before cutting off the head, the skin would hang from the neck and it would be difficult to cut off the head precisely (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 4:2). Alternatively, since the head is offered first, it is appropriate that it be cut off first (Radbaz).

The portion below the knees.

I.e., the portion from the knee until the shoulder joint.

I.e., the fat that is on the digestive organs.

So that when the head is carried to the altar, the opening where it was severed will not be seen. This is a gesture of respect for the Divine Presence.

I.e., even water that is collected is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).

This chamber is described in Hilchat Beit HaBechirah 5:17. The stomach was washed there, because it would not be respectful to wash out its filth in the Temple Courtyard.

Since they are narrow, it is difficult to clean them thoroughly. At least three washigs are necessary. If more are required to clean them, they should be washed more [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:2)].

For it is sacrificed with the tail, as stated in Halachot 9 and 13.

For the backbone is offered with the left flank.

The Radbaz explains that the backbone is left intact so that the vertebrae will not separate into individual units.

The ribs that were left are also taken with it (Radbaz).

Rav Yosef Corcus states that there is no Scriptural source for the division of the animal in this manner. Instead, this was simply the most practical and logical way of dividing it.

In this way, a portion of the animal with many bones (the head) and much meat (the leg) will have been offered. The head is also given priority, because it has been mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz).

For the offering of the head is most important.

Since carrying the limbs to the altar is not part of the atonement process, there is no difficulty in it being performed with one’s left hand (Rabbenu Asher).

I.e., the outer side. Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 4:4).

These limbs are the largest and hence, receive priority.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). Others interpret the term bezech differently.

To cover them, for their appearance is not appealing (Radbaz).

Since a ram is much larger than a sheep, it would be difficult for one priest to carry the intestines alone. The Radbaz explains that the intent is that the intestines are cut in half and part given to one priest and part to another. The Tifferet Yisrael (Yoma 2:6) differs and maintains that two priests carry them together.

Here too, because it is a larger amount, it would be difficult for one priest to carry it. In this instance as well, the Radbaz explains that the intent is that each priest carries a container with half of the meal offering, while the Tifleret Yisrael maintains that it is placed in a large container and that container is carried by two priests together.

Halachah 10 mentions six priests because it does not count the two who bring the accompanying offerings. The Rambam is speaking about any burnt-offering. Therefore he does not mention the chavitin offering which is brought together with the daily burnt-offering.

For the foot of an ox is large and requires two priests to bring it. Similar concepts apply with regard to the other limbs.

Here also the Radbaz explains that the portions would be divided, with each priest receiving a separate portion. This, he maintained, is a greater expression of honor and respect than to have the priests carry the burdens together.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. He explains that the animal may not be cut into smaller portions, as implied by the first clause of this halachah. (Indeed, the prooftext cited refers to an individual burnt-offering.)

Holding the fowl.

Zevachim 65a states that this comer is chosen, because it is close to the ash pile where the skin and the intestines would be cast.

The Lechem Mishneh (gloss to Chapter 7, Halachah 6) quotes authorities who maintain that he need not sever the head entirely from the body entirely. What must be severed are the gullet and the windpipe organs. Just as ritual slaughter requires that they be severed, so too, they must be severed in the rite of melikah. The Kessef Mishneh (to that halachah) however, understands the Rambam’s words simply. The head must be separated from the body entirely.

The rationale for both these rulings is that the majority of the blood is lodged in the body.

For all offerings must be salted.

One of the stomachs of the fowl.

Our translation follows the Rambam’s Commentary of the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:5). The Radbaz interprets the term notzah as feces rather than as feathers and explains that this enables us to understand why these organs are not burnt together with the rest of the fowl. The intestines of an animal are washed out before being offered. Hence they are fit to be offered on the altar. Those of the fowl are not.

As required by Leviticus 1:16.

The ash pile on the floor of the Temple Courtyard, between the ramp and the altar, near the southeastern corner of the altar. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2: 12. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

As evident from Judges 14:6 (Zevachim 65b).

Because the primary element of the sacrifice was completed (Rav Yosef Corcus).

See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, which describes the manner in which the priest would hold the fowl. As stated there, this was one of the difficult tasks perfonned in the Sanctuary.

As one does when performing ritual slaughter (Hilchot Shechitah 2:7).

Such a motion is unacceptable for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:7).

This would disqualify an animal for ritual slaughter (ibid. 3:14).

I.e., that would make the animal a treifah.

Cutting the majority of them is, however, acceptable. They need not be severed entirely.