Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 2

Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact, even one presentation of blood is sufficient.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam’s intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the comers of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that rather than use the method of exegesis stated in Zevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in several other places in the Mishneh Torah where the Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of Biblical verses even though the traditional Rabbinic approach is to derive the idea from other sources.

Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner.

This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yorn Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered.

If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of the presentations should also be made.

For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Consequently, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, the remaining presentations should not be made.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 19:13.

The Torah uses the term haza’ah, “sprinkling,” with regard to the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner altar.

For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant. See Zevachim 15a.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah uses a different version.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.

See ibid.: 10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices.

Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the altar.

As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:1) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar.

This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself.

The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot 57b; Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself.

Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if “the blood of life” remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required.

Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling.

Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not performed at all. Hence, if more “blood of life” remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened.

Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup.

The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained.

E. g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:17.

Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another.

I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest comers of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. 5:6.

The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah’s commandments (see Zevachim 8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah’s commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act by failing to do so.

See the notes to Halachah 10.

See Hilchot Heit HaBechirah 2:11.

I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar.

For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar’s base. It should not be poured on the altar’s wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations.

Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar.

Which should be poured on the altar’s base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Y osef Corcus, based on Zevachim 81 b.

As an initial preference, he should not have presented the blood on the upper portion of the altar, as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there. Thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be pomed on the base of the altar.

I.e., on the altar’s base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar’s base.

See Halachah 10.

Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary.

For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner.

I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text.

Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten.

The term huvah has as its root the word ba which ineans “come,” leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma ‘at Tzara’at 16:5.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6 with tegard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary.

For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices.

I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies.

See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1.

But the required number of sprinklings were not completed.

Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are. completed.

Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it. The Ra’avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam’s ruling was based and hence, objects. The Kessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam’s understanding.

The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable.

That should be offered on the outer altar.

For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains.

Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified.

Even if it was not sprinkled inside. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradict Zevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that although the Rambam’s ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation.

Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim 92b).

This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was “brought into” the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own.

I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle.

For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.

With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25.

Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard.

Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal onto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar, was that granting permission (but not negating presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b).

The Kessef Mishneh states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar’s base. Yoma 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:26 states: “Its blood should be poured on the altar’s base,” implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there.

I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice.

This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. For every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of blood (Zevachim 77b).

See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.

In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh).

Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal’s blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh).

Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam’s ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the Rambam’s ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced.

This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:17-18.

Instead of placing them above the logs.

More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not.