י״ג
א׳מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לַעֲשׂוֹת כּל מִנְחָה כְּמִצְוָתָהּ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה:
1It is a positive commandment to prepare all of the meal-offerings1Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. according to the commandments prescribed by the Torah.
ב׳וְכֵיצַד עֲשִׂיַּת חֲבִיתֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וּמַקְדִּישׁוֹ וְחוֹצֵהוּ בַּחֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא קְרֵבָה חֶצְיָן אֵינָהּ מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת לְחֶצְיָן. וּמֵבִיא עִמָּהּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוֹגִין שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו יד) "בַּשֶּׁמֶן תֵּעָשֶׂה" לְהוֹסִיף לָהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּנִסְכֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׂ. וּבוֹלֵל הַסּלֶת בְּשֶׁמֶן וְחוֹלְטָהּ בְּרוֹתְחִין. וְלָשׁ מִכָּל חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן שֵׁשׁ חַלּוֹת. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה חַלּוֹת:
2How was the chavitin offering of the High Priest prepared? He would bring an entire isaron and sanctify it2By placing it in the isaron measure found in the Temple Courtyard (see Chapter 2, Halachah 8). Once it was sanctified, it could not be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Hence all the stages of its preparation had to be completed within the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz). Indeed, one of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard was the Chamber of the Makers of the Chavitin (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17). and then divide it in half3Because half was sacrificed in the morning and half in the afternoon. with the half isaron measure in the Temple. [This was necessary,] because even though it was offered in half [portions],4See Halachah 4. it was not sanctified in half portions. Three lugim of oil are brought with it, as [Leviticus 6:13] states: "You shall prepare it with oil," i.e., [an amount of] oil equivalent to the accompanying offering for a lamb5See Chapter 2, Halachot 4, 7. should be added to it.6Menachot 51a explains that since the chavitin is cooked on a flat frying pan, it is obvious that oil should be added to it like the other meal offerings cooked on such a frying pan (see Halachah 7). Hence by saying that the chavitin is prepared in oil, the verse implies that additional oil is added. The need for three lugin is then derived from a textual association of the terms used. The flour should be mixed with the oil and then scalded7In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:6) the Rambam defines the term cholait, the verb translated as "scalded" here as: "pouring boiling water over the flour." with boiling [liquid].Each half isaron should be kneaded into six loaves. Thus there are a total of twelve loaves.8Menachot 15a derives this point from a comparison to the showbread which also comprised twelve loaves.
ג׳וְאַחַת אַחַת הָיוּ נַעֲשׂוֹת. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. מְחַלֵּק הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין בִּרְבִיעִית שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. רְבִיעִית לְכָל חַלָּה. וְאוֹפָהּ הַחַלָּה מְעַט וְאַחַר כָּךְ קוֹלֶה אוֹתָהּ עַל הַמַּחֲבַת בִּשְׁאָר רְבִיעִית הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁלָּהּ. וְאֵינוֹ מְבַשְּׁלָהּ הַרְבֵּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו יד) "תֻּפִינֵי" בֵּין בָּשֵׁל וְנָא:
3[These loaves] were prepared one by one.How were they prepared? The three lugim of oil would be divided [into twelve] using the measure of a revi'it [of a log] that existed in the Temple,9I.e., when the quantity of three lugim is divided in twelve (an equal portion for each loaf), we arrive at the figure of a revi'it (a fourth of a log). There was a measure of this size in the Temple. Hence the oil would be poured into this measure for each loaf to provide it with the desired amount of oil. a revi'it for each loaf. The loaf would be baked some and then fried on the flat frying-pan with the remainder of its oil.10Thus there were three phases in the cooking process of these loaves. First, the flour was scalded as mentioned in the previous halachah. Then the loaf was made and then baked. Afterwards [see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3)], the oil was boiled and the loaf fried in it. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 19, which describes all these different stages of the cooking process. The same term, murbechet, is use to describe both that offering and the chavitin offering. It should not be cooked very much,11I.e., he should only bake it slightly (Kessef Mishneh). This interpretation is also borne out by Chapter 9, Halachah 19. for [Leviticus 6:14] uses the term tufinei which implies something between cooked and lightly cooked.12Afterwards, it is fried to complete the cooking process (Kessef Mishneh).
ד׳וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹלֵק כָּל חַלָּה וְחַלָּה לִשְׁנַיִם בְּאֹמֶד. כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּקְרִיב הַחֵצִי בַּבֹּקֶר וְהַחֵצִי בָּעֶרֶב וְלוֹקֵחַ הַחֲצָיִים וְכוֹפֵל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִשְׁנַיִם וּפוֹתֵת עַד שֶׁתִּמָּצֵא כָּל פְּתִיתָה כְּפוּלָה לִשְׁנַיִם. וּמַקְרִיב הַחֲצָיִין עִם חֲצִי קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה בַּבֹּקֶר וְהַחֵצִי הַנִּשְׁאָר עִם חֲצִי קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה בָּעֶרֶב. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִנְחַת חִנּוּךְ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֶה אֶלָּא מַקְרִיבָהּ כֻּלָּהּ כְּאַחַת עִם קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן כָּלִיל לָאִשִּׁים:
4Afterwards, each loaf should be divided into two13The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the cakes should not be divided. Thus instead of offering twelve half-cakes as the Rambam maintains, he maintains that six full cakes should be offered in the morning and six in the afternoon. by approximation,14I.e., although half should be offered in the morning and half in the afternoon, an exact division is not required. The division is made by hand and not with a utensil. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's position, noting that the concept of dividing the cakes by hand and not with a utensil is stated in Menachot 87b. so that half can be offered in the morning and half in the evening.15I.e., in the late afternoon. He should take the halves and fold each one of them in half and then divide [the loaves at] the folds so that each flat cake will be folded in half. He then offers the halves with half of a handful of frankincense in the morning and the remaining half with half a handful of frankincense in the evening.16Further details concerning the bringing of this offering are mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18-22.If it is an initiation offering,17Both an ordinary priest and a High Priest bring a meal-offering prepared in the same way to mark their initiation into office (Chapter 12, Halachah 4). it is not divided in half. Instead, it is offered entirely as a single entity together with the handful of frankincense. Both of them are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre.18For the meal-offering of a priest is never eaten (Chapter 12, Halachah 9).
ה׳מִנְחַת הַסּלֶת כֵּיצַד הָיְתָה נַעֲשֵׂית. מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן סלֶת אוֹ כַּמָּה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אוֹ כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ וְשֶׁמֶן הָרָאוּי לָהּ וּמוֹדֵד בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ. וְנוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן בִּכְלִי. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן עָלָיו אֶת הַסּלֶת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן שֶׁמֶן אַחֵר עַל הַסּלֶת וּבוֹלֵל הַסּלֶת בּוֹ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְצָק לְתוֹכָהּ שֶׁמֶן. וְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁנָּתַן תְּחִלָּה עִם הַשֶּׁמֶן הַבָּלוּל עִם שֶׁמֶן שֶׁיָּצַק הַכּל לוֹג לְעִשָּׂרוֹן וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָתָהּ:
5How is a meal-offering of fine flour prepared? One brings an isaron19But no less than an isaron (ibid.:5). - or several isaronot or [many,] according to his vow20One may bring as many isaronot as he desires, even 1000 (or more). - of fine flour and the oil appropriate for it.21A log of oil for every isaron of flour, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 7. The flour should be measured in the isaron measure22Even if the offering contained many isaronot, it is measured out, isaron by isaron (Kessef Mishneh). of the Temple. Oil should be placed in23As stated in Menachot 6:3, oil is added to all of the meal-offerings offered other than those which are baked in the oven three times: it is placed in the container before the flour, it is mixed into the flour and then it is poured over the mixture of flour and oil. This sequence is not explicitly stated with regard to the offering of fine flour. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains the process through which it is derived that the above concepts apply to this meal-offering as well. a container24I.e., a trough where the oil and flour are mixed. Both the Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh state that, from the Rambam's wording, it appears that this trough was not a sacred utensil. They question that conclusion, for once the flour had been put in a sacred utensil, it does not appear appropriate to place it in an ordinary utensil again. Indeed, they explain that perhaps the second utensil was also sacred. and the flour poured upon it, and then other oil should be poured over the flour and the flour mixed in it. Afterwards, it is placed in a sacred vessel and oil is poured into it. The total of the oil placed first, that mixed with the flour, and that poured upon it is a log for an issaron. Frankincense is placed upon it.25A handful of frankincense for every offering regardless of its size (Chapter 12, Halachah 7).
ו׳מִנְחַת הַמַּחֲבַת וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת כֵּיצַד. נוֹתֵן הַשֶּׁמֶן בִּכְלִי וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו הַסּלֶת. וְנוֹתֵן עַל הַסּלֶת שֶׁמֶן אַחֵר וּבוֹלֵל הַסּלֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ לָשָׁהּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין וְאוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ בְּמַחֲבַת אוֹ בַּמַּרְחֶשֶׁת כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר. וּפוֹתֵת אוֹתָהּ פִּתִּים וְנוֹתְנָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְיוֹצֵק עָלֶיהָ שְׁאָר הַשֶּׁמֶן וְנוֹתֵן לְבוֹנָתָהּ:
6How are a meal-offering [cooked in] a flat frying-pan and one [cooked in] a deep frying pan prepared? Oil should be placed in a container and the flour poured upon it and then other oil should be poured over the flour and the flour mixed in it. Afterwards, it should be kneaded with warm water26Care was taken so that they do not leaven (Kessef Mishneh). and baked in a flat frying-pan or a deep frying-pan as he vowed. It is broken into pieces27As required by Leviticus 2:6. and placed in a sacred vessel and the remainder of the oil is poured upon it. [Then] its frankincense is placed [upon it].
ז׳מַה בֵּין מַחֲבַת לְמַרְחֶשֶׁת. מַרְחֶשֶׁת יֵשׁ לָהּ שָׂפָה וְהַבָּצֵק שֶׁאוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עָלֶיהָ רַךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לָהּ שָׂפָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא. וּמַחֲבַת אֵין לָהּ שָׂפָה וְהַבָּצֵק שֶׁאוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ בָּהּ קָשֶׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן:
7What is the difference between a flat frying-pan and a deep frying pan? A deep frying-pan has an edge28Menachot 63b notes that Leviticus 7:9 states of such an offering being cooked "in a deep frying-pan," while the others are described as being cooked "on a flat frying-pan." Implied is that the deep frying-pan had an edge large enough to contain liquids. and the dough cooked in it is soft,29And thin like the dough of pancakes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:8)]. because since it has an edge, [the dough] does not drip off. The flat frying-pan does not have an edge. The dough cooked in it is firm so that it will not drip off to either side.
ח׳מִנְחַת מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר כֵּיצַד. אִם חַלּוֹת הִיא בּוֹלֵל הַסּלֶת בְּשֶׁמֶן וְלָשׁ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין וְאוֹפֶה וּפוֹתֵת וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָתָהּ וְאֵין בָּהּ יְצִיקַת שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב ד) "חַלּוֹת מַצֹּת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן". וְאִם רְקִיקִין הִיא לָשׁ אֶת הַסּלֶת בְּפוֹשְׁרִין וּמוֹשֵׁחַ אֶת הָרְקִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב ד) "וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן". וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאַחַר אֲפִיָּה מוֹשֵׁחַ אוֹתָם:
8How is a meal-offering baked in an oven prepared? If it is of loaves, one should mix the flour with oil,30Oil is not, however, placed in the container before the flour is (Menachot 6:3). knead it with warm water, and bake it. [Afterwards,] it is broken into pieces, placed in a sacred utensil, and its frankincense is placed upon it. Oil is not poured over it, as [indicated by Leviticus 2:4]: "loaves of matzah mixed with oil."31I.e., only "mixed with oil." No other oil is used in preparing them.If it is of wafers, one should knead the flour with warm water and smear the wafers with oil, as [ibid.] states "wafers of matzah smeared with oil." It appears to me that they should be smeared after they are baked.32The Radbaz supports this supposition, explaining that if the wafers were smeared before they were baked, they would not absorb the oil.
ט׳וְכֵיצַד מוֹשְׁחָן. מֵבִיא לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְכָל עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמוֹשְׁחָן וְחוֹזֵר וּמוֹשְׁחָן עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה כָּל הַשֶּׁמֶן שָׁבַּלֹּג:
9How are they smeared? One brings a log of oil for every isaron and smears them and then smears them again until all of the oil in the log is finished.
י׳כָּל אַרְבַּע מְנָחוֹת אֵלּוּ הָאֲפוּיוֹת. כְּשֶׁאוֹפִין אוֹתָן אוֹפִין כָּל עִשָּׂרוֹן עֶשֶׂר חַלּוֹת. וְאִם רִבָּה בְּחַלּוֹת אוֹ חִסֵּר כְּשֵׁרָה. וְכֵיצַד פּוֹתְתִין אוֹתָן. כּוֹפֵל הַחַלָּה לִשְׁנַיִם וְהַשְּׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה וּמַבְדִּיל. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁל זִכְרֵי כְּהֻנָּה אֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל וּפוֹתֵת. וְכֻלָּן פְּתִיתִין כְּזֵיתִים. וְאִם הִגְדִּיל הַפְּתִיתִין אוֹ הִקְטִין אוֹתָן כְּשֵׁרִים:
10All of these four types of baked33I.e., those fried in a deep frying pan and a flat frying-pan or the two types baked in an oven. Excluded is only the flour offering which is presented without being baked or cooked. meal-offerings, when they are baked, they are baked when dividing [each] isaron into ten loaves.34Menachot 76a derives this from a comparison to the thanksgiving offering. See Chapter 9, Halachot 17-18. If, however, one added or subtracted loaves, it is acceptable.35For even a thanksgiving offering is acceptable if its loaves are less than the required number (ibid.:22).How are they36These four types of meal-offerings. Again, a flour offering is excluded. broken into pieces? Each loaf should be folded into two and then the double fold into four37Menachot, loc. cit., explains the rationale, stating that Leviticus 2:6 mentions "breaking them (i.e., into two) into pieces" (i.e., that the two are divided again). and then [the folds] should be separated. If the meal-offering was brought by males of the priestly family,38For their meal-offerings are consumed entirely by the altar's pyre. Meal-offerings brought by females of the priestly family are broken into pieces. they should not be separated and broken off. All of the pieces should be the size of an olive.39For making them any smaller would make them appear insignificant. If, however, one made them larger or smaller, [the offering] is acceptable.
י״אלֹא בָּלַל לֹא פָּתַת לֹא הִגִּישׁ לֹא מָשַׁח אֶת הָרְקִיקִין כְּשֵׁרָה. לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה שֶׁכָּךְ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ:
11If one did not mix [the oil into the meal],40Note, however, Chapter 17, Halachah 6, which states that the offering must not be so large that it could not be mixed with its oil. fold [the loaves], bring [the meal-offering to the corner of the altar],41As required by Chapter 12, Halachah 6. or smear the wafers [with oil],42Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:8 rules that if the required amount of oil is not added to a meal offering, it is not acceptable. Nevertheless, after the fact, the oil does not have to be applied to the offering in the manner detailed above. [the offerings] are acceptable.43Menachot 3:2, the source for this halachah, mentions the above concepts and adds that the offerings are acceptable if salt and oil were not placed upon them. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the intent is not that the offering is acceptable without salt and oil, but that they need not be added to the offering by a priest. All of these matters were mentioned only as a mitzvah,44I.e., as the optimum manner to perform the mitzvah. for it is a mitzvah [to bring the meal-offerings] in this manner.
י״בסֵדֶר הֲבָאַת הַמִּנְחָה כֵּיצַד. מֵבִיא אָדָם סלֶת מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ בִּקְלָתוֹת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף אוֹ שֶׁל זָהָב אוֹ שֶׁל שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת כְּלִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִנְחַת הַסּלֶת נוֹתְנָהּ לִכְלִי שָׁרֵת וּמְקַדְּשָׁהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִן הַמְּנָחוֹת הַנֶּאֱפוֹת אוֹפֶה אוֹתָהּ שָׁם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וּפוֹתֵת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְנוֹתֵן הַפְּתִיתִין לִכְלִי שָׁרֵת וְנוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ שַׁמְנָהּ וּלְבוֹנָתָהּ וּמוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן. וְהַכֹּהֵן מוֹלִיכָהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית כְּנֶגֶד חֻדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן וְדַיּוֹ. וּמְסַלֵּק אֶת כָּל לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְצַד אֶחָד וְקוֹמֵץ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב ב) "מִסָּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ". וְנוֹתֵן הַקֹּמֶץ לִכְלִי שָׁרֵת וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. וְקֹמֶץ שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. וְחוֹזֵר וּמְקַדֵּשׁ וּמְלַקֵּט אֶת כָּל לְבוֹנָתָהּ וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁבַּכְּלִי וּמַעֲלֵהוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמוֹלְחוֹ. וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים מִכְּלִי שָׁרֵת. וְאִם מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים הִיא אֵינוֹ קוֹמֵץ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן מֶלַח עַל כֻּלָּהּ וּמַשְׁלִיךְ הַכּל עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים:
12What is the order in which the meal-offering is brought? A person should bring flour from his home in a container of silver, gold, or another type of metal, a container that is fit [to be sanctified] as a sacred vessel.45As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:18, a sacred utensil may not be made of wood, bone, stone, or glass, only of metal.If it is a meal-offering of flour, he should place it in a sacred utensil and consecrate it46Placing it in the sacred vessel with the intent to consecrate it brings about its consecration. See Chapter 2, Halachah 9, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20. in the sacred utensil.47As described in Halachah 5. If it is one of the meal-offerings that are baked48Or fried, i.e., any of the other types of meal offerings. it should be baked there in the Temple and broken into pieces as we explained.49See Halachot 6-10. The pieces should be placed into a sacred utensil and its oil and frankincense placed upon it. It should then be brought to a priest50I.e., up until this point, the services could have been performed by a non-priest. From this stage onward, they must be performed by a priest. See Chapter 12, Halachah 23. who brings it to the altar. He approaches the southwest corner of the altar with it. That is sufficient.51I.e., he touches the altar's corner with the utensil. He does not have to have the flour itself touch the corner (Kessef Mishneh).He then moves all of its frankincense to one side52So that it will not be mixed with the flour taken in the handful (Sotah 14b). and gathers a handful from the place where the majority of its oil has collected, as [Leviticus 2:2] states: "[He shall take a full handful] from its flour and from its oil." He places the handful in a sacred vessel and consecrates it in the sacred vessel.53Although the handful of flour was consecrated together with the other flour, it should be consecrated again now that it has become a separate entity. Sotah, loc. cit., draws a comparison to the blood from a sacrificial animal which is consecrated together with the entire animal at the time of its slaughter and is consecrated again when collected in a sacred utensil. If a handful [from a meal-offering] was divided into two vessels, it is not consecrated. [Instead,] he should go back and consecrate it [in a single vessel].54Although placing the handful of flour in two utensils is unacceptable, it does not disqualify it.He should gather all of its frankincense and place it on the handful of flour in the vessel and take it up to the altar. He should salt it55As required by Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:23. and place it on the pyre with a sacred utensil.56I.e., he should empty the flour from the sacred vessel over the pyre. If the meal-offering is brought by [male] priests, he does not take a handful. Instead, he salts the entire offering and tosses everything on the pyre.
י״גכֵּיצַד קוֹמְצִין מְנָחוֹת הַנִּקְמָצוֹת. כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁקּוֹמֵץ כָּל הָאָדָם פּוֹשֵׁט אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ וְקוֹמֵץ. קָמַץ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו אוֹ מִן הַצְּדָדִין לֹא יַקְטִיר וְאִם הִקְטִיר הֻרְצָה. וְאִם הוֹסִיף בַּקֹּמֶץ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִרְחִיק אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וְקָמַץ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל:
13How is a handful [of flour]57We have mentioned flour, because taking a full handful - but only a handful, not more and not less - of flour can be easily pictured. In truth, however, an exact handful must also be taken from those meal offerings that were already baked and that is much harder to picture. taken from those meal-offerings from which it is taken? As any person would take a handful. He extends his fingers58On the basis of Menachot 11a and Yoma 47b, many commentaries maintain that the handful is taken only with the priest's three middle fingers. The pinky and the thumb are not included. Therefore it is considered as one of the difficult services in the Temple. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:2; see also Yoma 1:5), however, the Rambam rejects this understanding and maintains that all of the priest's fingers should be used in taking the handful. over the palm of his hand and closes them.59The Ra'avad (in his gloss to the Sifra) states that he should cup his hand and then insert his fingers into the flour until his palm is covered. He then closes his fingers over his palm.If he gathered the flour only with his fingertips60I.e., closing his fingers over themselves and not over the palm of his hand and thus collected only a small amount of flour (Rav Yosef Corcus). or from the side [of the container],61Instead of from the middle (Radbaz). There are also other interpretations to these concepts. he should not offer it on the altar's pyre. If he does so, nevertheless, it is accepted.62Menachot 11a and Yoma 47b question whether these two ways to take a handful are acceptable and does not reach a conclusion. Therefore the Rambam rules that as an initial preference, one should not take a handful in this manner, but if one does so, it is acceptable after the fact. If he added to the handful, i.e., he spread out his fingers and closed them,63And thus the handful was overflowing. it is unacceptable.
י״דאֵין קֹמֶץ פָּחוֹת מִכִּשְׁנֵי זֵיתִים. וּמִקְצָת הַקֹּמֶץ מְעַכֵּב אֶת כֻּלּוֹ. וְהַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. הַסּלֶת וְהַשֶּׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה וּמִקְצָת הַשֶּׁמֶן מְעַכֵּב אֶת כֻּלּוֹ. אֵין פָּחוֹת מִלּוֹג לְעִשָּׂרוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
14A handful should not be less than two olive-sized portions.64In modern measure, approximately 28 cc according to Shiurei Torah. [Bringing every] portion of the handful is an absolute requirement in [bringing] the entire handful.65For Leviticus 2:2 states that "a full handful" must be offered. Thus if one cannot bring a portion of the handful, it is disqualified and should not be brought at all (Menachot 27a). [Bringing both] the handful [of flour] and the frankincense are absolute requirements for [bringing] either of them.66I.e., the offering should not be brought unless both are included. [Bringing both] the flour and the oil are absolute requirements for [bringing] either of them.67Both are necessary because Leviticus 2:2 mentions the "full handful of flour" and "all of its frankincense." This emphasis is repeated in Leviticus 6:8, indicating that it is an absolute requirement. [Bringing] even a portion of the oil is an absolute requirement in [bringing] the entire quantity.68I.e., if one does not bring the entire amount, one should not bring the offering at all. Less than a log [of oil] should not [be brought] for every isaron of flour, as we explained.69Halachah 5; Chapter 12, Halachah 7.
י״ד
א׳מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם וְנוֹדֵר עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים וְכָל מִין שֶׁיִּרְצֶה מֵחֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת הַבָּאִין בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה. וּמִתְנַדֵּב אוֹ נוֹדֵר מִנְחָה מִמִּנְחַת נְסָכִים לְבַדָּהּ מֵאֵי זֶה מִין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת נְסָכִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמִתְנַדֵּב אוֹ נוֹדֵר יַיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אוֹ לְבוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אוֹ שֶׁמֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אוֹ עֵצִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּקָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה יג לא) "וּלְקֻרְבַּן הָעֵצִים":
1A person may vow or pledge1See Halachah 4 for the distinction between the two terms. to bring a burnt-offering, a peace-offering, or any of the five types of meal-offerings2See Chapter 12, Halachah 4. that may be brought as vows or as pledges.3With regard to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, see Halachah 8. And he may vow or pledge [to bring] a meal offering from one of the three types of meal-offerings that serve as the accompanying offerings, as we explained.4See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, 4. One may pledge or vow wine as an independent offering,5See Chapter 16, Halachah 14; Chapter 17, Halachah 12. frankincense as an independent offering,6See Chapter 16, Halachah 13. oil as an independent offering,7See Chapter 16, Halachah 14. or wood for the arrangement [of wood on the altar], for that is like a sacrifice,8See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9-10. as [Nechemiah 13:31] states: "for the sacrifice of wood."
ב׳שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין אוֹ נוֹדְרִין קָרְבָּן אֶחָד עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים אֲפִלּוּ פְּרֵדָה אַחַת שֶׁל תּוֹרִים אוֹ בְּנֵי יוֹנָה מְבִיאִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת. אֲבָל הַמִּנְחָה אֵינָהּ בָּאָה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ הֵן דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה:
2Two people may pledge or vow one sacrifice, a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, even one turtle-dove and large ordinary dove in partnership. A meal-offering, by contrast, may not be brought in partnership. These matters were conveyed by the Oral Tradition.
ג׳הֵנִיחַ מִנְחָה לִשְׁנֵי בָּנָיו וּמֵת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין אוֹתָהּ:
3When a person set aside a meal-offering for [the merit of] his two sons and died,9Before bringing it. they may both bring it.10This is not considered as bringing an offering in partnership.
ד׳אֵי זֶה הוּא נֵדֶר וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה אוֹ הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁלָמִים אוֹ הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה אוֹ הֲרֵי דְּמֵי בְּהֵמָה זוֹ עָלַי עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים זֶהוּ הַנֵּדֶר. אֲבָל הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה זוֹ אוֹ דְּמֵי בְּהֵמָה זוֹ עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים אוֹ הֲרֵי הָעִשָּׂרוֹן הַזֶּה מִנְחָה הֲרֵי זוֹ נְדָבָה:
4What is meant by a vow and what is meant by a pledge? When one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," "I promise to bring a peace-offering," "I promise to bring a meal-offering," or "I promise to bring the value of this animal11Even though he mentions a specific animal, since his promise focuses on the animal's value and not the animal itself, it is considered as a vow and not a pledge. Moreover, he made a promise incumbent on himself - that he bring the value of the animal as a sacrifice - and did not designate the animal's worth itself. See also Halachah 6. as a burnt-offering" or "...as a peace-offering," this is considered a vow.12The obligation is on him; he has made a commitment to bring the sacrifice. If, however, he said: "This animal..." or "The value of this animal is [designated as] a burnt-offering,"13I.e., pledging that the animal would be sold and the money received be designated for the purchase of a sacrifice. or "...a peace-offering," or "This isaron [of flour] as a meal-offering," this is a pledge.14I.e., the animal or its worth is designated as a sacrifice.
ה׳מַה בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת. שֶׁהַנּוֹדֵר אִם הִפְרִישׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ וְאָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר. וְהַמִּתְנַדֵּב וְאוֹמֵר זוֹ אִם מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ:
5What is the difference between vows and pledges? If a person took a vow and separated a sacrifice and then it was lost or stolen, he is obligated to replace it15For the obligation is incumbent on him and it was not fulfilled. until he offers the sacrifice he vowed.16Moreover, the sacrifice must be offered in an acceptable manner. If it was disqualified, he is still obligated to fulfill his vow. If a person made a pledge and said: "This [animal] is a sacrifice," he is not obligated to replace it if it died or was stolen.17Because he personally is under no further responsibility. He fulfilled his obligation by designating the animal.
ו׳הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה וּדְמֵי בַּיִת זֶה עָלַי קָרְבָּן וּמֵת הַשּׁוֹר וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָהּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָהּ:
6When one says: "I promise to bring the value of this ox as a burnt-offering" or "I promise to bring the value of this house as a sacrifice," if the ox dies and the house falls, he is obligated to pay.18As stated in Halachah 4, this is considered a vow. The rationale is that he said: elai, "I promise to bring." That expression indicated his willingness to accept responsibility.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 5:5), the Rambam states that he is obligated to pay only the value of the dead ox, not its value when it was alive. If one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that I am not obligated to replace it," he is not obligated to replace it.19Since he made an explicit stipulation freeing himself of responsibility, he is not considered as liable.
ז׳כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה בַּיִת חוּץ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ לְהַקְרִיב בּוֹ קָרְבָּנוֹת אֵינוֹ כְּבֵית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בְּבַיִת זֶה לֹא יָצָא. שֶׁאַקְרִיבֶנָּה בְּבַיִת זֶה וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ יָצָא. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָהּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַבַּיִת יָצָא. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁנָּדַר עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יִתְחַיֵּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָהּ וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת עַל הַעֲלָיָתָהּ בַּחוּץ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחַ בְּבַיִת זֶה. אִם גִּלֵּחַ שָׁם יָצָא. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁנָּדַר לְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ וַהֲרֵי צִעֵר עַצְמוֹ וְאֵינָהּ נְזִירוּת:
7We already explained20See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14 and the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:10) which refers to the temple constructed in Alexandria by Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just. that one who constructs a temple to offer sacrifices within, outside the Temple is not considered as [having built] a temple to a false divinity. If one says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering to sacrifice in the Temple [in Jerusalem]," and he brings it in [such] a temple, does not fulfill his vow.21The Mishnah (Menachot 13:10) states merely "a burnt offering," omitting the words "to sacrifice in the Temple." The commentaries question why the Rambam felt it necessary to add them. If he vowed to offer it in such a temple and he offers it in the Temple [in Jerusalem], he fulfills his vow.22Since he promised to bring a burnt-offering, it is necessary that it be brought to Jerusalem. The fact that he added that he would bring it elsewhere is not significant. If he offers in such a temple, he fulfills his vow. He is like someone who vowed to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that he is not obligated to replace it.23I.e., according to the Rambam, the animal set aside is considered as designated as a burnt-offering and the person is liable for offering a sacrifice outside the Temple. Nevertheless, he is considered to have fulfilled his vow for the reason stated by the Rambam. He is liable for karet for offering [the sacrifice] outside [the Temple Courtyard].Similarly, if one takes a vow saying that he is a nazirite on the condition that he shave24As is done at the conclusion of one's nazirite vow. in such a temple, he fulfills his obligation if he shaves there. He is considered as one who vowed to abstain from wine and he did so abstain. This is not considered as a nazirite vow.
ח׳חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא עַל חֵטְא. וְאֵינָן בָּאִין בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי חַטָּאת אוֹ אָשָׁם אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ חַטָּאת אוֹ אָשָׁם לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת אוֹ אָשָׁם וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ לְחַטָּאתִי אוֹ לַאֲשָׁמִי אוֹ הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי אוֹ לַאֲשָׁמִי דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים:
8A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may be brought only for a sin.25Thus when Leviticus 5:1 introduces the obligation to bring a sin-offering, it states: "If a person will sin...." They may not be brought because of a pledge or a vow. [Hence,] if one26I.e., one who is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice. says: "I promise to bring a sin-offering" or "...a guilt-offering," his statements are of no consequence. [Similarly,] if he said: "This animal is [designated as] a sin-offering" or "...a guilt-offering," his statements are of no consequence.If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and he said: "This [animal] is for my sin-offering" or "...for my guilt-offering" or "This money is for my sin-offering" or "...my guilt-offering," his statements are binding.
ט׳הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבַּן מְצֹרָע זֶה אוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת זוֹ עָלַי. אִם הָיָה אוֹתוֹ מְצֹרָע אוֹ הַיּוֹלֶדֶת עֲנִיִּים מֵבִיא הַנּוֹדֵר קָרְבַּן עָנִי. וְאִם הָיוּ עֲשִׁירִים מֵבִיא הַנּוֹדֵר קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַנּוֹדֵר עָנִי:
9When a person says: "I promise to bring the sacrifices of this person afflicted by tzara'at" or "...this women who gave birth," if the afflicted person or the women are poor, the one who took the vow should bring the sacrifices of a poor person.27The types of sacrifices these individuals are obligated to bring vary dependent on the person's financial standing, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Accordingly, one might think that regardless of the financial status of the person who pledged to bring the sacrifice, the type of sacrifice to be brought is determined by the financial status of the person who is obligated to offer it. Nevertheless, as stated in Arachin 13a (and quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 5:11), this is not the case. If a wealthy person vows to bring the sacrifices of a poor person afflicted by tzara'at, he must bring the sacrifices of a wealthy man. Hence, we are forced to say that here the Rambam is speaking of a poor person who took such a vow. If they were wealthy, the person who took the vow must bring the sacrifice of a wealthy person even though he is poor.
י׳הָאוֹמֵר חַטָּאתוֹ וְעוֹלָתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ וּשְׁלָמָיו שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי עָלַי. אִם רָצָה אוֹתוֹ פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זֶה מְנִיחוֹ לְהַקְרִיבָן עַל יָדוֹ וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. רָצָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה וְלֹא רָצָה בִּשְׁעַת הַקְרָבָה אֶלָּא חָזַר בּוֹ. בְּעוֹלָה וּבִשְׁלָמִים מַקְרִיבִין וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה עַתָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי רָצָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה. אֲבָל בְּחַטָּאת וּבְאָשָׁם לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּרְצֶה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף:
10[The following laws apply when] one says: "I promise to bring the sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering, and peace-offering of so-and-so." If that person agrees, he may allow him to bring those sacrifices for him and he receives atonement thereby. If he agreed at the time [the sacrificial animals] were set aside, but reneged and did not agree at the time they were offered,28Rashi (Arachin 21a) interprets the passage as referring to an instance where the person obligated to bring the sacrifice did not know it was being offered on his behalf. If he did know, however, he must consent. The Rambam differs and maintains that since he gave his consent originally and the atonement associated with these sacrifices is achieved immediately, it is not necessary that he consent at the time the sacrifice was offered (Rav Yosef Corcus; see Halachah 17). with regard to a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, they should be sacrificed and he receives atonement through them even if he does not consent at this time, because he agreed at the time [the sacrificial animals] were set aside. With regard to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,29Since the atonement associated with these sacrifices is more encompassing, it requires not only his initial consent, but also continuous willful activity (ibid.). by contrast, he does not receive atonement unless he consented from the beginning until the end.
י״אהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים שֶׁמִּנִּדְרֵיהֶן נָזִיר וְקָרְבָּן וּשְׁבוּעָה חַיָּב בְּכֻלָּן. כְּנִדְרֵי כְּשֵׁרִין לֹא נִתְחַיֵּב כְּלוּם. הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּנְדָבוֹת כְּשֵׁרִין הֲרֵי זֶה נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקָרְבָּן. וְכָל כִּנּוּיֵי קָרְבָּן כְּקָרְבָּן:
11One who says: "I promise to bring vows like the vows of the wicked who take upon themselves nazirite vows, sacrifices, and oaths," he is obligated in all [of his statements].30The Rambam is referring to the wording of the Mishnah (Nedarim 1:1). The intent of the Mishnah is that the wicked make vows hastily and moreover, obligate themselves for vows which constitute a commitment incumbent on their person that they will not necessarily be able to fulfill. As the Rambam writes in Hilchot Nedarim 13:25 and in his commentary to the above mishnah, it is preferable not to take vows, for it is possible one will not be able to fulfill them. See also ibid. 1:25. If he says: "...as the vows of the upright," he is not obligated in anything.31For the upright do not take vows for the reason stated in the previous note (ibid.:26). If he says: "as the pledges of the upright," his vow is binding32For the upright do make pledges, for a pledge involves the sanctification of an article at hand and if the upright wish to take such action, there is nothing preventing them from fulfilling their vow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that the upright would bring their sacrificial animals to the Temple Mount and only then, pledge to bring them. In this way, there would be no question of them keeping their word. with regard to nazirite vows and sacrifices.33The Rambam does not mention oaths, because the upright try to avoid taking oaths entirely. All terms used to refer to sacrifices are considered as sacrifices.34See Hilchot Nizirut 1:16 which states:There are places where people are inarticulate and mispronounce words, calling subjects by different names. [In those places,] we follow the meaning of the local term.What is meant by the statement that all the terms used for the word korban, "sacrifice," are equivalent to the term korban? When one says: "[This produce] is considered for me like a konam," "...a konach," or "...a konaz," they are all terms referring to a korban.
י״באֵין הַנּוֹדֵר וְלֹא הַמִּתְנַדֵּב חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּיו וְלִבּוֹ שָׁוִין. כֵּיצַד. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לוֹמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה וְאָמַר שְׁלָמִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לוֹמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה וְאָמַר שְׁלָמִים לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. נִתְכַּוֵּן לִנְדֹּר בְּעוֹלָה וְאָמַר קָרְבָּן. לִנְדֹּר בְּחֵרֶם וְאָמַר הֶקְדֵּשׁ דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. שֶׁהָעוֹלָה קָרְבָּן וְהַחֵרֶם הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. בִּנְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ וְלֹא הוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו כְּלוּם חַיָּב. כֵּיצַד. גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ שֶׁזּוֹ עוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁיָּבִיא עוֹלָה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהָבִיא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לה ה) "כּל נְדִיב לֵב יְבִיאָהּ" בִּנְדִיבוּת לֵב יִתְחַיֵּב לְהָבִיא. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מִנִּדְרֵי קָדָשִׁים וְנִדְבוּתָן:
12Neither one who takes a vow or one who makes a pledge is liable unless his statements match his intent.35This is a general principle applying with regard to oaths (Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:10-12) and vows (Hilchot Nedarim 2:2).In the continuation of the halachah, the Rambam describes a situation in which one is liable for a sacrifice he intended to give even though he does not say anything. That, however, is not a contradiction to the statements here, because here, the person's statements contradict his intent.What is implied? If one had the intent of saying: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," but he said "...a peace-offering" or he had the intent of saying: "I promise to bring a peace-offering," but he said "...a burnt-offering," his words are of no substance. If, [however,] he intended to take a vow to bring a burnt-offering and said: "a sacrifice," or he intended to say devotion offerings36Which is consecrated to the Temple treasury. and he said: "consecrated property," his statements are binding, for a burnt-offering is a sacrifice, and something designated as devotion offerings is consecrated. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.With regard to vows and pledges, it is not necessary for him to make any verbal statements. He is obligated even if he made a firm resolve in his heart without saying anything. What is implied? If one made a resolve in his heart that an animal should be designated as a burnt-offering or that he should bring a burnt-offering, he is obligated. [This is derived from Exodus 35:5]: "All those generous of heart shall bring it." Generosity in the heart [alone is sufficient to] establish an obligation to bring. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations involving vows and pledges for the consecration [of sacrifices].
י״גאֶחָד נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת עִם שְׁאָר הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם חַיָּב בָּהֶן מֵעֲרָכִין וְדָמִים וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּמַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁיָּבִיא הַכּל בָּרֶגֶל שֶׁפָּגַע בּוֹ תְּחִלָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב ה) "וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה" (דברים יב ו) "וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה" וְגוֹ' כְּלוֹמַר בְּעֵת שֶׁתָּבוֹא לָחֹג תָּבִיא כָּל מַה שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָּב בּוֹ וְתִתֵּן כָּל חוֹב שֶׁעָלֶיךָ לַשֵּׁם. הִגִּיעַ הָרֶגֶל וְלֹא הֵבִיא הֲרֵי זֶה בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. עָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים וְלֹא הֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו שֶׁנָּדַר אוֹ הִתְנַדֵּב אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן הָעֲרָכִים וְהַחֲרָמִים וְהַדָּמִים הֲרֵי זֶה עָבַר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כב) "לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ" אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַד שֶׁיַּעַבְרוּ עָלָיו רַגְלֵי הַשָּׁנָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְאֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה:
13With regard to vows and pledges and other commitments that a person makes that obligated him, endowment obligations, pledges for worth,37Both of these terms refer to commitments to make donations to the Temple treasury. See Hilchot Arachin, ch. 1, for a more complete description. tithes.38I.e. the tithes (including the second tithe and the tithe for the poor) separated from one's crops (see Hilchot Ma'aser and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni). Also, implied are the tithe offerings. See Hilchot Bechorot, ch. 4. and the presents to the poor,39Leket, pe'ah, ollelot, etc., as described in Hilchot Matanot Aniyim. it is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin to bring everything on the festival of immediate proximity,40Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 83) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 438) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Deuteronomy 12:5-6] states: "And you shall come there and you shall bring your burnt-offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes,... your vows, your pledges..."], as if to say: When you come [to Jerusalem] to celebrate a festival bring there everything that you are obligated and satisfy every obligation upon you.If the festival arrived and he did not bring [the gifts in which he is obligated], he has negated the observance of a positive commandment. If three festivals pass without him bringing the sacrifices he vowed or pledged to bring or without giving the endowment obligations, devotion offerings, and pledges for worth, he violates a negative commandment,41Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 155) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 574) count this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [ibid. 23:22] states: "Do not delay in paying it." He does not violate the negative commandment until all of the three pilgrimage festivals of the year pass. Lashes are not given for the violation of this negative commandment, because it does not involve a deed.42As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2, lashes are only given for the violation of a prohibition that involves a deed.
י״דהִקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי רְגָלִים וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם וּפְדָאָהּ עַל גַּב בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַד שֶׁיַּעַבְרוּ עַל הָאַחֶרֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים. וְאֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה עוֹבֵר בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר. אֲבָל הַיּוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר בְּבַל תְּאַחֵר:
14If one consecrated an animal [to be offered] on the altar and [after] two festivals passed [without it being offered], it became blemished and it was redeemed for another animal, the person does not violate the negative commandment until three festivals pass without the second [animal being sacrificed].43For the calculation begins anew with the consecration of the second animal.Both a man and a woman44Rosh HaShanah 6b explains that since a woman is not obligated to bring a burnt-offering (olat re'i'ah) for the pilgrimage festival, one might think that the entire concept of a pilgrimage festival - and hence, this commandment - does not apply to her. This supposition is, however, negated, for she is obligated in bringing the peace-offering of rejoicing (shalmei simchah) that are sacrificed on festivals. are liable for the transgression [the prohibition against] delaying [the offering of a sacrifice]. An heir, however, does not violate this prohibition.45The prohibition is not to delay paying one's vow. Since the heir did not make the vow himself, he does not violate this prohibition if he does not carry out the vow at the appropriate time. He is, however, to bring the sacrifice. See Rosh HaShanah 6b.
ט״וכָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים לֹא נִפְסְלוּ. אֶלָּא מַקְרִיבָן וּכְשֵׁרִים. וּבְכָל יוֹם וְיוֹם אַחַר הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים הוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תְּאַחֵר. וּבֵית דִּין מְצֻוִּין לְעַשּׂוֹתוֹ מִיָּד עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו בָּרֶגֶל שֶׁפָּגַע בּוֹ תְּחִלָּה:
15Despite the fact that three festivals passed, no [animal consecrated as] a sacrifice is disqualified. Instead, [such animals should be] sacrificed and they are acceptable. Each and every day that passes after the three pilgrimage festivals involves a violation of [the above] prohibition. The [Jewish] court is commanded to apply physical coercion to the person46As Ketubot 86a-b explains, the court is obligated to compel every individual to observe every positive commandment incumbent upon him, even if it requires beating him to the point of death. immediately until he offers his sacrifices on the first festival that presents itself.47The Rambam's wording appears to imply that if the court sees the person acting indolently with regard to the sacrifice, it is obligated to subject him to compulsion even if the first festival has not passed. This point is not, however, accepted by all authorities (Rav Yosef Corcus).
ט״זאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א ג) "לִרְצוֹנוֹ" כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי. בֵּין שֶׁנָּדַר וְלֹא הִפְרִישׁ בֵּין שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ וְלֹא הִקְרִיב כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב:
16Even though [Leviticus 1:3] states that [a burnt-offering must be sacrificed] "willfully," he may be compelled until he says: "I desire."48In Hilchot Gerushin 2:20, the Rambam explains why acting under compulsion in such circumstances can be considered willful activity. [For there also, a bill of divorce must be written with the husband's consent and yet he can be compelled to consent.]The concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale, or to give a present. If, however, a person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is forcing [his own conduct to become debased].With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him [to act otherwise]. Therefore, when he is beaten, until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above - or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface. Whether he vowed [to bring a sacrifice] and did not set it aside or set it aside, but did not offer it, he may be compelled until he sacrifices it.
י״זכָּל חַיָּבֵי עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּרְצֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א ג) "לִרְצֹנוֹ" כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי. אֲבָל חַיָּבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתָן הוֹאִיל וְהֵם מְעֻכְּבֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא יִפְשְׁעוּ וְיַשְׁהוּ קָרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן. חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת נָזִיר הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ מְעַכַּבְתּוֹ מִלִּשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן שֶׁמָּא יְאַחֵר אוֹתָהּ לְפִיכָךְ מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ עָלֶיהָ:
17[The court] seizes collateral from all of those obligated to bring burnt-offerings or peace-offerings [to compel them to offer them]. Even though [the sacrifice] will not bring him atonement unless he desires to offer it, as [implied by] the term "willfully," he is compelled until he says: "I desire."49As stated in Hilchot Arachin 3:14:They take... [from the persons obligated] against their will. They are not required to return the collateral by day or by night. They sell all the landed property and movable property in [those person's] possession including their clothing, household articles, servants, and livestock, taking their payment from everything. Collateral is not seized from those obligated to bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, by contrast. [The rationale is that] since [the failure to bring these sacrifices] prevents [the people] from receiving atonement,50Burnt-offerings also feature in bringing atonement for the failure to fulfill positive commandments. Nevertheless, in that instance the atonement is achieved through the person's repentance and the offering is considered merely as a present. In contrast, a sin-offering is required to bring about the atonement itself. we are not concerned that they will be sinful and delay [bringing] their sacrifices. [The only] exception is the sin-offering brought by a nazirite. Since [the failure to bring] it does not prevent him from drinking wine,51See Hilchot Nazirut 8:10. he is compelled [to bring the offering], lest he delay it.
ט״ו
א׳הָאוֹמֵר וְלָדָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה וִהִיא שְׁלָמִים דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. הִיא שְׁלָמִים וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה. אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ וְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שְׁלָמִים חָזַר בּוֹ וְאָמַר וּוְלָדָהּ עוֹלָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר בּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר הֲרֵי וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים. שֶׁאֵין חֲזָרָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר:
1When a person says: "The offspring of this [animal]1This is speaking about an animal that is not consecrated. If an animal that is consecrated becomes pregnant, its status is automatically transferred to its offspring [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:1)]. is [consecrated] as a burnt-offering2In which instance, the offspring should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. and it is [consecrated] as a peace-offering,"3In the discussion to follow, it is important to note that burnt-offerings are only male. Peace-offerings can be both male and female. Sin-offerings may also be female (Chapter 1, Halachot 8-11). Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 4:2, the offspring of a sin-offering is not sacrificed, but instead, set aside to die. Hence the Rambam speaks only of the offspring of peace-offerings. his words are binding. [Should he say:] "It is [consecrated] as a peace-offering and its offspring as a burnt-offering," if that was his intent, his words are binding.4The difference between the first clause and the second clause is that the first clause speaks about the offspring first. Consecrating the offspring certainly does not determine the mother's status. In the second clause, by contrast, the person consecrated the mother first. Now consecrating the mother determines the status of the offspring, for the offspring is considered as "the thigh of its mother." Hence ordinarily if an animal is consecrated as a peace-offering, its offspring also has that status and should be offered as such a sacrifice (Hilchot Temurah 4:1). Nevertheless, in this instance, if the person originally had the intent of consecrating the offspring as a burnt-offering, the offspring is given that status, because it was never meant to be a peace-offering. The person could only make one statement at a time and the fact that he chose to speak about the mother first does not affect the offspring's status.If, after he made a resolve in his heart and expressed verbally that [the offspring] should be a peace-offering, he retracted and said: "Its offspring is a burnt-offering," even though he retracted immediately,5The phrase translated as "immediately," toch kedai dibbur, has a very specific halachic meaning: "Within the time it takes to say Shalom Elecha, Rebbi" ("Greetings my master"; Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17). the offspring are [designated] as peace-offerings. For one cannot retract [pledges of] consecration even when one does so immediately.6In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 5:3), the Rambam explains that generally if one seeks to retract his statements immediately, the retraction is effective. There are, however, several instances marriage and divorce, the acceptance of a false divinity, blasphemy, the consecration of sacrifices, and the transfer of holiness from one animal to another where retraction is not possible.Nevertheless, the Rambam's perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Siftei Cohen (Choshen Mishpat 255:5) takes issue with him and argues that one may retract the consecration of an animal. Other sages, however, support the Rambam's position.
ב׳הָאוֹמֵר יָדָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה אוֹ רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה תִּמָּכֵר לְחַיָּבֵי עוֹלוֹת וְדָמֶיהָ חֻלִּין חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זֶה הַמְחֻיָּב עוֹלָה שֶׁקָּנָה אוֹתָהּ נָדַר עוֹלָה בְּדָמִים קְצוּבִים. הָאוֹמֵר לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה. הוֹאִיל וְדָבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ הוּא כֻּלָּהּ עוֹלָה. הִקְדִּישׁ אֵיבָר אֶחָד מִן הָעוֹף הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִתְקַדֵּשׁ כֻּלּוֹ אוֹ לֹא נִתְקַדֵּשׁ:
2When one says: "The right forefoot of this animal is a burnt-offering," or "The leg of this animal is a burnt offering," it should be sold to those obligated to bring burnt-offerings.7So that it will be sacrificed for that purpose and hence, the portion of the animal consecrated as a burnt-offering will have been offered as such. The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary funds with the exception of the worth of that limb.8For that limb was consecrated. [The above applies] provided the person obligated to bring a burnt-offering who purchased [the animal] vowed [to bring] a burnt-offering for a specific price.9There is a difficulty because the person bringing the burnt-offering will be bringing a sacrifice that does not belong to him entirely. The Jerusalem Talmud (Temurah 1:5) resolves this difficulty, explaining that we are speaking of an instance where the person vowed to spend a specific amount to bring a burnt-offering. Since the animal is worth that amount, he has fulfilled his vow.If one says: "The heart [of this animal]..." or "The head of this [animal] is a burnt-offering," the entire animal is a burnt-offering, for he consecrated an organ upon which [the animal's] life depends. If one consecrated a limb from a fowl, there is an unresolved doubt whether or not the entire fowl becomes consecrated.10This concept is debated without resolution by our Sages in Temurah 11b. The argument centers on the fact that the concept that one can consecrate a limb from an animal as a sacrifice was derived from the exegesis of a verse (Leviticus 27:9 . Now that verse is referring to an animal sacrifice and hence, our Sages question whether the concept applies to all sacrifices or only those involving animals.
ג׳הָאוֹמֵר בְּהֵמָה זוֹ חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה וְחֶצְיָהּ שְׁלָמִים קָדְשָׁה. וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בַּחֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ עוֹלָה וּבַחֲצִי דָּמֶיהָ שְׁלָמִים. הָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת וְאָמַר חֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת וְחֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר חֶצְיָהּ עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים וְחֶצְיָהּ חַטָּאת. הֲרֵי הִיא תָּמוּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בַּחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת:
3When one says: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering and half is a peace-offering," it is consecrated, but it should not be offered.11Because there is no way that one animal can be offered for two purposes. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying physical blemish and then be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a burnt offering and half, a peace-offering.12For in this way, his vow will be kept to the fullest extent of his capacity.If he was obligated to bring a sin-offering13Here he must be obligated, because as stated above, a sin-offering may not be brought on one's own initiative. and he said: "Half of this animal is a sin-offering and half is a burnt-offering," or "...a peace-offering," or he said: "Half of this animal is a burnt-offering..." or "...a peace-offering and half is a sin-offering," [the animal] should be left to die, as will be explained with regard to the sin-offerings that are left to die.14See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 regarding what is done with the animal. There the Rambam speaks about an animal separated as a sin-offering that was lost and discovered after its owner had brought another sin-offering in its stead. Since this animal was consecrated for a specific purpose and cannot be sacrificed for that purpose, it cannot be used for any other purpose and is hence caused to die. Similarly, in the instance at hand, since the animal cannot be sacrificed for the purpose for which it was consecrated, it is caused to die.
ד׳בֶּהֱמַת הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח חֶצְיָהּ הָאַחֵר וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ קְדֵשָׁה וּקְרֵבָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּתָהּ דְּחוּיָה הָיְתָה כְּשֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָהּ אֵין הַדָּחוּי מֵעִקָּרוֹ דָּחוּי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים הוֹאִיל וְהִיא בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדָּחִים. וַהֲרֵי נִרְאֵית כֻּלָּהּ לְהַקְרָבָה לְפִיכָךְ תִּקָּרֵב וְעוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה:
4When one of the partners who owned half an animal consecrated his portion and then purchased the other half and consecrated it, it is consecrated and offered on the altar. Even though originally, when he consecrated half of it, it was unacceptable,15For half an animal cannot be sacrificed. the fact that it was originally unacceptable does not cause it to be unacceptable forever.16This is a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:24. Even though originally only its worth was consecrated,17Since only its worth was consecrated (for originally, it could not be sacrificed), there is more reason to think that it would not become acceptable afterwards. since it is a live animal, [we follow the principle:]18Zevachim 59a. This is also a concept that applies in many different contexts of the laws concerning the consecration of animals. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23; Hilchot Shegagot 3:8, et al. "Living animals are never permanently disqualified." Since it is [ultimately] fit to be sacrificed, it should be sacrificed. [Moreover,] if one sought to transfer its holiness to another animal,19Violating the prohibition of temurah. the transfer is binding.
ה׳הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי בְּהֵמָה זוֹ עוֹלָה אוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ לְעוֹלָה. אִם הָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה נִתְקַדְּשָׁה קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהִיא עַצְמָהּ תִּקָּרֵב עוֹלָה. וְאִם אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ עוֹלָה:
5[Whether] one says: "The worth of this animal is a burnt-offering,"20And thus from his statements, there is room to say that it could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase an offering rather than it having to be sacrificed itself. or "This animal is a burnt-offering," if it is fit to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering,21It is male and unblemished. its body itself is consecrated and it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering.22For any animal that is consecrated and fit to be offered as a sacrifice should be offered (Radbaz). If it is not fit [to be sacrificed], it should be sold23The Kessef Mishneh elaborates, proving that here also, the Rambam's intent is that it should be left to pasture until it becomes blemished and then sold. and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.
ו׳אָמַר עַל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מֵאִסּוּרֵי קָרְבָּן שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָה יִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלָה:
6If a person said with regard to an impure animal24I.e., an animal from a non-kosher species. or another similar animal that is forbidden [to be offered] as a sacrifice that can never be consecrated: "Behold this is consecrated as a burnt-offering,"25Or any other type of sacrifice. his words are of no consequence.26The animal is not consecrated at all. Not only is it considered as ordinary property, the person who took the vow is under no obligation and need not sell the animal and purchase a sacrifice with the proceeds.We have punctuated the Rambam's words in this manner so that there is a direct correlation between the law stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 and the one stated here. Others maintain that the source refers to the first clause. In Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (see below), the Rambam speaks of consecrating an animal "for the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," no holiness is attached to it at all (see the gloss of the Ra'avad there). Similarly, in this instance, since he wished to designate the animals as a sacrifice, his words are of no consequence at all. As we explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach,27The commentaries explain that this reference is to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 where the Rambam states:One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah... to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood.... The holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires. It is not considered like a blemished animal, for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.Similarly, in the case at hand, since a sacrifice cannot be brought from such animals, they should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase the appropriate sacrifice. if he says: "These are [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," they should be sold and a burnt-offering brought with the proceeds of the sale.28For we assume that he made his promise in a manner that it would be of consequence (Radbaz).
ז׳הָאוֹמֵר דְּמֵי פָּרָה זוֹ לְעוֹלָה כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִשְׁלָמִים אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר דָּמֶיהָ לִשְׁלָמִים כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לְעוֹלָה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִים. וְאִם הִקְרִיב דָּמֶיהָ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֵבִיא בָּהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר וְאִם הִקְרִיבוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֵבִיא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר:
7If a person said:29The Rambam is referring to a difference of opinion among our Sages, Nedarim 29a, whether or not the consecration of the value (but not the physical substance) of an object for a limited time expires if nothing is done within that time. As will be stated, his ruling is that it does expire. "The worth of this cow30The Rambam is speaking of a situation where the cow's worth was consecrated, because all authorities agree that if the physical substance of the cow was consecrated, it would have to be redeemed for the first consecration to be nullified (ibid.). is [consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated for the sake of a peace-offering," or he said: "The worth of this cow is [consecrated] for the sake of a peace-offering31This point is added, because it possesses an added dimension of severity beyond the first instance. For a cow may not be offered as a burnt-offering, but it may be offered as a peace-offering. Thus it is fit to be sacrificed for the sake of the offering. for an entire 30 day period. After 30 days, [it is consecrated] for the sake of a burnt-offering," his words are binding.32The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and maintains that the animal must be redeemed for the initial consecration to be nullified. The issue is debated by the subsequent commentaries. [Thus] if he [comes to] offer [a sacrifice from] the proceeds of its sale within 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed. If he offers it after 30 days, he should bring the type of sacrifice that he vowed.
ח׳הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּהֵמָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְאָמַר אִם תֵּלֵד זָכָר הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹלָה וְאִם הִיא נְקֵבָה זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה זָכָר יִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה. יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה תִּקָּרֵב זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה הַזָּכָר יִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה וְהַנְּקֵבָה זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. יָלְדָה שְׁנֵי זְכָרִים אֶחָד יִקָּרֵב עוֹלָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִמָּכֵר לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלָה וְדָמָיו חֻלִּין. וְכֵן אִם יָלְדָה שְׁתֵּי נְקֵבוֹת אַחַת תִּקָּרֵב שְׁלָמִים וּשְׁנִיָּה תִּמָּכֵר לְצָרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים וְדָמֶיהָ חֻלִּין. יָלְדָה טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אֵינָן קָדָשִׁים וַהֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ עֻבָּר בִּמְעֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה קָדוֹשׁ:
8If a person possessed a pregnant animal33In his gloss to Hilchot Nedarim 12:10, the Lechem Mishneh states that this applies only when the animal is pregnant and thus the fetus exists. If, however, the animal is not pregnant, the person's words are not binding. and said: "Should it give birth to a male, it is a burnt-offering. Should it give birth to a female, it is a peace-offering," if the animal gives birth to a male, it should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering. If it gives birth to a female, it should be sacrificed as a peace-offering. If it gives birth to a male and a female, the male should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering and the female, as a peace-offering.If it gives birth to two males, one should be sacrificed as a burnt-offering34The Radbaz states that the animal of higher quality should be offered as the sacrifice. and the other sold for the sake of a burnt-offering,35For the person's initial vow encompassed both of them. but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money.36Since he is only obligated to bring one sacrifice, he is allowed to sell the second animal and use the proceeds for whatever purpose he desires. If it gives birth to two females, one should be sacrificed as a peace-offering and the other sold for the sake of a peace-offering, but the proceeds of the sale are ordinary money. If it gave birth to a tumtum37An animal whose gender cannot be determined, because it is masked by a piece of flesh. or an androgynus,38An animal that has both male and female organs. they are not consecrated and they are like ordinary animals,39I.e., they are not consecrated at all and they may be used for ordinary purposes. Since the person specified that he was consecrating the offspring as a sacrifice and these animals are unfit for sacrifice, his words are of no consequence whatsoever. as we explained.40Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:10 (cited above). See the second interpretation given in the notes to Halachah 6. When a person consecrates a fetus, whose mother has a disqualifying blemish or the like,41I.e., animals that are of a type able to be sacrificed, but disqualified for a particular reason. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, op. cit. while it is in its mother's womb, it is consecrated.