Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 6

For killing a human; see Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:6, such an animal is unfit for sacrifice on the altar. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam states that, in this context, the term also applies to an ox that was sodomized by - or forced to participate in sexual relations with - a Jew, for it is also condemned to be executed.

For it is possible that every animal is that animal condemned to die.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a forbidden substance is considered as insignificant if mixed with a larger volume of permitted substances (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1). Even according to Rabbinic Law, it is considered insignificant if mixed with more than sixty times its volume in most situations (ibid.:5). Nevertheless, this situation is an exception for the reason stated by the Rambam.

For their designated purpose.

This is a general principle applicable in many contexts, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 3, Halachah 22; and Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. Thus the fact that as an initial preference the animal should not have been sacrificed is not significant, for according to Scriptural Law, the presence of the forbidden animal is nullified. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.

E.g., animals that were set aside for sacrifice to false deities, an animal given to a prostitute, or one exchanged for a dog. See a full listing of such animals in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11.

For perhaps the sacrificial animal was the most choice.

After selling the animals, the person obligated to bring the offerings must say: "The holiness of the sacrificial animal is transferred to these funds" and with those funds, he should purchase a new sacrificial animal.

Even though the owner does not know which four animals they are, he may sell them (Rav Yosef Corcus). To avoid the difficulty mentioned in the following halachah, however, the owners must specify which animals are being given to the purchaser.

And should be sacrificed for the purpose for which the animal was consecrated originally.

For it is possible that any one of them is the consecrated animal.

E.g., burnt-offerings with burnt-offerings.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5

Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that in Hilchot Meilah 4:8, the Rambam rules that a person cannot sell an animal set aside as a peace-offering or as a burnt-offering. By the same reasoning, it would seem that it would be forbidden to make the exchange mentioned here.

I.e., in the example given above, to offer both of them as a burnt-offering.

See the explanation of this principle in Halachah 12. This rationale is given by Zevachim 8:3 with regard to a peace-offering and a guilt-offering that became mixed together, for it is possible that the meat of one of the animals will not be finished during the first night and will therefore be disqualified, lest it be that of the guilt-offering. This is undesirable, because perhaps it is from the peace-offering and thus it will be disqualified, before its appropriate time (for peace-offerings may be eaten on the following day as well).

This explanation of this concept is slightly different for a mixture of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering is not eaten at all. Instead, in that instance, offering the peace-offering as a burnt-offering is forbidden, based on Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:4 which states that it is forbidden to offer the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity on the altar. As a result, the meat of the sacrifice is disqualified.

As explained in the previous note. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:12.

For example, a firstborn offering which may be eaten only by priests, became mixed with a tithe offering that can be eaten be anyone.

Sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten only in the Temple Courtyard, while sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.

I.e., for this reason, we do not merely take one animal for one type of sacrifice and another for the other.

The difference between the price of the most choice animal and the other animal.

Using another animal so that he will not delay the fulfillment of his obligation.

I.e., before these animals became blemished.

As is the law with regard to an animal set aside as a sin-offering that was lost and another was offered in its place (Chapter 4, Halachah 1). Since the animal cannot be sacrificed because its identity is unknown, it is as if it was lost (see Rav Yosef Corcus who discusses this issue). Since it is not known which one of the mixture was consigned to death, both are given that fate.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, with regard to money set aside for a sin-offering that was lost.

Rambam LeAm states that this refers to the money that remains after some of the money was used to purchase a sin-offering.

I.e., he desires to transfer its holiness to the other animal, in which instance, we follow the rule (Leviticus 27:33): "It and the animal exchanged for it shall be holy."

There is an obligation to wave the thanksgiving-offering together with its bread (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-7). When an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering is exchanged for another animal, the holiness of the original offering is not nullified. Nevertheless, the second animal should also be offered as a sacrifice, but bread should not be offered together with it (Chapter 12, Halachah 8). In this instance, since we do not know which is the original animal and which is the one exchanged for it, the bread should be waved with both of them.

The Ra'avad states that bread should not be brought with the second thanksgiving-offering. The Kessef Mishneh states that, since the thanksgiving-offering had already been brought, this is obvious. The Ra'avad mentioned the matter only lest one will think that it is parallel to the situation described in the first clause.

The forearm of the nazirite's ram may be eaten only by the priests (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:4). Thus to a certain extent, the amount of people eligible to partake of the sacrifice is being reduced (see Ra'avad), because a thanksgiving-offering can be eaten by everyone (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot). Nevertheless, since only one limb is involved, it is not considered significant (Kessef Mishneh).

A blemished firstborn animal may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions that apply; see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Bechorot 1:18.

Pesachim 98b states that one should also transfer the holiness of the blemished Paschal sacrifice to another animal and offer it as a peace-offering. The Rambam mentions this point in his restatement of the law in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:8.

For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. As Pesachim 98b relates even if there is a group of priests, they should not offer these animals on the fourteenth of Nisan for the reason stated by the Rambam.

I.e., according to Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:15).

As the firstborn offering could be, if forced to be eaten within the time restrictions of the Paschal sacrifice.

As would be done with regard to the people eligible to partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

After contracting a blemish, an animal set aside as a tithe offering may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions which apply; see Hilchot Bechorot 6:6. As above, the holiness of the Paschal sacrifice must be transferred to another animal.

But only by a priest.

In this instance, there is no obligation to offer an animal in their stead.

For doing so would reduce the amount of time in which the peace-offering could be partaken.

This ruling combines that of Halachah 9 with regard to sin-offerings with that of Chapter 4, Halachah 14.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10.

Ibid.:9.

One arbitrarily being taken for one sacrifice and the other, for the second sacrifice.

Thus even though as an initial preference, the animals should not have been sacrificed because of the confusion about their identities, after the fact, the sacrifices are acceptable.

A small town not far from Jerusalem.

I.e., since it was found close to Jerusalem, we must consider the possibility that it had been consecrated for a sacrifice. Hence, it must be treated as a sacrificial animal with regard to all the possible consequences.

We suspect that its owner had attained atonement through another sacrifice. Hence the animal is consigned to death, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

At this age, it is unacceptable to be offered as a sin-offering or a burnt-offering. We do not suspect that it was lost earlier and wandered aimlessly until this time.

Although a thanksgiving-offering must be eaten by midnight, while a peace-offering may be eaten for an extra day, the Rambam's wording does not imply that a second animal should be brought. Instead, he should bring one animal and stipulate: "If it is a peace-offering,.... If it is a thanksgiving-offering..." (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, however, states that one could infer from Kiddushin 55b, that two offerings should be brought.

And thus it could not be used for another purpose. If the owner had attained atonement, it should be allowed to pasture until it becomes blemished as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 14.

For a male animal of that age could be consecrated for either of these types of sacrifices.

The meal, oil, and wine.

Shekalim 7:5 states that originally our Sages would obligate the person who found the animal to bring the accompanying offerings from his own resources. The financial burden, however, was apparently too great and the people would abandon the animals they found so that they would not be obligated in this manner. When the Sages realized this, they ordained that the accompanying offerings be brought by the community.

Without having to be redeemed.

So it would not have been lost.

For these individuals also must bring male animals that are a year old.

In the previous halachot, the Rambam favored the alternative of letting the intermingled animals pasture until they contract a blemish so that none of the sacrifices will be placed under unnecessary restrictions. In this instance, since the animals have already been slaughtered, this alternative is no longer viable (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The meat of the latter two types of animals is forbidden to be eaten.

In practice, this phrase, used by the Talmud in several instances (Pesachim 34b, et al), is interpreted (Rashi, Menachot 46b) as meaning "to be left overnight." For it is forbidden to burn sacrifices until they have been disqualified.

The meat from the burnt-offering may not be eaten and the meat from the sin-offering may not be burnt on the altar. Hence, the mixture should be left overnight, at which point, it is disqualified and consigned to be burnt.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.

Since the limbs of the disqualified animals are significant entities, their presence is never nullified in the mixture.

And burnt there. The rationale is that since the limbs of the blemished animals are forbidden to be eaten and forbidden to be burnt on the altar, the entire mixture must also be done away with.

I.e., if sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness that are only eaten for one day (thanksgiving offerings) become mixed with other sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, which (with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice) are all eaten for two days and one night. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:3).

The rationale is that there is enough acceptable meat or bread to render the presence of the unacceptable meat or bread insignificant.

Some commentaries have suggested that, based on Yevamot 81b, we are forced to say that this is speaking about small pieces of meat that are not significant enough to be used to honor guests. If they are larger and significant, their presence in the mixture is never nullified. However, it is more likely that since the concept that significant pieces of meat are nullified is a Rabbinic safeguard, it was not applied in this instance (see Lechem Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh to the law from Hilchot Terumah cited in the following note).

Hilchot Terumot 14:14.

Since there is an option for the entire mixture to be eaten by priests, there is no reason for leniency.

The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here is in direct contradiction to his ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:13 where he states that when a piece of the showbread becomes intermingled with pieces of ordinary bread, the mixture is permitted if there is 101 times the amount of ordinary bread.

In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Kessef Mishneh explains that here, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.

(As evident from a comparison to that source, the laws governing sacrificial foods are more stringent than those applying to terumah.