ט״ז
א׳הַנּוֹדֵר גָּדוֹל וְהֵבִיא קָטָן לֹא יָצָא. קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל יָצָא. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים כֶּבֶשׂ וְהֵבִיא אַיִל. אוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר עֵגֶל וְהֵבִיא שׁוֹר. גְּדִי וְהֵבִיא שָׂעִיר יָצָא:
1When a person vows to bring a large animal, but instead brings a small one, he does not fulfill his obligation.1For he has not fulfilled his vow. [If he vows to bring] a small one and brings a large one, he fulfills his obligation.2For it is as if the promise to bring the smaller animal included the possibility of bringing the larger one.What is implied? He said: "I promise [to bring] a lamb3An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). as a burnt-offering" or "...as a peace-offering," and he brings a ram,4One that is more than one year and one month old (ibid.). or he vowed a calf5An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). and brought an ox,6An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.). or a kid7An animal in the first year of its life (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). and brought a goat,8An animal in the second year of its life (ibid.). he fulfills his obligation.
ב׳נָדַר עוֹלָה מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים אוֹ מִן הָאֵילִים וְהֵבִיא פִּלְגָּס הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם יָצָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ אוֹ לֹא יָצָא. וְכֵן הַנּוֹדֵר עוֹלַת עוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה וְהֵבִיא תְּחִלַּת הַצִּהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. נָדַר שָׁחֹר וְהֵבִיא לָבָן לָבָן וְהֵבִיא שָׁחֹר זָכָר וְהֵבִיא נְקֵבָה נְקֵבָה וְהֵבִיא זָכָר לֹא יָצָא:
2If he vows to bring a burnt-offering9The laws to follow also apply with regard to a peace-offering. They do not apply with regard to a guilt-offering or a sin-offering, for those sacrifices may not be brought voluntarily. either from lambs or from rams and brings a pilgas,10A sheep that is between the age of one year and one year and one month. Thus it is no longer a lamb, but it is not yet considered as a ram (ibid.). there is an unresolved doubt whether or not he fulfilled his obligation.11There is an unresolved doubt regarding the status of a pilgas. Hence, the person cannot be considered as having fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, since its status is unresolved, we are not definitely certain that he did not fulfill his obligation.The Kessef Mishneh questions why is he not considered to have fulfilled his obligation if he vowed to bring a lamb. As stated in the previous halachah, if one vows to bring a small animal and instead, brings a large animal, he is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Thus in the case at hand, if a pilgas is considered a lamb, he will have fulfilled his obligation and if it is considered as a ram, he would have fulfilled his obligation, based on the principle stated in Halachah 1. The Kessef Mishneh answers that the animal's status is considered one of doubt, an intermediate state between the two. Hence it is not considered as acceptable as either type. Similarly, if one vowed to bring a burnt-offering12This law applies only with regard to burnt-offerings, for peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl. of fowl, from either turtle-doves, or ordinary doves13Turtle doves may only be brought as sacrifices when they are small and under-developed. Ordinary doves, by contrast, may be brought as sacrifices only when they have developed and reached a mature state (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2). and brought a fowl that began to sprout yellow feathers14An intermediate stage in which the fowl is unacceptable, because it is too mature for a turtle-dove and not mature enough for an ordinary dove (ibid.). of both species, there is an unresolved doubt [whether or not he fulfilled his obligation].15Since there is an unresolved doubt concerning a fowl that reached this state of development, a person who brings one such dove would certainly not fulfill his obligation. In this instance, however, since he brought one for each species, one might think that it is considered as if he fulfilled his vow. For if this is considered as a stage of development, he will have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable ordinary dove. And if it is not considered acceptable, he would have fulfilled the vow for he brought an acceptable turtle dove. Nevertheless, since a priest is not permitted to offer such a fowl as an initial preference, he is not considered to have fulfilled his vow.If one vowed to bring a black[-colored animal] and brought one that was white, [vowed to bring] a white one and brought a black one, [vowed] a male and brought a female or vowed a female and brought a male, he did not fulfill his obligation.16For he did not bring the animal that he vowed to bring as a sacrifice.
ג׳הַנּוֹדֵר סְתָם מֵבִיא מִן הַגְּדוֹלִים שֶׁבַּמִּין שֶׁנָּדַר. וְאִם אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם רְגִילִין לִקְרוֹת בִּסְתָם לְאֶחָד מִן הַמִּינִין מֵבִיא כְּאַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם. כֵּיצַד. נָדַר עוֹלָה מִן הַבָּקָר יָבִיא שׁוֹר. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה אִם דֶּרֶךְ אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם לִקְרוֹת עוֹלָה סְתָם אֲפִלּוּ לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף מֵבִיא פְּרֵדָה אַחַת תּוֹר אוֹ בֶּן יוֹנָה. וְאִם דַּרְכָּן שֶׁאֵין קוֹרִין עוֹלָה סְתָם אֶלָּא לְעוֹלַת בָּקָר יָבִיא שׁוֹר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
3When one takes a vow without specifying [the type of animal he is bringing], he should bring from the developed animals in the species he vowed to bring. If in his place [of residence], people commonly identify one of [the type of sacrifices] with a specific species [of animals], he should bring [the type of animal brought by] the people of that locale.17This follows a general principle stated by the Rambam, that with regard to the interpretation of the wording used in vows, everything is determined by local custom.What is implied? If a person vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle," he should bring an ox.18I.e., and not a calf. Should he say: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering," if the practice of the people of that locale is to use the term "burnt-offering" without any description to refer even to a fowl offered as a burnt-offering, he may bring even one fowl, a turtle dove or an ordinary dove. If their practice is to use that term only when referring to a burnt-offering of cattle, he should bring an ox. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ד׳מִי שֶׁנָּדַר שׁוֹר אוֹ אַיִל אוֹ כֶּבֶשׂ אוֹ עֵגֶל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם לֹא יָבִיא כָּחוּשׁ בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו מוּעָטִין. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהָבִיא הַיָּפֶה הַשָּׁמֵן בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁאֵין שָׁם לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא יָבִיא הַבֵּינוֹנִי. וְאִם הֵבִיא הַכָּחוּשׁ יָצָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ:
4A person who vowed to bring an ox, a ram, a lamb, a calf, or the like should not bring the frailest specimen of that species, because their value is minimal.19As Malachi 1:14 asks rhetorically: "You bring the stolen and the lame and the sick and offer it as a sacrifice. Shall I accept it from you." See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:1. Nor is he obligated to bring the nicest, stockiest specimen of which there is no better.20Although ibid.:11 states: "One who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity, should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing," this is a desirable ethical standard, but not a halachic imperative. Instead, he should bring an average animal.21Menachot 13:8 mentions prices to be paid for animals offered as sacrifices. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that the prices mentioned were the average prices for animals at that time. If he brought a frail animal, he fulfilled his vow.22As long as the animal is unblemished.
ה׳הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי שׁוֹר שְׁוֵה מָנֶה יָבִיא שׁוֹר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה מָנֶה בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם חוּץ מִנְּסָכָיו. הֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם בְּמָנֶה לֹא יָצָא:
5When a person says: "I promise to bring an ox worth a maneh,"23100 silver pieces. he should bring an ox worth a maneh in that place aside from its accompanying offerings.24The wine, meal, and oil brought together with the offering, as stated in Chapter 2. If he brought two [oxen] for a maneh, he did not fulfill his obligation.
ו׳הָאוֹמֵר שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה וְנָפַל בּוֹ מוּם אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו שְׁנַיִם וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיא בְּדָמָיו אַיִל אֶחָד יָצָא. אָמַר שְׁנֵי שְׁוָרִים אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה וְנָפַל בָּהֶם מוּם אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם אֶחָד. אַיִל זֶה עוֹלָה וְנָפַל בּוֹ מוּם אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו כֶּבֶשׂ. וְכֵן אִם נָדַר כֶּבֶשׂ וְנִפְסַל אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו אַיִל:
6[The following rules apply when] a person says: "This ox is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished. If he desires, he may bring two for the price he receives for it.25In this instance, since the ox was consecrated as a burnt-offering and was no longer fit to be offered as such, the proceeds of its sale must be used for that purpose. It does not matter, however, which animal(s) is purchased for that purpose.In the previous halachah, it was not acceptable for him to bring two oxen that have a combined worth of 100, for he made an explicit vow to bring one ox worth 100 and until he does so, he does not fulfill his obligation. In this halachah, once the consecrated animal is disqualified, there are no qualifications regarding which animals may be brought as burnt-offerings. See Menachot 108a. If he brings even one ram26I.e., the sacrifice he brings need not even be of the same species as the animal he originally designated for sacrifice. for the price he receives, he fulfills his vow.If he says: "These two oxen are burnt-offerings," and they become blemished, should he desire, he may bring one with the money he receives for their sale.27The new point this clause is teaching is that even if two animals were originally consecrated, one may be brought with the proceeds of their sale. "This ram is a burnt-offering" and it becomes blemished, if he desires he may bring a lamb with the money he receives for its sale. Similarly, if he vows a lamb and it becomes disqualified, he may bring a ram with the money he receives for its sale.
ז׳אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה וְהִפְרִישׁ שׁוֹר וְנִגְנַב פּוֹטֵר עַצְמוֹ בְּשֶׂה. אָמַר שׁוֹר זֶה וְדָמָיו עָלַי עוֹלָה הֻקְבַּע וְאִם נִפְסַל לֹא יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו אֶלָּא שׁוֹר:
7If he says: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering" and he set aside an ox and it was stolen, he may fulfill his obligation with a sheep.28For when taking the vow, he did not specify what animal he would bring. This applies provided people of this locale also refer to a sheep as a burnt-offering (see Halachah 3). Moreover, if he had pledged to bring that particular ox as a burnt-offering, he is not obligated to bring any sacrifice at all (Radbaz). If he says: "I promise to bring this ox or its value as a burnt-offering," [his commitment] is established as binding.29Even if the animal is disqualified, he is obligated to bring another one like it as a sacrifice. If [the ox] is disqualified, he may bring only an ox with the money he receives for its sale.
ח׳הָאוֹמֵר אֶחָד מִכְּבָשַׂי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאֶחָד מִשְּׁוָרַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְחוֹשְׁשִׁין לַבֵּינוֹנִי. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יַמְתִּין לַבֵּינוֹנִי עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְתָחוּל הַקְּדֻשָּׁה עַל הַגָּדוֹל לְבַדּוֹ. וְאִם אָמַר שׁוֹר שֶׁבִּשְׁוָרַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶם הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לַבֵּינוֹנִי:
8If he says: "One of my sheep is consecrated and one of my oxen is consecrated," but he had two, the larger one is consecrated.30For we assume that anyone who consecrates his property does so generously (Menachot 108b). If he has three, the larger one is consecrated, but concern should also be shown for the middle one.31For it is also possible that this was his intent, since consecrating the middle one is still acting generously, because there is a smaller one.What should be done? He should wait until the middle one becomes blemished so that the holiness will fall on the larger one alone.32The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as implying that once the second one becomes blemished, the holiness automatically falls on the third. This runs contrary to Rashi's approach (Menachot, loc. cit.) which requires the person to make a stipulation conditionally transferring the holiness that might have fallen on the middle ox. If he says: "An ox from my oxen is consecrated," the larger one is consecrated and concern need not be shown for the middle one.33For by saying "An ox," we assume he meant the choicest one (Menachot, loc. cit.). The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Meilah 7:7 appears to run contrary to this explanation.
ט׳פֵּרַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְשָׁכַח אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מַקְדִּישׁ גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. וְכֵן הַנּוֹדֵר עוֹלָה מִן הַבָּקָר וְקָבַע נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח מַה קָּבַע אִם שׁוֹר אִם עֵגֶל הֲרֵי זֶה יָבִיא שׁוֹר. וְכֵן אִם קָבַע בַּכְּבָשִׂים וְשָׁכַח מַה קָּבַע יָבִיא אַיִל. קָבַע בָּעִזִּים וְשָׁכַח יָבִיא שָׂעִיר. שָׁכַח בְּאֵיזֶה מִין מִן הַבְּהֵמָה קָבַע עוֹלָתוֹ יָבִיא שׁוֹר וְאַיִל וְשָׂעִיר. וְאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ שֶׁמָּא קָבַע עוֹלָתוֹ בָּעוֹף יוֹסִיף תּוֹר וּבֶן יוֹנָה:
9If he designated one of [three animals as a sacrifice] and forgot [which one he designated] or his father told him "One of these animals was consecrated,"34And then his father died without informing him which one was consecrated (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.). he should designate the largest one as consecrated35For we assume that he intended to offer the most choice one as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that this case is different from the one in the previous halachah where concern is also given to the middle one, because since he already designated the animal, we assume that he chose the best one. and, afterwards, he fulfills his obligation [with its sacrifice]. Similarly, if one vowed to bring a burnt-offering from cattle and designated [an animal as a sacrifice to fulfill] his vow and [later] forgot whether he had designated an ox or a calf, he should bring an ox.36For even if he originally designated a small animal as a sacrifice, we follow the principle stated in Halachah 1 that a person who vows to bring a small animal, but instead brings a large one fulfills his obligation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 13:6); see also Ra'avad]. Similarly, if he designated a sheep and forgot what he designated,37Whether a ram or a lamb. he should bring a ram. If he designated a goat and forgot what he designated,38Whether a grown goat or a kid. he should bring a grown goat. If he forgot the species from which he designated the burnt-offering, he should bring an ox, a ram, and a grown goat.39I.e., he must allow for the possibility that he designated any of the three types of animals that could be offered as burnt-offerings and he must offer a large animal from each species for the reason mentioned above. If he was in doubt that perhaps he designated the burnt-offering from fowl, he should also add a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.40He must bring both, because they are considered as two separate species and not as developed and underdeveloped specimens of the same species.
י׳נָדַר תּוֹדָה אוֹ שְׁלָמִים וְקָבַע נִדְרוֹ בַּבָּקָר וְשָׁכַח בְּמִי קְבָעוֹ יָבִיא פַּר וּפָרָה. וְכֵן אִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ בַּכְּבָשִׂים יָבִיא אַיִל וְרָחֵל. נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ בָּעִזִּים יָבִיא שָׂעִיר וּשְׂעִירָה. שָׁכַח בְּאֵי זֶה מִין קָבַע נִדְרוֹ מֵבִיא פַּר וּפָרָה אַיִל וְרָחֵל שָׂעִיר וּשְׂעִירָה. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת עוֹף מֵבִיא תּוֹר אוֹ בֶּן יוֹנָה. פֵּרֵשׁ וְשָׁכַח בְּאֵי זֶה מִין קָבַע נִדְרוֹ מֵבִיא תּוֹר וּבֶן יוֹנָה:
10When a person vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering or a peace offering, specifying that it would be brought from cattle, but forgot what he designated to bring, he should bring an ox and a cow.41As stated above with regard to burnt-offerings, he is obligated to bring a developed specimen. Unlike a burnt-offering, these sacrifices may be brought from females as well as males. Hence, although bringing a large animal fulfills his obligation even if he originally vowed to bring a small one, he is still required to bring both a male and a female, for he is unsure of the gender of the animal he originally designated. Similarly, if he is unsure with regard to sheep, he should bring a ram and a ewe. If he is unsure with regard to goats, he must bring a he-goat and a she-goat.If he forgot the species from which he designated the sacrifice, he should bring an ox, a cow, a ram, a ewe, a he-goat, and a she-goat.42Peace-offerings may not be brought from fowl, so there is no need to bring doves. If he said: "I promise to bring a burnt-offering of fowl," he should bring a turtle-dove or an ordinary dove.43Bringing either will enable him to fulfill his vow. If he designated one particular species in his vow and forgot which one, he should bring both a turtle-dove and an ordinary dove.
י״אהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ יָבִיא קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב כֻּלּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא אֶלָּא לְבוֹנָה. פֵּרֵשׁ נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח מַה פֵּרֵשׁ יָבִיא מִכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב כֻּלּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. לְפִיכָךְ מֵבִיא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים וּלְבוֹנָה וְיַיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ:
11When one says: "I promise to bring [an offering] for the altar," he should bring a handful of frankincense,44As stated in Halachah 13, when one brings frankincense, he must bring at least a handful. for there is nothing that is offered entirely on the altar in its immediate state except for frankincense.45Since he said: "For the altar," we assume he meant something that is only for the altar. As mentioned below, there are other entities which are also offered on the altar, but unlike frankincense, they are not offered on the altar in their entirety. (The hide of an animal offered as a burnt-offering and the feathers of a fowl offered as a burnt-offering are withheld. With regard to the wine, it is not consumed by the altar's pyre, but poured upon it. And with regard to an offering of flour, since there are types of meal-offerings which are given to the priests to eat, we assume that his intent was not to bring such an offering.)If he specified his vow, but forgot what he specified to bring, he should bring every type of entity that is offered on the altar in its entirety.46Since the primary elements of the burnt-offering are burnt on the altar and the wine is poured over the altar, it is possible that this was his intent. Therefore he should bring a burnt-offering of an animal, a burnt-offering of fowl, a meal-offering of flour, frankincense, and wine alone.47I.e., aside from the wine brought as part of the accompanying offering of flour (Kessef Mishneh).
י״באָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּסֶלַע לַמִּזְבֵּחַ יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב בְּסֶלַע לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא כֶּבֶשׂ. פֵּרֵשׁ וְשָׁכַח מַה שֶּׁפֵּרֵשׁ יָבִיא בְּסֶלַע מִכָּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
12When a person says: "I promise to bring [an offering] worth a sela48A large silver coin used in the Talmudic era. to the altar," he should bring a sheep,49As a burnt-offering. The Radbaz states that this word should be included in the statement of the person's promise. for there is nothing offered on the altar worth [exactly] a sela except a sheep. If he specified [a particular entity], but forgot what he specified, he should bring a sela's worth of everything that is offered on the altar.50In addition to the burnt-offering, this could include wine, frankincense, and flour.
י״גהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי לְבוֹנָה לֹא יִפְחֹת מִקֹּמֶץ. הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים לֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גְּזָרִים עָבִין כִּמְחוּקוֹת וְאָרְכָּן אַמָּה. הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵץ מֵבִיא גֶּזֶר אֶחָד אָרְכּוֹ אַמָּה. וְאִם רָצָה לְהָבִיא דְּמֵי הָעֵצִים יָבִיא:
13When a person says: "I promise to bring frankincense," he should not bring less than a handful.51Menachot 106b derives this concept from a comparison to the flour offered from a meal offering, just as there a handful is offered, so too, a handful of frankincense should be offered. If one says: "I promise to bring wood," he should not bring less than two52The Hebrew term is written in the plural. Hence at least two logs are required. logs as thick as a leveling rod that are a cubit long.53See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:3. "I promise to bring a piece of wood," he should bring one log a cubit long. If he desires to bring the worth of the logs, he may.54He would place the money in a container designated for that purpose and the priests would take the money and purchase the wood (Tosefta, Shekalim 3:3).
י״דמִי שֶׁנָּדַר אוֹ הִתְנַדֵּב שֶׁמֶן כֵּיצַד עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ. קוֹמֵץ מִמֶּנּוּ קֹמֶץ וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח וְזוֹרְקוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִשִּׁים וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים כִּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין בְּיַיִן הַבָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. נוֹתֵן עָלָיו מֶלַח וּמְנַסְּכוֹ כֻּלּוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַשִּׁיתִין כְּכָל הַנְּסָכִים. וְהַלְּבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מֶלַח וְכֻלָּהּ לָאִשִּׁים:
14What should a person who vowed or pledged to bring oil do? He should take a handful of it,55Kin'at Eliyahu questions how one takes a handful of oil. put salt on it,56As required of all the sacrifices (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11). and toss it on the fire. The remainder is eaten by the priests like the remainder of the meal offerings.57See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.What is done with wine that is brought independently? It is salted58Although Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit., states that salt is not required for wine that is offered on the altar, that refers to wine offered as a libation accompanying other sacrifices. When, however, wine is offered alone, salt is required (Kessef Mishneh). and then poured entirely59None is given to the priests to partake of. down the shittin60See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which states: "There were two cavities in the southwest corner [of the Altar], resembling two thin nostrils.... The blood [which was poured onto the Altar] would run off through them and... [ultimately,] go out to the Kidron River." like the other libations.61It is not poured over the fire, because it would - at least partially - quench the fire and that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh). Frankincense which is brought independently should be salted and then offered on the pyre in its entirety.
ט״ומִי שֶׁנָּדַר נֵדֶר לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְחַיֵּב בְּקָרְבָּן זֶה וְכָל הַמְחֻיָּב בְּקָרְבָּן לֹא יָבִיא קָרְבָּנוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין:
15When a person vowed [to bring a sacrifice], he should not bring it from money [for which] the second tithe [was redeemed].62As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'asaer Sheni, ch. 4, when a person lives far from Jerusalem and cannot easily take produce from the second tithe to the holy city, he should redeem it for money. That money must be used to purchase food which must be eaten in Jerusalem according to the strictures that apply to the second tithe. [The rationale is that] he became obligated63Because of his vow. to bring this sacrifice and anyone who is obligated to bring a sacrifice may bring it only from ordinary property.64And the second tithe is considered as holy, "consecrated unto God."This is a general principle. The rationale is that since the person is obligated to bring the offering, it must be brought from resources that belong to him entirely (see the conclusion of Halachah 17).
ט״זאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה מִן הַחֻלִּין וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לֹא יָבִיא לַחְמָהּ אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין. שֶׁהֲרֵי נָדַר בְּקָרְבַּן תּוֹדָה וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא עִם הַלֶּחֶם מִן הַחֻלִּין:
16If a person states: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering from ordinary funds and its bread from the [second] tithe," he should bring its bread only from ordinary funds. [The rationale is that] he vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering and that offering comes only when accompanied by bread which is from ordinary property.65I.e., the bread is considered as an integral part of that offering and not an additional element. Thus when he vows to bring a thanks-giving offering, that vow also requires him to bring bread. Hence the bread must come from ordinary property (Radbaz).
י״זפֵּרֵשׁ וְאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי לְהָבִיא תּוֹדָה מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַחֻלִּין יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהָבִיא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּדַר. וְאִם הֵבִיא הַכּל מִן הַחֻלִּין יָצָא. וְכֵן אִם פֵּרֵשׁ וְאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה הִיא וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר יָבִיא. וְלֹא יָבִיא לַחְמָהּ מֵחִטֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אֶלָּא מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ שֶׁיָּבִיא לַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לֹא יָבִיא נְסָכֶיהָ מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין הַנְּסָכִים בָּאִין לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן (במדבר טו ד) "וְהִקְרִיב הַמַּקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָּהֶן צַד לְגָבוֹהַּ כְּלָל:
17If he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving offering from money from the second tithes and its bread from ordinary property," he may bring [the sacrifice] as he vowed.66As stated below, if he specifies, he is allowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering using the money from the second tithes, for he will partake of the meat of that sacrifice in Jerusalem. What is unique here is the fact that the sacrifice will be from the second tithes and the bread from ordinary funds. Even so, the sacrifice is acceptable. If he brought it all from ordinary property, he fulfilled his obligation.67In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:5; based on Menachot 81b), the Rambam writes that it is indeed more desirable for him to bring the sacrifice from ordinary funds. Similarly, if he explicitly said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from the second tithe," he may bring it [as vowed].68In this instance as well, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it is desirable for him to bring everything from ordinary property. He should not bring the bread from wheat that is the second tithe, but from [flour purchased with] money [for which] the second tithe was redeemed like the animal which was [purchased with] such money.Even though he explicitly stated that he would bring the bread from [the money of] the second] tithe, he should not bring its libations from the money of the second tithe, for at all times, libations must be brought solely from ordinary funds, as explained.69Chapter 3, Halachah 13. [The rationale is] that concerning [the libations],70This refers not only to the wine libations, but to all vows for sacrifices. [Numbers 15:4] states: "The one who offers them shall offer his sacrifice." Implied is that the sacrifice must be his without having any dimension that belongs to the Most High.
י״ז
א׳הַנּוֹדֵר מִנְחָה מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר לֹא יָבִיא מאֲפֵה כֻּפָּח וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה רְעָפִים וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה יוֹרוֹת הָעַרְבִיִּים:
1When a person vows to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven, he should not bring one baked in a kopach,1A range with an opening for one pot [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:9)]. one baked on rafters,2I.e., one of the common ways to bake in the Talmudic period was to heat rafters and stones until they were glowing hot and place dough upon them. Afterwards, the stones and rafters were covered and thus the dough would bake (ibid.).or one baked in Arab pits.3A pit covered with mud into which wood was placed and kindled. The dough was placed within and it was covered so that it would bake like an oven (ibid.). These are not acceptable, because the person took a vow that he would bring a meal offering cooked in an oven and these devices do not fit that description.
ב׳הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּמַחֲבַת וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת. בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת וְהֵבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת. מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא וִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יָצָא. וְאִם אָמַר זוֹ לְהָבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת וֶהֱבִיאָהּ בְּמַחֲבַת. אוֹ בְּמַחֲבַת וֶהֱבִיאָהּ בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לַהֲבִיאָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים. בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא וִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יָצָא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כד) "כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לַה'":
2When one says: "I promise to bring a meal offering [baked] on a flat frying-pan," and he brings one [baked] in a deep frying-pan4See Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to the difference between the two. or he promised to bring one [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brought one [baked] on a flat frying-pan, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation.5Because he did not bring the sacrifice he vowed to bring.If he said: "I will bring these6Pointing to cakes that he prepared to bake. [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brings them [baked] on a flat frying-pan or promised to bring it [baked] on a flat frying-pan and brought it [baked] in a deep frying-pan," [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.7For he specified that the cakes be prepared in one way and they were not. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.Similarly, if a person says: "I promise to bring two esronim in one vessel and he brings them in two vessels" or "...in two vessels" and he brings them in one vessel, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation. [The rationale8For all the above.is that Deuteronomy 23:24] states: "As you vowed to G‑d."9Implying that the vow must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
ג׳אָמַר אֵלּוּ לְהָבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְהֵבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אוֹ לְהָבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין. לֹא קְבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת הַנֵּדֶר אֶלָּא אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת וּבִשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה קְבָעָן וְהִפְרִישָׁן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְחָזַר וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כד) "כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ" וְלֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד נָדַרְתָּ. הִקְרִיבָם בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין. הִקְרִיבָם בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:
3If he said: "I will bring these cakes in one vessel" and he brought them in two or [promised] to bring them in two and brought them in one, they are unacceptable.10If he can take a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 4.If he did not specify what he would bring when he took the vow, but [merely] said: "I promise to bring two esronim and when he designated [the meal for the offering], he set [the flour] aside in two vessels and afterwards, brought it in one vessel, it is acceptable. For the verse states "as you vowed" and not "as you set aside."When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in one vessel," but he brought them in two, if despite being told that he vowed to bring them in one vessel, he offered them in two, they are not acceptable.11Because he did not fulfill his vow. It is, however, necessary to ask him and have him respond as the Rambam states. Otherwise, we assume that he is not bringing this offering in fulfillment of his vow, but rather as a separate sacrifice. In that instance, although he would not have fulfilled his vow, the sacrifice would be acceptable. If he brought them in one vessel, they are acceptable.12Since he offered them as he vowed, the fact that he originally brought them in two vessels is not significant.
ד׳אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. אָמְרוּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים נָדַרְתָּ. הִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים. הִקְרִיבָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּשְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ:
4When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in two vessels," but he brought them in one, if after being told that he vowed to bring them in two vessel, he offered them in two, they are acceptable. If he brought them in one vessel, they are like two meal-offerings that became mixed together.13In that instance, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:29, the law is that if one can take handfuls of each individually, they are acceptable. If not, they are not.
ה׳האוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה. יָבִיא אַחַת מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת הַבָּאוֹת בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מְנָחוֹת יָבִיא שְׁנֵי (מִינֵי) מְנָחוֹת מֵחֲמִשְׁתָּן. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִין מְנָחוֹת יָבִיא שְׁנֵי מְנָחוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד. הֲרֵי עָלַי מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת יָבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִים. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר מִינֵי מִנְחָה יָבִיא שְׁנֵי מִינִין. קָבַע נִדְרוֹ בְּמִין מֵהֶן וּשְׁכָחוֹ מֵבִיא חֲמִשְּׁתָן:
5If one says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering," he should bring one of the five types of meal-offerings that can be either vowed or pledged.14See Chapter 12, Halachah 4, for a description of these meal-offerings. If he says: "I promise to bring meal-offerings," he should bring two15Since he used the plural, at least two offerings are required. of the five types of meal-offerings.16The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the word "types" is a printing error, because even if he brought two of the same type of meal-offering, he fulfilled his obligation. The Radbaz, however, initially explains that the Rambam's wording could be interpreted as being precise. Since the person said two meal-offerings, we can assume that he meant of two different types. Otherwise, he would have just vowed to bring one large meal-offering. Nevertheless, ultimately, the Radbaz rejects this interpretation and states that the Rambam's intent is "even of two types," i.e., he may bring two offerings either of one type or of two types. If he says: "I promise to bring a type of meal-offerings," he should bring two17Here also, since he spoke of "meal-offerings," using the plural, he is required to bring two. meal-offerings of one type.18For he said "a type," limiting him to only one type. If he says: "I promise to bring types of meal-offerings," he should bring two meal-offerings [coming] from two types.19Since he used the plural for both offerings and types, he should bring two offerings and they should be of two different types. Similarly if he says: "...types of a meal-offering," he should bring two types of meal-offerings.20One offering from each type, as in the previous clause. Hebrew grammar occasionally allows for a singular term to be used in a plural sense. The Kessef Mishneh notes that this matter is debated by Menachot 105a and a ruling is not reached. Hence he questions how the Rambam can require him to bring a second offering: If it is not required, he will be bringing ordinary flour into the Temple Courtyard (which is forbidden). Hence he maintains that the person must make a stipulation when bringing this offering: "If I am obligated to bring it, this is to fulfill my vow. And if I am not obligated, it is a freewill offering." If he specified that he would bring one type [of meal-offering] and forgot [which type he specified], he should bring all five types.21For in this way, he will certainly fulfill his vow.
ו׳אֵין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא מִנְחָה בִּכְלִי אֶחָד יוֹתֵר מִשִּׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. וְאִם נָדַר יוֹתֵר מִשִּׁשִּׁים מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְהַשְּׁאָר בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי. שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לְהִבָּלֵל כְּאֶחָד אֶלָּא שִׁשִּׁים אֲבָל יֶתֶר עַל שִׁשִּׁים אֵין נִבְלָלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבְּלִילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָה אֵין הַבִּילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָה הַבִּילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ:
6A private individual22I.e., in contrast to the community at large. For there is no concept of a voluntary communal meal-offering and all the required communal meal-offerings have specific measures. should not bring more than sixty esronim [of flour] in one vessel as a meal offering. If he vowed more than sixty, he should bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in a second vessel.23As indicated by the following halachah, it appears to be preferable that he bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in the other, rather than dividing the sum evenly between the two.[The rationale is that] no more than sixty [esronim of flour] can be mixed together [with oil as one].24Even though oil is always mixed with the flour at a ratio of one log to every isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 7), nevertheless, if there is a very large quantity of flour, it will be difficult to get a proper mixture. It is not an absolute requirement for [the flour and the oil] to be mixed together as we explained.25Chapter 13, Halachah 11. Nevertheless, our Sages said:26Menachot 18b; 103b. "Whenever a [meal-offering] is fit to be mixed [with oil], it is not an absolute requirement for it to be mixed. Whenever it is not fit to be mixed [with oil],27Because there is too large a quantity of flour. mixing it is an absolute requirement."28As long as the meal and the oil could be mixed together, the fact that they were not mixed together is not significant, because there is nothing inherently lacking in the mixture. If, however, they could not be mixed together, there is an inherent difficulty with the mixture, therefore it is disqualified. Note the parallels to the declaration made with regard to the firsts fruits mentioned in Bava Batra 82a.
ז׳אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד עִשָּׂרוֹן מֵבִיא מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שִׁשִּׁים בְּכָל כְּלִי וּמֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד בַּכְּלִי הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עִשָּׂרוֹן יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד. הֲרֵי עָלַי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם. פֵּרֵשׁ נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה עִשָּׂרוֹן פֵּרֵשׁ יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. שָׁכַח כַּמָּה עִשָּׂרוֹן פֵּרֵשׁ וּבְאֵי זֶה מִין קְבָעוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן מִכָּל מִין וָמִין מֵחֲמִשְׁתָּן:
7If one says: "I promise to bring 121 esronim [as a meal offering]." He should bring 120 [esronim] in two vessels - 60 in each vessel - and one isaron in a third vessel.29I.e., he does not divide them into three equal portions.If he said: "I promise to bring an isaron," he should bring one isaron. "I promise to bring isaronim," he should bring two. If he specified [the number of esronim] he vowed and then forgot how many he specified, he should bring 60 esronim in one vessel.30For an individual meal-offering is never more than 60 esronim and if he had promised a lesser amount, bringing more will not disqualify his offering (Radbaz). If he forgot how many esronim he specified and which type [of meal-offering] he specified, he should bring 60 esronim of each of the five types [of meal-offerings].
ח׳קָבַע נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת נָדַר וּבְכַמָּה כֵּלִים נָדַר הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים בְּשִׁשִּׁים כֵּלִים. כֵּיצַד. מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד בִּכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עַד שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן בַּכְּלִי הָאַחֲרוֹן. וְאִם שָׁכַח אַף בְּאֵי זֶה מִין קָבַע מֵבִיא עַל סֵדֶר זֶה שִׁשִּׁים כֵּלִים מִכָּל מִין וְנִמְצָא מֵבִיא מִכָּל מִין אֶלֶף וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן:
8If he specified his vow and forgot both how many esronim he vowed and the number of vessels in which he vowed to bring them, he should bring [the full range of] one to sixty esronim in sixty different vessels.31This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 3, if a person vowed to bring two esronim in two vessels and he brought them in one, the offering is unacceptable. By bringing the full range of vessels from one to sixty, the person will certainly have included the entire number he vowed to bring. Any extra are considered as voluntary offerings.The Radbaz notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Menachot 13:2 and the opinion the Rambam quotes here is that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. The Sages, however, differ and maintain that it is sufficient to bring one meal offering of 60 esronim. The Radbaz questions why the Rambam chooses to follow Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, for it is a minority opinion. Moreover, he notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explicitly states that the halachah does not follow this view. The Radbaz explains that since the Talmud (Menachot 106a) tries to justify other teachings according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, we can assume that it is accepted as halachah.What is implied? He should bring one isaron in the first vessel, two esronim in the second vessel, three in the third, until he brings 60 esronim in the last vessel. If he also forgot what type [of meal-offering] he designated, he should also brings [60 offerings] according to this pattern in 60 vessels of each type. Thus he will be bringing 1830 esronim from each type.
ט׳הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ מִנְחַת חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן אוֹ מִנְחַת בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב דָּבָר שֶׁכָּמוֹהוּ מַקְרִיבִין. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים אוֹ מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים אוֹ מִנְחָה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה אוֹ מִנְחָה חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן. שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ אִם אָמַר לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהַקְרִיב כָּזֶה וְאִלּוּ יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין אֶלָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם סלֶת בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַקְרִיב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין:
9When a person says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering of barley,"32Which is unacceptable, because as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all the meal-offerings are brought from wheat except the meal-offering of a sotah and the omer offering. Those are obligatory offerings and cannot be vowed by a person."...a meal-offering of a half an isaron,"33Which is also unacceptable, because a meal-offering may not be less than an isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 5). or "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense,"34Such an offering is also unacceptable, for oil and frankincense are absolute requirements (Chapter 12, Halachah 7). he is exempt, because he did not vow an entity that is sacrificed.If he said: "I promise to bring a meal-offering35The difference between this and the previous clause depends on the precise Hebrew term used. If he said minchat ("meal-offering of"), as in the first clause he is not obligated at all, for the grammatical structure of the term is that of an adjective and the emphasis is on the words that follow. If, however, he used the term minchah ("meal-offering"), we assume that the fundamental intent of his vow was to bring a meal-offering. Since the specifics he mentioned were unacceptable, we ask him to clarify his intent. The Ra'avad does not accept this distinction, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position. of barley," "...of lentils,"36Which is also unacceptable. Although Menachot103a debates whether a person could possibly err and think that a meal-offering from lentils is acceptable, from the resolution of that passage, it appears that such an error is plausible. "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense," or "...a meal-offering of a half an isaron," we ask him [what his intent was]. If he says: "I only took the vow because I thought it was permissible to offer such [sacrifices]. Had I known that one could only offer a complete isaron of fine [wheat] flour together with oil and frankincense, I would not have taken a vow," he is exempt. If, [however,] he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring an offering like those that are offered.
י׳נָדַר עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה וְאָמַר אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי קֶמַח אוֹ הֲרֵי עָלַי חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר שֵׁם מִנְחָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נָדַר מֵעוֹלָם. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם וְזֶבַח בְּלֹא נְסָכִים הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין כָּךְ הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַנּוֹדְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַקְרִיב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמַּקְרִיבִין:
10If he vowed to bring an isaron and a half37Based on the conclusion of the clause and the explanations in the previous halachah, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this law applies only when the person said: "a meal-offering (minchah) of an isaron and a half." and he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he must bring two [esronim].38For he obviously desired to bring more than one isaron. If he said: "I promise to bring coarse flour"39As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all of the meal-offerings are brought from solet, "fine flour," and not kemach, "coarse flour." This he is vowing to bring an entity that is never offered. or "I promise to bring a half an isaron" without mentioning the term "meal-offering," he is exempt.40The Ra'avad differs concerning this point and states that in this instance as well, he should be asked to clarify his intent, as mentioned in the previous halachah. It as if he never took a vow at all.Similarly, if one said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread,"41See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, which includes the bread as an integral part of the thanksgiving-offering.or "...a sacrifice without its accompanying offerings,"42See Chapter 2 which explains that every sacrifice is offered together with wine, meal, and oil. he is exempt. If he said:43I.e., as in the previous halachah, he is asked about his intent (Kessef Mishneh). "Were I to have known that such offerings are not sacrificed, I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring [an offering] like those that are offered.
י״אהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תּוֹדָה יָבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין לֶחֶם בְּלֹא תּוֹדָה וְסוֹף הַקָּרְבָּן הִזְכִּיר. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי לֶחֶם לִפְטֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי יָבִיא לֶחֶם תּוֹדָה עִם תּוֹדַת חֲבֵרוֹ:
11When a person says: "I promise to bring the bread of a thanksgiving-offering," He must bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread. [The rationale is that] it is known that the bread is never offered without the thanksgiving-offering and he mentioned merely the conclusion of the sacrifice.44We assume that this was intent when making the vow. The Radbaz explains that it is not even necessary to ask him to clarify his intent, since he mentioned the thanksgiving-offering when making his vow, we take for granted that this was what he meant to say. If he said: 'I promise to bring the bread to fulfill the obligation for so-and-so's thanksgiving offering," he should bring the bread for a thanksgiving offering together with the offering of his friend.
י״במִתְנַדֵּב אוֹ נוֹדֵר אָדָם יַיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג יַיִן וְלֹא שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין. שֶׁאֵין בִּנְסָכִים לֹא לוֹג וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין חֲמֵשֶׁת לוֹגִין רְאוּיִין לֹא לְנִסְכֵּי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת וְלֹא לְנִסְכֵּי שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת. אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה וּמִשִּׁשָּׁה וָמַעְלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְנִסְכֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת:
12A person may vow or pledge to bring wine independently.45See Chapter 14, Halachah 1; Chapter 16, Halachah 14. One should not vow to bring a log of wine or two lugim,46See Halachah 14. for there are no libations that are [only] a log or two lugim.47As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the wine libations are 3, 4, or 6 log, depending on the animal offered. Nor should one vow five lugim, for five lugim are not fit for the libations of one animal or for those of two animals.48For no two offerings will reach a total of five. See also Halachah 14. One may, however, vow three, four, six, or more lugim,49For any number over six will be able to be broken up into multiples of 3,4, or 5, as stated in the following halachah [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 12:4)]. because they are fit for the wine libations for sacrificial animals.
י״גכֵּיצַד. נָדַר שִׁבְעָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּנִסְכֵּי כֶּבֶשׂ וְאַיִל. נָדַר שְׁמוֹנָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּנִסְכֵּי שְׁנֵי אֵילִים. תִּשְׁעָה כְּנִסְכֵּי שׁוֹר וְכֶבֶשׂ אוֹ כְּנִסְכֵּי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּבָשִׂים. נָדַר עֲשָׂרָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּנִסְכֵּי שׁוֹר וְאַיִל אוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים וְאַיִל וְכֵן עַד לְעוֹלָם:
13What is implied? If a person vows seven [lugim], they are considered as the libations for a sheep and for a ram.50The libations for a sheep are three lugim and those for a ram are four. We assume that the person desired to bring them both. If he vowed eight, they are the libations for two rams; nine are the libations for an ox51Six lugim. and a sheep or those of three sheep. If he vowed ten, they are the libations for an ox and a ram or two sheep and a ram. Similarly, all numbers [can be seen as such combinations].
י״דנָדַר חֲמִשָּׁה לוֹגִין אוֹמְרִין לוֹ הַשְׁלֵם שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁהֲרֵי קְבָעָן לְקָרְבָּן. אֲבָל אִם נָדַר לוֹג אוֹ שְׁנַיִם פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִין כְּלָל לֹא הֵן וְלֹא מִקְצָתָן. וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין וְלֹא נוֹדְרִין פָּחוֹת מִלּוֹג שֶׁמֶן. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מִנְחָה פְּחוּתָה מֵעִשָּׂרוֹן וְהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹג אֶחָד שֶׁמֶן:
14If he vowed to bring five lugim, we tell him: "Make it a complete six."52Which are the libations for an ox. [The rationale is that] he already established it as fit for a sacrifice.53Since libations of three and four lugim are brought, we assume that he did not want to make an empty statement. Hence, we ask him to increase the amount so that he will also be able to bring a valid offering. We do not reduce the amount, because there is an unresolved discussion in Menachot 104a if that is acceptable.If, by contrast, he vowed one log or two, he is exempt, for this amount or their components are not fit to be used as a libation.54Based on the ruling in Halachah 9 with regard to a meal-offering of a half an isaron, the Radbaz states that if one says: "a wine libation of one log," he should be asked to clarify his intent.Less than a log of oil should not be vowed or pledged, for there is no meal-offering smaller than an isaron and it requires a log of oil.55See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 7.
ט״והָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי יַיִן לֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין. הֲרֵי עָלַי שֶׁמֶן לֹא יִפְחֹת מִלּוֹג. פֵּרֵשׁ נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה לוֹג נָדַר מִן הַיַּיִן אוֹ מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן יָבִיא אַרְבָּעִים וּמֵאָה לוֹג. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ יוֹם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין בּוֹ הַצִּבּוּר קָרְבָּנוֹת מְרֻבּוֹת יוֹתֵר מִיּוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת וְהָיוּ הַנְּסָכִים בּוֹ מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וּכְמוֹתָם יַיִן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין:
15When a person says: "I promise to bring wine," he should not bring less than three lugim.56See Halachah 12. "I promise to bring oil," he should not bring less than a log.57See the previous halachah. If he specified a given amount in his vow and forgot how many lugim of wine or oil he specified, he should bring 140 lugim. For there is no day on which there are more communal offerings sacrificed than on the first day of Sukkot that falls on the Sabbath. On that day, the accompanying offerings included 140 lugim of oil and an equal amount of wine as will be explained in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim.58See Chapter 10, Halachot 3, 14, for the details of the number and types of animals sacrificed on that day. The wine and oil brought as accompanying offerings for these sacrifices totaled 140 lugim. We assume that a person would not vow or pledge a larger amount. The Radbaz clarifies that this ruling applies to a very wealthy person who can be assumed to have made a generous vow. A person of ordinary means, by contrast, should be required to pay the largest amount he could conceive of having pledged (see Hilchot Arachin 2:8-10).
י״ח
א׳כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כֻּלָּן בֵּין קָרְבְּנוֹת בְּהֵמָה וְעוֹף בֵּין קָרְבְּנוֹת מְנָחוֹת מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַקְרִיבָן בְּבֵית הַבְּחִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב יד) "וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה כּל אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ". וְכֵן מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִהְיוֹת כָּל אָדָם מְטַפֵּל וּמֵבִיא קָרְבְּנוֹת בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב לְהַקְרִיבָן מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב כו) "קָדָשֶׁיךָ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ לְךָ וּנְדָרֶיךָ תִּשָּׂא" וְגוֹ'. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁהוּא מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶם עַד שֶׁיְּבִיאֵם לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה:
1There is a positive commandment to offer all of the sacrifices - whether sacrifices of animals or fowl or meal-offerings - in [God's] chosen house,1Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 84) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 440) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. as [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There you will perform everything that I command you." Similarly, it is a positive commandment for a person to take the effort to bring animal sacrifices2The Kessef Mishneh explains that this excludes sacrifices from fowl, but this understanding is not accepted by all authorities. that he is obligated to bring3Temurah 21a states that the firstborn offering is not included in this commandment. [and transport them] from the Diaspora to [God's] chosen house,4Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 453) include this commandment as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. The Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as an independent mitzvah. as [ibid.:26] states: "[Only] your sacraments that you possess and your vows shall you bear... [to the place that God will choose]." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that [the verse] is speaking only about sacrificial animals from the Diaspora which he takes the effort to deal with until he brings them to [God's] chosen house.
ב׳הַמַּקְרִיב קָרְבָּן חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב יג) "הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עלֹתֶיךָ בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה". וְאִם הִקְרִיב בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ח) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עלָה אוֹ זָבַח" (ויקרא יז ט) "וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ" "וְנִכְרַת מֵעַמָּיו". בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:
2One who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard negates a positive commandment5The one stated in the previous halachah. and violates a negative commandment,6Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 90) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 186) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. There are several historical dimensions to this prohibition. First of all, in the era between the destruction of the Sanctuary of Shiloh and the construction of the Temple, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on bemot (literally, "high-places"), i.e., individual altars. See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:3 which explain the transition between these periods. It is also relevant with regard to the sanctuary constructed by Chonio, the son of Shimon the Just, described in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:14. as [ibid. :13] states: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings in any place that you see." If he offered a sacrifice [in such a place] willfully, he is liable for karet,7Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). as [Leviticus 17:8-9] states: "[Any man]...who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice, but did not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... he will be cut off from his people." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed8This term is used to distinguish this sacrifice from the adjustable guilt offering. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4. sin-offering.
ג׳וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט קָדָשִׁים חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלָם אִם הָיָה מֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ג) "אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ד) "דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא דָּם שָׁפָךְ וְנִכְרַת". וְאִם שָׁחַט בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:
3Similarly, one who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard], even though he does not offer them as a sacrifice, [is liable].9Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 439) include this prohibition as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. If he acted willfully, he is liable for karet, as [ibid:3-4]: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat... it will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood... He will be cut off." [If he transgressed] unknowingly, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
ד׳וְהֵיכָן הִזְהִיר עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּחוּץ. בְּהֶקֵּשׁ. נֶאֱמַר (דברים יב יד) "שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה עלֹתֶיךָ" וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים יב יד) "וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה כּל אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ". מָה הָעֲלִיָּה בַּחוּץ שֶׁעָנַשׁ עָלֶיהָ הִזְהִיר עָלֶיהָ בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב יג) "הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עלֹתֶיךָ". אַף עֲשִׂיָּה שֶׁבִּכְלַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁעָנַשׁ עָלֶיהָ בְּפֵרוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ. שֶׁלֹּא עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר:
4Which source serves as a warning not to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]? [It is derived through] an association of verses. [Deuteronomy 12:14] states: "There will you offer your burnt-offerings" and it continues: "There you will perform everything that I command you." [We can conclude:] Just as [the Torah] warns explicitly against offering a sacrifice outside the Temple, and one incurs punishment for this, as it is written: "Take heed lest you offer your burnt-offerings...," so too, it has warned with regard to the "performance" that is involved in slaughtering, for which it is explicitly stated that one receives punishment. For the Torah does not prescribe punishment unless it has issued a warning.
ה׳הַשּׁוֹחֵט קָדָשִׁים וְהֶעֱלָם בַּחוּץ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְאַחַת עַל הָעֲלִיָּה. שָׁחַט בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ חַיָּב עַל הָעֲלִיָּה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בִּפְנִים חַיָּב עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה:
5A person who slaughters sacrificial animals outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offers them [in such a place] is liable twice: once for slaughtering and once for offering.10This applies even if he performed both transgressions without realizing the prohibitions involved in the interim, for they are two separate transgressions that are not dependent on each other (Radbaz).If he slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] in the Temple Courtyard and offered it outside, he is liable for offering it. If he slaughtered [such an animal] outside, but offered it inside, he is liable for slaughtering it.
ו׳אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים הָרְאוּיִין לִקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ אֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹ מֵחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ד) "לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן ה'" וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא אֶל מִשְׁכַּן ה' אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו:
6He is not liable unless he slaughtered sacrificial animals that are fit to be offered on the altar. If, however, he slaughtered an animal that was forbidden [to be offered on] the altar11I.e., the animals mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach. or one of the sin-offerings that was consigned to death12See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1 for a definition of this term. outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.13It is, however, forbidden to do so. [The rationale is that Leviticus 17:414The source for this prohibition, as stated in Halachah 3.] mentions "before the Sanctuary of God." Whenever [an animal] is not fit to be come to the Sanctuary of God, one is not liable [for its slaughter].
ז׳שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ בַּבְּעָלִים הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי עַתָּה לָבוֹא בִּפְנִים פָּטוּר:
7If one slaughters an animal that is unacceptable because of a time factor involving its body15See the following halachah. or the status of its owners16See Halachah 9. outside the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.17It is, however, forbidden to do so. [The rationale is that] in its present state, it is not fit to be brought into the Temple Courtyard.18The prohibition involves slaughtering sacrificial animals and since these animals are not fit to be sacrificed or their owners are not fit to sacrifice them, they are not considered sacrificial animals in the full sense.
ח׳אֵי זֶהוּ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן בְּגוּפוֹ. בְּהֵמָה בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַלֵּידָה. וְתוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן. וְאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶם הַיּוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשֵּׁנִי רָאוּי עַד לְמָחָר:
8What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving its body? An animal in the seven days following its birth,19See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:8 which states that it is a positive commandment to offer sacrificial animals after eight days of life, but not before. turtle-doves which have not reached the stage of development at which time [they are fit to be sacrificed],20See ibid.:2 which states that "Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue." Before this stage, they are not acceptable (ibid.:9). and an animal and its offspring; for if one slaughters one on a particular day, the other is not fit to be slaughtered until the morrow.21See Hilchot Shechitah 12:1-2 which states that it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other.
ט׳וְאֵי זֶהוּ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן בַּבְּעָלִים. קָרְבָּן שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בְּעָלָיו לְהַקְרִיבוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ חַטָּאתָם בַּחוּץ [בְּתוֹךְ] יְמֵי סְפִירָה פְּטוּרִין. וְכֵן מְצֹרָע שֶׁשָּׁחַט חַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ בַּחוּץ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה פָּטוּר. שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִרְאוּ בַּעֲלֵי הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת הָאֵלּוּ לְכַפָּרָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחֲטוּ עוֹלוֹתֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה חַיָּבִין. שֶׁהָעוֹלָה דּוֹרוֹן הִיא וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם הִיא עִקַּר הַכַּפָּרָה. וְכֵן נָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁחַט חַטָּאתוֹ בַּחוּץ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי נְזִירוּתוֹ פָּטוּר. הִקְרִיב עוֹלָתוֹ אוֹ שְׁלָמָיו בַּחוּץ חַיָּב שֶׁהַחַטָּאת הִיא הַמְּעַכַּבְתּוֹ וְהִיא עִקַּר הַנְּזִירוּת:
9What is meant by a disqualifying time factor involving the status of its owners? A sacrifice whose owners have not reached the appropriate stage of time to offer it.What is implied? If a zav,22A person with a physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure and obligates him to bring a set of sacrifices (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4; 2:1). a zavah,23A woman who bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period. This renders her ritually impure and obligates her to bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3-4,6) and a woman who gave birth24Who is ritually impure after giving birth and must bring a set of sacrifices (see ibid. 1:1, 3, 5). slaughtered [the animal designated for] their sin-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting,25As explained in the above sources, a zav and a zavah must wait seven "spotless days" after their condition ceases before bringing their sacrifices. A woman must wait 40 days after giving birth to a male and 80 days after giving birth to a female before bringing her sacrifices. they are exempt. Similarly, if a person afflicted with tzara'at26A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy that is a spiritual manifestation of the impurity resulting from improper speech (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at). Such a person must bring a set of sacrifices when emerging from ritual impurity (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1, 3-4). slaughtered his sin-offering and[/or] his guilt-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his counting,27Such a person must also wait seven days after his condition ceases before bringing his sacrifices. he is exempt, for the owners of these sacrifices are not yet fit for their atonement. Nevertheless, if these individuals slaughtered their burnt-offerings28The sacrifices of all of these individuals include a burnt-offering and a sin-offering and the sacrifice of a person emerging from tzara'at also includes a guilt-offring. outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of their counting, they are liable. [The rationale is that] a burnt-offering is a present29To appease God and restore His favor. and it is the sin-offering and the guilt-offering which are the fundamental [factors leading to] atonement.Similarly, when a nazirite slaughters his sin-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] during the days of his nazirite vow, he is exempt.30See Hilchot Nezirut, ch. 8, for the details regarding the sacrifices a nazirite must bring upon completion of his nazirite vow. He may not bring these sacrifices beforehand. If he offered his burnt-offering or his peace-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. For the sin-offering is what prevents him [from completing his nazirite vow] and it is the fundamental dimension [of the conclusion of] his nazirite vow.
י׳אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְחַטָּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִקְבַּע הָאִסּוּר. אָשָׁם מְצֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בַּחוּץ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ חַיָּב הוֹאִיל וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ רָאוּי בִּפְנִים וְכָשֵׁר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְכָל קָרְבָּן שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר עַל שְׁחִיטָתוֹ בַּחוּץ כָּךְ הוּא פָּטוּר עַל הַעֲלָאָתוֹ:
10When a person offers a conditional guilt-offering31See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices. or sin-offering of fowl that is brought because of a doubt32See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:7 which describes the situations under which such sacrifices should be brought. outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [The rationale is that] it was not definitely established that a prohibition [was violated].33With regard to these sacrifices, it is possible that it will be discovered that the person definitely did sin. In such an instance, the sacrifice is not offered. If the sacrificial animal has not been slaughtered, it is left to pasture until it contracts a blemish. If it was slaughtered, its blood is poured down the drainage channel. Since there is a possibility of this taking place, the animal is not deemed a sacrificial animal in the full sense and one is not liable for slaughtering it or offering it.The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt since only its blood is offered on the altar, but not its body. Hence, there is room to free one from the obligations involved with a sacrificial animal. Nevertheless, he argues, a conditional guilt-offering is offered on the altar. Hence one should be liable for slaughtering and offering it outside the Temple. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh question the Ra'avad's objection, noting that the Rambam's ruling has its basis in Keritot 18a. When a guilt-offering for one afflicted by tzara'at was slaughtered outside [the Temple Courtyard], but not for the desired intent, [the one who slaughters it] is liable. [The rationale is that] since [when such a sacrifice is] not [slaughtered] for the desired intent in [the Temple Courtyard], it is deemed appropriate and acceptable, as will be explained.34As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1, with the exception of a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice, whenever a sacrificial animal was slaughtered for the sake of an offering other the one for which it was intended, it is acceptable, but it does not fulfill the obligation of the owner (see also ibid.:20). Since the sacrifice would be acceptable if it was offered in the Temple, the person is liable for slaughtering it outside.Whenever one is exempt for slaughtering a sacrificial [animal] outside the [Temple Courtyard], one is also exempt for offering it there.
י״אשְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָם בַּחוּץ. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִתְוַדָּה עֲלֵיהֶם חַיָּב כָּרֵת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא לִפְנֵי הַשֵּׁם לְוִדּוּי. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁהִתְוַדָּה פָּטוּר עַל הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא לִפְנֵי הַשֵּׁם:
11[The following rules apply if] one slaughters the two goats offered on Yom Kippur35The goat sent to Azazel and its pair whose blood is taken into the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1. outside [the Temple Courtyard]. Before [the High Priest] recites the confessional over them,36More precisely, the confessional is recited only over the one sent to Azazel (ibid. 4:2).The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the matter is dependent not only the confessional, but on the lottery in which the goats are designated for their respective purposes. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the Rambam's ruling is based on Zevachim 113a. Although there are other interpretations of that passage, the Rambam has a foundation for his decision. he is liable for both of them,37Or for either of them, were he to slaughter only one. since [they are both] fit to come before God for the confessional. After [the High Priest] recited the confessional, one is exempt for slaughtering [the goat] that is sent [to Azazel], because it is no longer fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].
י״בהַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁלָמִים בַּחוּץ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן מְחֻסָּרִים מַעֲשֶׂה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ רְאוּיִין לִקָּרֵב לִפְנֵי הַשֵּׁם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפֶּסַח בַּחוּץ אֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בֵּין לִשְׁמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ חַיָּב. שֶׁהַפֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הוּא:
12When one slaughters [animals designated as] peace-offerings outside [the Temple Courtyard], before the gates of the Temple building are opened, he is exempt, for a [necessary] deed is lacking. [Only] afterwards are they fit to be offered before God, as we explained.38See Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the gates to the Temple building must be open for the slaughter of peace offerings to be acceptable.One who slaughters a Paschal sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard] - even during the other days of the year, whether for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice or for another purpose39The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only during the remainder of the year. The rationale is that as explained below, during the remainder of the year, an animal designated as a Paschal sacrifice is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering is not disqualified if it is not offered for the desired intent. On the day preceding Pesach, when the Paschal sacrifice is offered, it is unacceptable if it is not offered for the desired intent. Hence on that date, were someone to slaughter an animal designated for this purpose for the sake of another sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard, he would not be liable. - is liable. [The rationale is that] during the remainder of the year, a Paschal sacrifice [that is offered] is considered as a peace-offering.40See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:7. Since it is considered as a peace-offering, just as one is liable for slaughtering an animal designated as a peace-offering outside the Temple Courtyard, so too, he is liable for slaughtering such an animal.
י״גבֶּהֱמַת חֻלִּין שֶׁעֻבָּרָהּ קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ אָסוּר לְשָׁחֳטָהּ בַּחוּץ. וְאִם שְׁחָטָהּ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לָבוֹא לִפְנֵי הַשֵּׁם:
13When the fetus [being carried by] an ordinary animal was consecrated [as a sacrifice for] the altar, it is forbidden to slaughter [the mother] outside [the Temple Courtyard].41Since the fetus it is carrying will later be offered as a sacrifice, it is forbidden to cause that sacrifice to be disqualified. If he slaughtered it, he is not liable for lashes, because it42Neither the mother nor the fetus. is not fit to come before God [as a sacrifice].
י״דגָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט בַּחוּץ חַיָּב. וּמֵאֵימָתַי הֶעֱמִידוּהָ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַיְּבוֹ עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁהּ. וְהוּא שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ אַחַר יֵאוּשׁ אֲבָל לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ אֵינָהּ קְדוֹשָׁה:
14When one stole [an animal] and consecrated it, and afterwards, slaughtered it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable.43Even though the animal did not belong to him and hence, he had no right to consecrate it, our Sages considered it as his own so that he would be liable for karet. See Gittin 55b. The Kessef Mishneh raises questions on the Rambam's ruling based on that passage, but Rav Yosef Corcus resolves the Rambam's decision. From which time was it considered in his property with regard to his being liable for karet for it? From the time he consecrated it.[The above applies] provided he slaughtered it after [the owner] despaired of its return. [If he slaughtered it] before then, by contrast, the consecration is not effective.44For then it is still considered as belonging to the owner. Hence, the thief's consecration is not effective. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:7 which speaks of the disqualification of a thief's offering. From Hilchot Geneivah 2:6, it appears that the thief must have also consecrated the animal after the owner's despair and not before. Otherwise, the consecration would not be effective.
ט״והָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה כֻּלָּהּ בַּחוּץ וְצַוָּארָהּ בִּפְנִים וְשָׁחַט חַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ג) "אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶּבֶשׂ אוֹ עֵז בַּמַּחֲנֶה אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה". אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְצַוָּארָהּ בִּפְנִים וּשְׁאָר גּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה בַּחוּץ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה גּוּפָהּ בִּפְנִים וְצַוָּארָהּ בַּחוּץ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַבְּהֵמָה כֻּלָּהּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ". אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּגַגּוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְבִיחָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר:
15If the entire body of the animal was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and its neck was inside and one slaughtered it, he is liable,45Karet or lashes for slaughtering the animal outside the Temple Courtyard. as [Leviticus 17:3] states: "[Any man]...who will slaughter an ox, a sheep, or a goat in the camp or who will slaughter outside the camp... [and he has not brought it as an offering]." This applies whether the one who slaughters is standing in the Temple [Courtyard] and the animal's neck was inside, but the remainder of its body was outside, or its body was inside and its neck was outside. He is liable unless the animal was entirely within the Temple [Courtyard], as [implied by ibid.:9]: "And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting."46The Kessef Mishneh notes that Zevachim 107b uses this prooftext to teach the following concept: that one who slaughters on the roof of the Temple Building is exempt. Hence he suggests that a printing error crept into the Mishneh Torah and that the text should be amended to fit the Talmud's teaching. This conception is not, however, shared by all authorities. If, however, one slaughters on the roof of the Temple Building, even though it is not fit for sacrifice at all,47See Chapter 5, Halachah 4. he is exempt.48For he did not slaughter the animal outside the Temple Courtyard.
ט״זשְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ בַּסַּכִּין וְשָׁחֲטוּ בַּחוּץ פְּטוּרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט (ויקרא יז ג) "אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט" אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם. וְאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט בַּחוּץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁחֹט קָדָשִׁים אֵלּוּ לַה' הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ד) "דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא דָּם שָׁפָךְ". אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה הַדָּם בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ כַּדָּם הַנִּשְׁפָּךְ לֹא כַּקָּרְבָּן הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב:
16Two people who held a knife and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] are exempt,49Note the contrast to Chapter 19, Halachah 12, with regard to offering an animal as a sacrifice. for [the prooftexts] say "who will slaughter" "or who will slaughter"50The verses use a singular form. [implying] one and not two.51The commentaries note that although the Rambam's ruling has a source in Zevachim 108a and in the Sifri, his process of exegesis is different than that used in those sources.When one slaughters a sacrificial animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] even though he had no intention of sacrificing this animal to God,52But instead was slaughtering it for mundane purposes. he is liable.53In this as well, there is a contrast to offering an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Chapter 19, Halachah 1. This is [implied by the prooftext]: "It will be considered as [the shedding of] blood for that person. He has shed blood."54Here also, the Rambam's method of exegesis is different from that of his apparent source, Zevachim 108b. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:3), he cites the method of exegesis used by the Talmud. [One can infer that] even if [the person slaughtering] thinks of the blood [from the sacrificial animal] as blood that was shed55Literally, "poured out." and not as a sacrifice, he is liable.
י״זהַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ בַּלַּיְלָה חַיָּב הוֹאִיל וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּלַּיְלָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּחוּץ. וְכֵן אִם הֶעֱלָה בַּלַּיְלָה מִזֶּה שֶׁשָּׁחַט בַּחוּץ בַּלַּיְלָה חַיָּב עַל הַעֲלָאָה. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בִּפְנִים בַּלַּיְלָה וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלָה אֶלָּא דָּבָר פָּסוּל שֶׁאֵין לְךָ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּלַּיְלָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְכֵן אִם קִבֵּל בִּכְלִי חֹל בִּפְנִים וְזָרַק בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר:
17A person who slaughters [a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] at night is liable, since slaughtering an animal56I.e., an ordinary animal, not one designated as a sacrifice. is acceptable at night. Similarly, if, at night, one offered as a sacrifice [an animal] he slaughtered at night outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for offering it as a sacrifice.57The Ra'avad maintains that the person is exempt in such a situation. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that there is a fundamental difference between slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and slaughtering it outside. When it is slaughtered inside the Temple Courtyard at night, it is disqualified as a sacrifice, because of it having been slaughtered at night and hence, it is not acceptable wherever it was offered. If, by contrast, it was slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard, it becomes placed in the category of animals slaughtered in such a place. Hence the time when it is offered is not significant. The Kessef Mishneh also justifies the Rambam's approach.If, however, one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] inside [the Temple Courtyard] at night and offered it as a sacrifice outside,58Even during the following day (Kessef Mishneh). he is exempt. [The rationale is that] he offered merely an unacceptable article,59See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:6. for there is no conception of acceptable slaughter in the Temple at night.60See Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Similarly, if one received [the blood of a sacrificial animal] with an ordinary vessel61This disqualifies the sacrifice, for as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, the blood of a sacrificial animal must be received in a sacred vessel. inside [the Temple Courtyard], but poured it [on an altar] outside, he is exempt.62For the animal was no longer acceptable as a sacrifice.
י״חוְכֵן הַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הָעוֹף בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֶעֱלָהוּ פָּטוּר. מָלַק בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ חַיָּב עַל הַעֲלָאָה. שָׁחַט בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָהוּ בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלָה אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִקָּרֵב. שָׁחַט אֶת הָעוֹף בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָהוּ בַּחוּץ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּחוּץ כְּשֵׁרָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא כִּמְלִיקָה בִּפְנִים:
18Similarly, when a person performs melikah on a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt.63For the prooftext defining the prohibition (Leviticus 17:3 mentions slaughter, but not melikah (Zevachim 107a). If he offered it [as a sacrifice there], he is exempt. If he performs melikah on a fowl inside [the Temple Courtyard], but offered it outside, he is liable for offering it.64This is equivalent to slaughtering an animal inside the Temple Courtyard and offering it outside.If one slaughtered [a fowl] in [the Temple Courtyard]65Thus disqualifying it, for in the Temple Courtyard, a fowl should be killed through melikah not ritual slaughter. and offered it outside, he is exempt, for he offered something that is not fit to be offered. If he slaughtered the fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] and offered it outside, he is liable twice,66Both for slaughtering and for offering. because slaughtering a fowl outside [the Temple Courtyard] is acceptable. It is comparable to performing melikah inside.