Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 13

The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6.

I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Zevachim 1:1 states: “All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner’s obligation with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.” Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:10.

I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner.

Sacrifices of the most sacred order· must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem.

Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day.

Leviticus 7:18. The term has the implication of “rejected” (Targum Onkelos) and “abhorrent” (Rav Saadia Gaon).

Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3).

I.e., the verse states: “ifit was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable.” Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering it, disqualifies it from the outset.
Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah’s words. The above verse uses the term: “the one who offers it,” implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav (“and it will be considered”), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought.

Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a twofold construction for the term “eat,” haechol yaechol, our Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption: consumption by the altar and consumption by man.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition.

The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim 1:4.)

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that perfonning melikah is equivalent to slaughter and squeezing a fowl’s blood on the altar is equivalent to casting an animal’s blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to the altar.

For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim 13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal is equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal.

All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable.

These services are perfonned before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services perfonned before slaughter which do not disqualify an animal.

All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however, we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the service intended that they be performed.

While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night.

Which would disqualify them.

And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.

Burnt-offerings.

Sin-offerings.

I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and individual offerings.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:11.

Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9).

See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these sin-offerings. As related there, they would be burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or on the following night.

Chapter 1, Halachah 23.

Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.

He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi, Zevachim 16b).

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion in Zevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest’s intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam’s understanding.