י״א
א׳כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה הֲרֵי הֵם פְּסוּלוֹת. וְכֵן אִם לִקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה פָּסַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קָמַץ:
1Whenever any of the persons who are disqualified from performing Temple service take the handful of meal from a meal-offering,1See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:13. the offering is disqualified.2In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by a person who is unacceptable, it is disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a non-priest. Similarly, if one of these individuals collected the frankincense,3See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense. the offering is unacceptable, even if he did not take the handful of meal.
ב׳קָמַץ הַכָּשֵׁר וְנָתַן לַפָּסוּל. קָמַץ בִּימִינוֹ וְנָתַן לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נְתָנוֹ לִכְלִי. קָמַץ מִכְּלִי קֹדֶשׁ וְנָתַן לִכְלִי חֹל. פָּסַל:
2[In all the following situations, a meal-offering] is disqualified:4The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the deed may be corrected.a) the handful [of meal] was taken by an acceptable [priest] and given to one who is not acceptable;b) [the priest] took the handful with his right hand and then transferred it to his left hand and then placed it in a utensil;c) he took the handful [of meal] from a sacred utensil and placed it in an ordinary utensil.
ג׳קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ צְרוֹר אוֹ גַּרְגִּיר מֶלַח אוֹ קֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה פָּסוּל:
3If [while] taking a handful of meal, he lifted up a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is disqualified.5The frankincense should be shifted to the side before the handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful is lacking [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].
ד׳קָמַץ עַד שֶׁהוּא בַּחוּץ וְנִכְנַס לְפָנִים. יַחְזֹר וְיִקְמֹץ בִּפְנִים וְכָשֵׁר:
4If he took the handful when he was outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then entered [the Courtyard], he should take a handful inside the Courtyard6Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12). and it is acceptable.
ה׳נִתְפַּזֵּר הַקֹּמֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי הָרִצְפָּה. יַחְזֹר וְיַאַסְפֶנּוּ:
5If the handful became scattered on the floor [of the Temple Courtyard], he should collect it again.7And the meal-offering is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil it spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26).
ו׳הָיְתָה הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קֻמְצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱלָהוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. אוֹ שֶׁבְּלָלָהּ בְּשַׁמְנָהּ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה. פְּסוּלָה עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּלִילָתָהּ בִּפְנִים:
6[In all the following instances,] a meal-offering [is unacceptable]:it was not placed in a sacred utensil,the handful of meal was not placed in a sacred utensil,it was brought to the altar8See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar. while not in a sacred utensil,9Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred utensil for each of these stages of service.or it was mixed with oil outside the Temple Courtyard; [it is acceptable] only if it was mixed with oil in the Courtyard.10Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot 9b).
ז׳כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁיָּצַק עֲלֵיהֶן הַשֶּׁמֶן פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה כְּגוֹן הַזָּר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁבְּלָלָן אוֹ פְּתָתָם אוֹ מְלָחָן כְּשֵׁרוֹת. הִגִּישָׁן אוֹ הֱנִיפָן חוֹזֵר הַכֹּהֵן וּמַגִּישׁ אוֹ מֵנִיף. וְאִם לֹא הִגִּישׁ וְלֹא הֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן כְּשֵׁרוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב ב) "וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן" (ויקרא ב ב) "וְקָמַץ". מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהֻנָּה לִמֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה בְּזָר:
7All of the meal-offerings are acceptable even if oil was poured over them by someone who was unacceptable for Temple service, e.g., a non-priest or the like, or such a person mixed [the oil with the meal], broke [wafers] into pieces,11As required for certain meal-offerings; see Leviticus 2:6. or put salt upon them. If [such a person] approached the altar with them or waved them,12See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the waving process which is necessary for certain meal-offerings. a priest should approach the altar with them and/or wave them again. If a priest did not approach the altar with them and/or wave them again, they are [nevertheless] acceptable. [This is derived from Leviticus 2:2:] "And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron and [one] shall take a handful..." From taking the handful and onward, the mitzvah must be performed by a priest.13See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23. Pouring and mixing [the oil] may be performed by a non-priest.
ח׳מִנְחָה שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָהּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ שֶׁמֶן חֻלִּין כָּל שֶׁהוּא נִפְסְלָה. חִסֵּר שַׁמְנָהּ פְּסוּלָה. חִסֵּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עָלֶיהָ שֵׁנִי קוֹרְטֵי לְבוֹנָה אֲבָל קֹרֶט אֶחָד פְּסוּלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶת כָּל לְבוֹנָתָהּ:
8When even the slightest amount of oil from another meal-offering or oil that was not consecrated falls into a meal-offering, it is disqualified. If [the full measure14One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7). of] its oil is lacking, it is disqualified. If, [by contrast, the full measure15A handful per offering (ibid.). of] its frankincense is lacking, it is acceptable provided there are at least two particles of frankincense upon it. If there is only one particle, it is disqualified, as it is written:16There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam. Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam. "on all its frankincense."17The use of a plural term indicates that one particle is not sufficient.
ט׳רִבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ וּלְבוֹנָתָהּ עַד שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין לְכָל עִשָּׂרוֹן וּשְׁנֵי קֻמְצֵי לְבוֹנָה לְכָל מִנְחָה כְּשֵׁרָה. שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין אוֹ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין אוֹ יֶתֶר עַל זֶה פְּסוּלָה:
9If he added to its [measure of] oil and frankincense, [including] up to two lugim for every isaron and [up to] two handfuls of frankincense for every meal offering,18Double the usual measure. it is acceptable. If one uses two lugim or two handfuls or more, it is disqualified.
י׳מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁנָּתַן עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן אוֹ עַל הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁלָּהּ נִפְסְלָה. נָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה יִלְקְטֶנָּה. הָיְתָה שְׁחוּקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה מִסָּפֵק. שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְלַקֵּט:
10If one placed oil on the meal offering of a sinner19Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: "You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense." See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7. or on the handful of meal taken from it, it is disqualified.20Because of the transgression involved. If one placed frankincense on it, it should be gathered up.21Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified. If [the frankincense] is ground, [the offering] is unacceptable because of the doubt, because it is impossible to gather [the frankincense].
י״אנָתַן שֶׁמֶן עַל שְׁיָרֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁקָּמַץ. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְלֹא פְּסָלָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקֹּמֶץ כָּשֵׁר:
11If one placed oil on the remnants [of such a meal-offering] after the handful was removed, he is not liable for lashes,22For the violation of the above prohibition. nor does he disqualify the offering,23The Rambam's wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so. for the handful is acceptable.
י״בנָתַן מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי כְּזַיִת מִן הַמִּנְחָה פְּסָלָהּ מִסָּפֵק. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן הַשֶּׁמֶן עַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת לֹא פְּסָלָהּ. וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל הַלְּבוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן כְּזַיִת לְבוֹנָה:
12If he placed even the smallest amount of oil24Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering. on an olive-sized portion25For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant. of the meal-offering,26Before the handful of meal is removed. he disqualifies it because of the doubt involved. If, however, he placed oil on less than an olive-sized portion, he does not disqualify it. One does not disqualify [a meal-offering] with frankincense27I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error. unless he places an olive-sized portion28For here also anything less is not considered significant. [on the offering].
י״גאֲפִלּוּ נָתַן הַלְּבוֹנָה עַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִן הַמִּנְחָה פָּסַל עַד שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט:
13Even if he placed frankincense on the smallest portion of the meal-offering, he disqualifies it until he gathers it.
י״דגִּבְּלָהּ בְּמַיִם וְקָמַץ כְּשֵׁרָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ז י) "חֲרֵבָה" אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁמֶן:
14If one mixed water with the meal and then took a handful, it is acceptable. [The Torah's requirement29Leviticus 7:10 speaks of a meal-offering "mixed with oil or that is dry." that the offering be] "dry" [refers only] to oil.
ט״ומִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ פַּעֲמַיִם כְּשֵׁרָה, אֲפִלּוּ פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּקְטִיר כְּזַיִת בְּבַת אַחַת. שֶׁאֵין הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת:
15A meal-offering from which a handful was taken twice - or many times - is acceptable, provided an olive-sized portion is offered on the altar's pyre at once. For no less than an olive-sized portion may be offered on the altar.
ט״זהִקְרִיב הַקֹּמֶץ בְּלֹא מֶלַח פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁהַמֶּלַח מְעַכֵּב בַּמִּנְחָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. מִנְחָה שֶׁחָסְרָה קֹדֶם קְמִיצָה. יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנָּה. שֶׁהַקְּמִיצָה הִיא הַקּוֹבַעַת לֹא נְתִינָתָהּ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת:
16If one offered the handful [of meal30The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted. on the altar] without salt, it is unacceptable,31Although Menachot 18a states: "If salt was not placed on it, it is acceptable," it is explained (ibid. 20a): "If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did." for the salt is an absolute requirement for a meal-offering, as we explained.32Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other sacrifices. When a meal-offering was lacking33I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5. before the handful was taken, he should bring [more meal] from home and complete the measure. For taking the handful is what defines [the meal as] an offering,34Hence it must be complete at that time. not placing it into a sacred vessel.
י״זהִתְנַדֵּב קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אִם חָסַר כָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁעִם הַלֶּחֶם אִם חָסַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן כָּל שֶׁהוּא פְּסוּלִין. עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף:
17When a person donates a handful35This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13. of frankincense independently, it is unacceptable if it is lacking at all. Similarly, if the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the [show]bread36See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2. are lacking even the slightest amount, they are unacceptable. They must contain two handfuls from the beginning until the end.
י״חהִפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי קְמָצִין לְמִנְחָה אַחַת וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן קֹדֶם קְמִיצָה לֹא הֻקְבַּע. לְאַחַר קְמִיצָה הֻקְבַּע וּפְסוּלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרִבָּה לְבוֹנָתָהּ. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ אַרְבָּעָה קְמָצִים לִשְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לֶחֶם וְאָבְדוּ שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם קֹדֶם סִלּוּק הַבְּזִיכִים לֹא הֻקְבְּעוּ וּכְשֵׁרִים. לְאַחַר סִלּוּק הַבְּזִיכִין הֻקְבְּעוּ וּפְסוּלִין מִפְּנֵי הָרִבּוּי:
18[The following rules apply when a] person set aside two handfuls [of frankincense] for one offering37Doubling the minimum requirement. and one was lost. If this occurred before the handful [of meal] was taken, [the association between them and this offering] was not [yet] established.38And thus the offering is acceptable. If it occurred afterwards, [the association] has been established and [the offering] is unacceptable, because he increased its frankincense.Similar [laws apply if one] sets aside four handfuls for the two bowls of the [show]bread39Doubling the minimum requirement. and two were lost. If this occurred before the bowls were removed [from the showbread],40On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar. [the association between them] was not established and they are acceptable. If it occurred after the bowls were removed, [the association] was established and they are disqualified, because of the extra amount.
י״טקֹמֶץ מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְהִקְטִירוֹ. הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כח לח) "וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן". יָצָא הַקֹּמֶץ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וְהִכְנִיסוֹ וְהִקְטִירוֹ אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה. שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא:
19When the handful taken from a meal offering became impure and then it was offered on the altar's pyre,41The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered. the High Priest's forehead plate causes it to be considered acceptable, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And Aaron shall bear [the iniquity....]"42See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me'ilah 3:9, et al.If the handful was taken outside the Temple Courtyard and then brought in and offered on the altar's pyre, the forehead plate does not cause it to be considered acceptable. For the forehead plate causes [sacrifices tainted by] impurity to be considered acceptable, but not those which are taken outside the Temple Courtyard.
כ׳קָמַץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ כֻּלָּן אוֹ נִשְׂרְפוּ אוֹ יָצְאוּ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה אוֹ אָבְדוּ. לֹא יַקְטִיר הַקֹּמֶץ וְאִם הִקְטִיר הֻרְצָה. נִשְׁאַר מְעַט מִן הַשְּׁיָרִים בְּכַשְׁרוּתָן. יַקְטִיר הַקֹּמֶץ וְאוֹתָן הַשְּׁיָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה:
20If one took the handful from a meal-offering and then the entire remainder [of the offering] became impure,43Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified. was burnt, was taken out of the Temple Courtyard,44Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified. or was lost, the handful should not be offered on the altar's pyre. [After the fact,] if it was offered, it is accepted [Above].45And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. If a small amount of the remnants [of the offering] remained acceptable, the handful should be offered. [Nevertheless,] the remnant that remains is forbidden to be eaten.46Menachot 9b derives this concept from Leviticus 2:3: "The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons." Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants.
כ״אהָיְתָה מְחִצָּה מִלְּמַטָּה בִּכְלִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁל מִנְחָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְעֹרָב מִלְמַעְלָה לֹא יִקְמֹץ. וְאִם קָמַץ פְּסוּלָה:
21If there was a divider in the lower portion of a vessel containing an isaron [of flour] for a meal-offering, even though [the flour] is mixed together above, one should not take a handful.47For the handful must be taken from an isaron of flour and since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if the isaron was brought in two containers which is unacceptable (Menachot 24a). If one did, it is unacceptable.
כ״בהָיָה הַכְּלִי חָלוּק בִּמְחִצָּה מִלְמַעְלָה וּמְעֹרָב מִלְּמַטָּה. קוֹמֵץ מִמֶּנּוּ:
22If, [by contrast,] the container was separated by a divider above, but [the contents] were mixed together below, one may take a handful from it.48Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity.
כ״גחָלַק הָעִשָּׂרוֹן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְאֵין חֲלָקָיו נוֹגְעִין זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן מְחִצָּה. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם מְצָרֵף הַכְּלִי לַקְּמִיצָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְצָרֵף. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִקְמֹץ. וְאִם קָמַץ לֹא יַקְטִיר. וְאִם הִקְטִיר הֻרְצָה. וְלֹא יֵאָכְלוּ הַשְּׁיָרִים:
23If one divided the isaron in a single container and thus the portions were not touching each other, but there was no divider between them, there is an unresolved doubt whether the container causes [the two portions to be considered as] combined or not. Therefore, [at the outset,] one should not take the handful [in such an instance].49Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner. If one did take the handful, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above], but the remainder [of the offering] should not be eaten.50The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above.
כ״דקָמַץ וְנָתַן הַקֹּמֶץ לְמַעְלָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן כְּנֶגֶד גֹּבַהּ מַעֲרֶכֶת לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים קִדְּשׁוֹ הַשֻּׁלְחָן לְהִפָּסֵל. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְקַדְּשׁוֹ לִקָּרֵב. וְאֵינוֹ קָרֵב עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת הָרָאוּי לְקֹמֶץ:
24If one took a handful [of flour from a meal-offering] and placed the handful on the top of the [Golden] Table [elevated to] the height of the arrangement of the showbread,5115 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high. the Table causes it to be sanctified in that it can be disqualified,52I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam's wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar's pyre (Kessef Mishneh). but it does not sanctify it so that it can be offered. For [the handful of flour] should not be sacrificed until it was sanctified in a sacred vessel fit for the handful [of flour].
כ״ההִדְבִּיק הַקֹּמֶץ לְדֹפֶן הַכְּלִי וְקָמַץ. אוֹ שֶׁהָפַךְ הַכְּלִי עַל יָדוֹ וְקָמַץ מִתּוֹכוֹ וּפִיו לְמַטָּה. לֹא יַקְטִיר וְאִם הִקְטִיר הֻרְצָה:
25If he attached the handful to the wall of the vessel and took it or overturned the vessel above his hand and took the handful while the opening of the vessel was turned downward, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.53Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved. If it was offered, it is accepted [Above].
כ״ועִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵחֲלָקָיו וְהִפְרִישׁ חֵלֶק אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו וְנִמְצָא הָאָבוּד וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מֻנָּחִין בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְאֵין נוֹגְעִין זֶה בָּזֶה. נִטְמָא זֶה שֶׁאָבַד הֲרֵי הוּא מִצְטָרֵף עִם חֵלֶק רִאשׁוֹן וְנִפְסְלוּ. וְזֶה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף אֶלָּא יַשְׁלִים עָלָיו. נִטְמָא הַמֻּפְרָשׁ. מֻפְרָשׁ וְרִאשׁוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין וְנִפְסְלוּ. וְזֶה שֶׁנִּמְצָא אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף עִמָּהֶן. נִטְמָא הַחֵלֶק הָרִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הָאָבוּד וְהַמֻּפְרָשׁ תַּחְתָּיו מִצְטָרְפִין:
26[The following rules apply when] an isaron was divided and one of its portions were lost, another portion was set aside in its stead, the lost portion was found and the three are all placed in one container, but are not touching each other. If the portion that was lost becomes impure, it is combined with the first portion and they are disqualified.54The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified. The portion that was set aside [as a replacement] is not combined with them55Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection. and it should be supplemented [to produce a full isaron].If the portion set aside [as a replacement] becomes impure, it and the first portion are combined and disqualified.56For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering. The portion that was [lost and] discovered is not combined with them.57For as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection. If the initial portion becomes impure, both the portion that was lost and the portion set aside because of it are combined with it.58For they both share a connection with it.
כ״זוְכֵן לְעִנְיַן קְמִיצָה. קָמַץ מִן הַנִּמְצָא. שְׁיָרָיו עִם הַחֵלֶק הָרִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱכָלִין. וְהַמֻּפְרָשׁ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. קָמַץ מִן הַמֻּפְרָשׁ. שְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין וְהַנִּמְצָא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. קָמַץ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. שְׁנֵיהֶן אֵין נֶאֱכָלִין. לְפִי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן שְׁיָרִים יְתֵרִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם וְדוֹמִין לְמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה. וְהֵיאַךְ קָרֵב הַקֹּמֶץ הַזֶּה וַהֲרֵי לְפָנָיו עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקְּמִיצָה תְּלוּיָה בְּדַעַת הַכֹּהֵן וּבְעֵת שֶׁקּוֹמֵץ אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא עַל הָעִשָּׂרוֹן בִּלְבַד. וַהֲרֵי הַחֲלָקִים אֵינָן נוֹגְעִין זֶה בָּזֶה:
27Similar concepts apply with regard to taking the handful. If one took the handful from the portion that was [lost and then] discovered, the remainder of it and the first portion59In its entirety. may be eaten and the portion that was set aside [afterwards] may not be eaten.60Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah). If one took the handful from the portion that was set aside [afterwards] the remainder of it and the first portion may be eaten and the portion that was [lost and then] discovered may not be eaten. If one took the handful from the first portion, neither [of the other] two may be eaten.61The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable. [The rationale is that] they are both extra portions.62As the Rambam continues to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron. For together they are an entire isaron and thus resemble an entire isaron from which a handful was not taken and which is hence, forbidden.[One might ask:] How can the handful [that was taken] be offered, since there is an isaron and a half [in the vessel]? Because taking the handful is dependent on the intent of the priest and when he takes the handful, he has his mind on an isaron alone and the portions [of the isaron] are not touching each other.63Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.
כ״חקֹמֶץ מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקֹמֶץ מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת. מַקְטִיר שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת וְהֵן כְּשֵׁרוֹת. וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרֵב הַקֹּמֶץ בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים אוֹ בְּמִנְחַת הַנְּסָכִים אוֹ בַּחֲבִיתֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת וְיַקְטִיר הַכּל כְּאֶחָד שֶׁהַכּל לָאִשִּׁים:
28When a handful [taken from] a meal-offering became mixed with a handful [taken from] another meal-offering, they should both be offered on the altar's pyre together and they are acceptable. Similarly, it is acceptable if a handful [taken from a meal-offering] became mixed with a meal-offering of a priest,64See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9. the meal-offering from an accompanying offering,65See ibid. 2:1. or the chavitin offering of the High Priest.66See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:9. They should be offered on the altar's pyre together. [The rationale is that all of these substances] are offered on [the altar's] fire in their entirety.
כ״טשְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בָּזוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת וְאִם לָאו פְּסוּלוֹת:
29[The following rules apply when] two meal-offerings from which a handful had not been separated become mixed together. If [the priest] can remove a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable. If not, they are disqualified.
ל׳קֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא יַקְטִיר. וְאִם הִקְטִיר הַכּל. זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים:
30When a handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been taken, it should not be offered on the altar's pyre.67I.e., one might desire to offer the entire mixture so that he will have fulfilled his obligation to offer the handful. This, however, is undesirable for one will have offered a meal-offering without separating the handful from it. If one did offer the entire mixture, the owner of [the offering] from which the handful was taken is considered to have fulfilled his obligation and the owner of the one from which the handful was not taken is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
ל״אנִתְעָרֵב קֻמְצָהּ בִּשְׁיָרֶיהָ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ בִּשְׁיָרֵי חֲבֶרְתָּהּ. לֹא יַקְטִיר. וְאִם הִקְטִיר עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים:
31If the handful [taken from a meal-offering] becomes mixed together with the remaining portions of the offering or the remaining portions become mixed together with the remaining portions of another meal-offering,68Our translation reflects the version in the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries have questioned it and have suggested that the text should read: "or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering." This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn't the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard printed text. Moreover, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements. it69In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder. should not be offered.70Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes betal - it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance, Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not become betal to the remainder of the offering. If it was offered, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.
י״ב
א׳שְׁתֵי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וְעֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה שֶׁהוֹסִיף בְּמִדָּתָן אוֹ חִסֵּר כָּל שֶׁהוּא פְּסוּלוֹת:
1If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],1See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1. the showbread,2Ibid. 5:1. and the omer that is waved,3And offered on the day following Pesach; ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5. they are disqualified.
ב׳חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דַּם הַזֶּבַח פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דַּם הַזֶּבַח כְּשֵׁרִין:
2With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering4See ibid. 9:17-22. and the cakes of a nazirite5Ibid.:23. that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice6The animal offered with the loaves. was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.
ג׳וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דָּמָן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָן כְּשֵׁרִים:
3Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if they lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot. was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.
ד׳וְכֵן שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטְרוּ הַבְּזִיכִין פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁהֻקְטְרוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:
4And with regard to the showbread, if they lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17. it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were already placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.
ה׳אֲבָל הַנְּסָכִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַזֶּבַח בֵּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב כְּשֵׁרִים. וְיָבִיא נְסָכִים אֲחֵרִים לְמַלְּאוֹתָן:
5With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].
ו׳נְסָכִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת וְנִפְסַל הַזֶּבַח. אִם נִפְסַל בִּשְׁחִיטָה לֹא קָדְשׁוּ הַנְּסָכִים לִקָּרֵב. נִפְסַל מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ קָדְשׁוּ הַנְּסָכִים לִקָּרֵב. שֶׁאֵין הַנְּסָכִים מִתְקַדְּשִׁים לִקָּרֵב אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַזֶּבַח. וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶן. אִם הָיָה שָׁם זֶבַח אַחַר זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה יִקָּרְבוּ עִמּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה שָׁם זֶבַח אַחַר זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נַעֲשׂוּ כְּמִי שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ בְּלִינָה וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקָרְבַּן צִבּוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֵּב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל בְּקָרְבַּן יָחִיד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ עִם זֶבַח אַחֵר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֶלָּא מַנִּיחָן עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ:
6[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire. If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note. the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages in Menachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified. If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it. they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them. For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4).When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which the accompanying offering was brought is not nullified. [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16For the court does not make such stipulations about them. Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.
ז׳וְכָל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן יִקָּרְבוּ נִסְכֵּיהֶם:
7Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated,17I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peace-offering. the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.18For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.
ח׳וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ. וְהַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. אִם הֱבִיאָן לְאַחַר שֶׁכִּפֵּר בְּתוֹדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא כִּפֵּר בָּהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא וַחֲלִיפָתָהּ אוֹ הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ אוֹ הִיא וּתְמוּרָתָהּ. עוֹמֶדֶת. הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן צְרִיכִין לֶחֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּנוֹדֵר תּוֹדָה. אֲבָל תּוֹדַת נְדָבָה חֲלִיפָתָהּ וּתְמוּרָתָהּ טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וּוְלָדָהּ אֵינוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם. בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה:
8[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4. If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgiving-offering. need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.When does the above22That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the above situations. apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgiving-offering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice. When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transferred, Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. Its offspring does not require bread.25I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah 4:1. [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.
ט׳הִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. שְׁלִישִׁית טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית. שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. רִאשׁוֹנָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵינָן טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם:
9[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice. and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second. The third one, however, requires bread.29For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.30For the third animal takes the place of the second. The first one, however, requires bread.31For it is not associated with the third animal. If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.32Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.
י׳הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מָעוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ תּוֹדָה בְּלַחְמָהּ. וְהַשְּׁאָר יָבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה. וְאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם אֲבָל טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת. יָבִיא בַּמָּעוֹת תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת. יָבִיא מִן הַמָּעוֹת תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ. וְזוֹ הַתּוֹדָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה תִּקָּרֵב בְּלֹא לֶחֶם:
10[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering, but it does not require bread.33For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving-offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8. It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering. Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering. The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.
י״אהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹדָה וַהֲרֵי זֶה לַחְמָהּ. אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר. אָבְדָה הַתּוֹדָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַלֶּחֶם בָּא בִּגְלַל הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵין הַתּוֹדָה בָּאָה בִּגְלַל הַלֶּחֶם:
11[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37Setting aside a specific animal and bread. If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains. [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.
י״בהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְנוֹתְרוּ מֵבִיא בָּהֶן לֶחֶם. הִפְרִישׁ לַלֶּחֶם וְהוֹתִיר אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה:
12When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a).
י״גהָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹדָה וְנִתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא. הֲרֵי זוֹ הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה שֶׁאִם יָבִיא עִמָּהּ לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא הַתְּמוּרָה הִיא. וְאִם הֱבִיאָהּ בְּלֹא לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא הַתּוֹדָה הִיא. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּקָּרֵב זוֹ לְעוֹלָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם:
13[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose. it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41And bread should not be brought with such an offering.As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8. [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42Which requires bread. Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.
י״דתּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּפְרְסָה חַלָּה מֵחַלּוֹתֶיהָ כֻּלָּן פְּסוּלוֹת. יָצָאת הַחַלָּה אוֹ נִטְמְאָה. שְׁאָר הַחַלּוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת. נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה הַתּוֹדָה. מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט נִפְרַס אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא. הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל. וְהַלֶּחֶם כֻּלּוֹ פָּסוּל וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא. נִזְרַק הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִפְרַס מִקְצָת הַלֶּחֶם אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא. תּוֹרֵם מִן הַשָּׁלֵם עַל הַפָּרוּס וּמִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וּמִמַּה שֶּׁבִּפְנִים עַל שֶׁבַּחוּץ:
14When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar. If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic. the remainder of the breads are acceptable.If the bread46This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced. was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard. The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text of Menachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18). for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.
ט״ותּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת. לֹא קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים. וְאִם אָמַר יִקָּדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים מוֹשֵׁךְ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים וּמֵרִים מֵהֶם אַחַת מִכָּל קָרְבָּן. וְהָאַרְבָּעִים הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִפָּדוּ וְיֵצְאוּ לְחֻלִּין:
15When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated. If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51The commentaries question why the loaves must be redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40? Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be consecrated.
ט״זהַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה וְהָיָה לַחְמָהּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פַּגִי לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ לְפָנִים:
16When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,52This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5 : patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)]. the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.53In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.
י״זשְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְמוּ פְּנֵי הַלֶּחֶם בַּתַּנּוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרְמוּ כֻּלָּן חוּץ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן. לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם:
17If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered.
י״חשְׁחָטָהּ וְנִפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. נִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ טְרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּאֵיל נָזִיר עִם הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁלּוֹ:
18If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten]55See the following chapters which discuss these issues at length. the bread is sanctified.56Because the disqualification came at the time of the slaughter of the animal and not beforehand. Since the bread becomes sanctified, it is considered as piggul If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah,57An animal that will die within a year. In these instances, since the animal was never acceptable for sacrifice - even if that was not discovered before its slaughter - the breads are not consecrated. or it was slaughtered with an improper intent,58I.e., it was slaughtered with the intent of it being offered as another type of sacrifice. In this instance, even though the disqualifying factor took place at the time the animal is slaughtered, the bread is disqualified. For based on Leviticus 7:12, the Sifra states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering. the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.59I.e., for this offering is also accompanied by bread. The same concepts also apply with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuos and the two lambs brought at that time. See Chapter 17, Halachah 18.
י״ג
א׳שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְשָׁבוֹת הֵן שֶׁפּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מַחֲשִׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. וּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם. וּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם כֵּיצַד. זֶה הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה עוֹלָה וְיַחְשֹׁב שֶׁהוּא שְׁלָמִים. אוֹ יִשְׁחָטֶנּוּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים. אוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים וּלְשֵׁם עוֹלָה. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַזֶּבַח שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו. זוֹ הִיא מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִשְׁמוֹ עַל מְנָת לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ. אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר מִמֶּנּוּ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה. אוֹ לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹם אֲכִילָתוֹ. זוֹ הִיא מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם. וּזְבָחִים שֶׁחָשַׁב בָּהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה זוֹ הֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים זְבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן. מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִשְׁמוֹ עַל מְנָת לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁתִּשְׁקַע הַחַמָּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַן זְרִיקָתוֹ. אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר מִמֶּנּוּ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטִיר לְמָחָר מֵאַחַר שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַן הַקְטָרָתוֹ. אוֹ לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה לְאַחַר זְמַן הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָתוֹ. זוֹ הִיא מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. וּזְבָחִים שֶׁחִשֵּׁב בָּהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה זוֹ הֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים זְבָחִים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים פִּגּוּל בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְזֶהוּ (ויקרא ז יח) (ויקרא יט ז) "פִּגּוּל" הֶאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה:
1There are three improper intents that disqualify sacrifices. They are: the intent [to offer a sacrifice]1The particular activities which disqualifiy a sacrifice are mentioned in Halachot 4-6. for a different purpose,2I.e., for the sacrifice of another type or not for the sake of its owner, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, and the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose"?3Zevachim 1:1 states: "All of the sacrifices that were sacrificed without the proper intent are acceptable, but their offering does not fulfill the owner's obligation with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice." Thus although most sacrifices that are not offered with the proper intent are acceptable, since the owner does not fulfill his obligation while offering them, the Rambam mentions them in this halachah (Kessef Mishneh). See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:10. [The animal was designated as] a burnt-offering and [the priest] had the intent that it was a peace-offering, he slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, or for the sake of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, or he did not slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its owners. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose."What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose4I.e., for the type of sacrifice for which it was designated and for the correct owner. with the intent of casting its blood or offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside the Temple Courtyard or eating a portion of it that is fit to be eaten outside the place designated for it to be eaten.5Sacrifices of the most sacred order must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and sacrifices of lesser sanctity must be eaten in Jerusalem. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] in an [improper] place." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper place.What is meant by the term "the intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time"? [The priest] slaughtered the sacrificial animal for the correct purpose with the intent of casting its blood [on the altar] after sunset which is not the time at which its blood may be cast, with intent of offering a portion of it that was fit to be offered on the altar's pyre] on the next day, after dawn, which is not the time when it may be offered, or to partake of a portion of it that is fit to be eaten after the time when it is fit to be eaten.6Most sacrifices must be eaten on the day they were offered and on the following night. Certain others may also be eaten on the following day. These are all examples of "intents [to offer a sacrifice] at an [improper] time." Sacrifices [that were slaughtered] with such an intent are called sacrifices that were slaughtered outside their proper time. They are also referred to be the term piggul. This is the meaning of the term piggul mentioned in the Torah.7Leviticus 7:18; 19:7. The term has the implication of "rejected" (Targum Onkelos) and "abhorrent" (Rav Saadia Gaon).
ב׳מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (ויקרא ז יח) "וְאִם הֵאָכל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו" אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּמְחַשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַקְרָבָה שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל קָרְבָּן שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר זְמַן הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילַת אוֹתוֹ קָרְבָּן. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר מִמֶּנּוּ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה [לְאַחַר זְמַן הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה]. כָּךְ לָמְדוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה. אֶחָד אֲכִילַת אָדָם וְאֶחָד אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ. אִם חִשֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶן אַחַר זְמַנָּן הֲרֵי הַקָּרְבָּן פִּגּוּל:
2According to the Oral Tradition,8Sifra to the verse quoted; Zevachim 29a; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:3). we learned that the Torah's statements [Leviticus 7:18]: "If some of the meat of the peace-offering was eaten on the third day," [should not be interpreted literally]. Instead, it is speaking about one who has the intent while offering the sacrifice that it will be eaten on the third day.9I.e., the verse states: "if it was eaten on the third day, it is unacceptable." Peace-offerings may be eaten only for two days. The Oral Tradition explains that the intent is not that eating the sacrifice on the third day disqualifies it, but that having the intent that it be eaten on the third day while offering disqualifies it from the outset.Although this interpretation is communicated by the Oral Tradition, there are allusions to it in the Torah's words. The above verse uses the term: "the one who offers it," implying that the disqualification involves the offering. And it uses the phrase venechshav ("and it will be considered"), implying that the disqualification has to do with thought. The same applies with regard to every sacrifice that, while offering it, one had the intent to partake of it after the time that is appropriate to partake of that type of sacrifice.Similarly, [the sacrifice is disqualified] if one had the intent to offer portions of it that are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre after the time appropriate for them to be offered. According to the Oral Tradition,10Zevachim 28b explains that since the above verse uses a twofold construction for the term "eat," haechol yaechol, our Sages interpreted it as referring to two types of consumption: consumption by the altar and consumption by man. the following concept was derived: With regard to both consumption by man and consumption by the altar, if one had the intent that [sacrifices] be consumed after the appropriate time, the sacrifice is considered as piggul.
ג׳אֲבָל קָרְבָּן שֶׁלֹּא נִפְסְדָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ אֶלָּא נִזְרַק דָּמוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּהִלְכָתוֹ וְנִשְׁאַר מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר זְמַן אֲכִילָתוֹ. אוֹתוֹ הַנִּשְׁאָר נִקְרָא נוֹתָר וְאָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ. וְהַקָּרְבָּן כְּבָר נִרְצָה וְכִפֵּר. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בַּדָּם (ויקרא יז יא) "וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר" כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ דָּם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּהִלְכָתוֹ נִתְכַּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים וְנִרְצָה הַקָּרְבָּן. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מִתְפַּגֵּל אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. אֶחָד זֶבַח שֶׁחִשֵּׁב בּוֹ אַחַת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ מַחֲשָׁבוֹת אֵלּוּ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת קַבָּלַת הַדָּם. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָתוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אוֹ בְּעֵת זְרִיקָתוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
3When, however, a sacrifice was not disqualified because of an improper intent, but instead, its blood was cast on the altar in the proper manner, but it remained after the time allotted for it to be eaten, the portion that remains is considered notar. It is forbidden to eat it,11See Chapter 18, Halachah 10, for more details regarding this prohibition. but the sacrifice was already accepted and atonement was achieved. It is written with regard to the blood [of a sacrifice, Leviticus 17:11]: "And I gave it to you upon the altar to bring atonement." [Implied is that] since the blood reached the altar according to law, the owners achieved atonement and the sacrifice was acceptable. Therefore the concept of piggul applies only to entities that possess services that will enable [them to be consumed] either by men or by the altar, as will be explained.The same laws apply if one had one of these three disqualifying intents when slaughtering a sacrifice, receiving its blood, taking its blood to the altar, or casting it on the altar.
ד׳נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁבְּאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת הַזֶּבַח נִפְסַל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה. בַּשְּׁחִיטָה. וּבַקַּבָּלָה. וּבְהוֹלָכַת הַדָּם. וּבִזְרִיקָתוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
4We derive from the above that it is with regard to these four services that a sacrifice can be disqualified because of an [improper] intent: slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it [to the altar], and casting it on the altar.12The rationale is that these four services are necessities for the offering of a sacrifice (Zevachim 1:4.)
ה׳וְהָעוֹף בִּשְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים. בַּמְּלִיקָה. וּבְמִצּוּי הַדָּם:
5A fowl [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in two services: melikah and squeezing out the blood [on the altar].13In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:7), the Rambam writes that performing melikah is equivalent to slaughter and squeezing a fowl's blood on the altar equivalent to casting an animal's blood. In this instance, there are no parallels to receiving the blood or carrying it to the altar.
ו׳וְהַמְּנָחוֹת הַנִּקְמָצוֹת בְּאַרְבָּעָה. בַּקְּמִיצָה. וּבִנְתִינַת הַקֹּמֶץ בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. וּבְהוֹלָכַת הַקֹּמֶץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּבִזְרִיקָתוֹ עַל הָאֵשׁ:
6The meal-offerings from which a handful is taken [can be disqualified because of an improper intent] in four services: taking the handful, placing the handful in a sacred utensil, bringing the utensil to the altar, and casting it on the pyre.14For these four services are comparable to the four services mentioned in Halachah 4 (Zevachim 13b). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:3) separating the handful is equivalent to ritual slaughter and the handful of meal, equivalent to the blood of a sacrificial animal.
ז׳אֲבָל אִם חִשֵּׁב בִּדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הֶפְשֵׁט אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נִתּוּחַ אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכַת אֵימוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת בְּלִילַת הַמִּנְחָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַגָּשָׁתָהּ. וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אֵין אוֹתָהּ הַמַּחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת כְּלוּם. בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בֵּין מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם בֵּין מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן:
7If, however, one had an improper intent while performing services other than these: e.g., one had such an intent when skinning [sacrificial animal], when cutting it into pieces, when bringing its internal organs and fats to altar,15All of these services are not essential to the offering of a sacrifice. Even if they are not performed, the sacrifice is acceptable. when mixing [the oil and flour of] a meal-offering, when bringing it close to the altar,16These services are performed before taking the handful. Thus it is comparable to the services performed before slaughter which do not disqualify an animal. or the like, that [improper] intent is of no consequence. [This applies] whether it is an intent [to offer a sacrifice] for a different purpose, an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] in an [improper] place, or an intent [to offer or partake of the sacrifice] at an [improper] time.
ח׳וְכֵן הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ אוֹ בְּכֻלָּן מַחֲשָׁבָה אַחֶרֶת חוּץ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ מַחֲשָׁבוֹת אֵלּוּ אֵין אוֹתָהּ הַמַּחְשָׁבָה מַפְסֶדֶת כְּלוּם. כֵּיצַד. הַמְחַשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְקַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה וּזְרִיקָה לְהָנִיחַ דַּם הַזֶּבַח אוֹ אֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר. אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִזְרֹק הַדָּם עַל הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד. אוֹ לִתֵּן אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה. אוֹ לִתֵּן דָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. אוֹ אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בַּפְּנִימִי לַחִיצוֹן. אוֹ לְהַכְנִיס דַּם הַחַטָּאת לִפְנִים. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ הַזֶּבַח טְמֵאִים אוֹ שְׁאָר הַפְּסוּלִין לַאֲכִילָה. אוֹ שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּם טְמֵאִים אוֹ שְׁאָר הַפְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה. אוֹ לְעָרֵב דַּם הַזֶּבַח בְּדַם הַפְּסוּלִין. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִשְׁבֹּר עַצְמוֹת הַפֶּסַח ולֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ נָא. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִשְׂרֹף חַטָּאת הַנִּשְׂרֶפֶת חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן. אוֹ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַמַּחְשָׁבוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצַת הַמִּנְחָה וּבִשְׁעַת נְתִינָתוֹ לַכְּלִי וּבִשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָתוֹ וּבִשְׁעַת זְרִיקָתוֹ עַל הָאֵשׁ לְהָנִיחַ קֻמְצָהּ אוֹ לְבוֹנָתוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַחוּץ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה:
8Similarly, if when performing one of these four tasks or all of them, one has an [improper] intent other than these three intents, that undesirable intent does not disqualify [a sacrifice] at all.What is implied? When slaughtering [a sacrificial animal], receiving [its blood], bringing [the blood to the altar], and casting [on the altar], a person had the intent to:17All of the acts mentioned by the Rambam would disqualify a sacrifice or its meat if performed. In this instance, however, we are not speaking about a situation where these acts were performed. Instead, it is merely that the priest performing the service intended that they be performed.a) leave the blood of the sacrifice or the organs and fats to be burnt on the altar for the next day18While according to law, the blood must be cast on the altar on the day the sacrifice was offered and the limbs and organs must be burnt on either that day or the following night. or to remove them from the Temple Courtyard,19Which would disqualify them.b) or he had the intent to cast the blood on the [altar's] ramp, where it is not opposite the base20And the blood of certain sacrifices must be poured on the base of the altar.c) or [take] the blood of sacrifices that must be presented on the upper portion of the altar21Burnt-offerings. on the lower portion or those to be presented on the lower portion22Sin-offerings. on the upper portion,d) or those to be presented on the outer altar23I.e., the overwhelming majority of both the communal and individual offerings. on the inner altar, or those to be presented on the inner altar24See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:11. on the outer altar, or to bring the blood of a sin-offering into the inner chamber,e) he had the intent that impure people or others disqualified from partaking of a sacrifice should partake of it,f) that the sacrifice be offered by impure people or others who are disqualified from performing sacrificial service,g) to mix the blood of the sacrifice with unacceptable blood;h) he intended to break the bones of a Paschal sacrifice or to eat from it while it is not thoroughly cooked;25Both of these are forbidden (Exodus 12:46, 9).i) or he intended to burn a sin-offering that must be burnt26See ibid. 7:2-5 with regard to the burning of these sin-offerings. As related there, they are burnt in a special place outside of Jerusalem on the day they were offered or on the following night. outside its proper time or outside its proper place;With regard to any of the above - or similar - intents, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if when taking the handful of meal, placing it into a vessel, bringing it to the altar, or casting it on the [altar's] pyre, one had the intent to leave the handful or the frankincense until the following day or to take them out of [the Temple Courtyard], the offering is acceptable.
ט׳כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוֹלָכָה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרֶגֶל אֵינָהּ הוֹלָכָה. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ הֲרֵי זוֹ הוֹלָכָה וְהַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ. כֵּיצַד. קִבֵּל הַדָּם וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וּפָשַׁט יָדוֹ לְזָרְקוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְחִשֵּׁב בְּעֵת שֶׁפָּשַׁט יָדוֹ בַּדָּם אֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם קִבֵּל הַדָּם בִּפְנִים וְלֹא הִלֵּךְ בּוֹ לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא הִלֵּךְ בּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַחוּץ. וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הִלּוּכוֹ לַחוּץ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. הֲרֵי זוֹ פּוֹסֶלֶת:
9We already explained27Chapter 1, Halachah 23. that bringing [blood or limbs to the altar] in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore an undesirable intent28Even one of the three undesirable intents mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. does not disqualify [a sacrifice in such an instance]. Carrying [blood or a limb] to a place to which one need not is considered as carrying and [if one has] an undesirable intent while doing this, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.What is implied? One received the blood and while standing in his place extended his arm to cast it on the altar and while he extended his arm, he had an undesirable intent, that intent does not disqualify it. If, however, he received the blood inside [the Temple Courtyard] and did not carry it toward the altar, but instead, carried it and took it [toward the area] outside [the Courtyard],29He did not actually take the blood outside - that would disqualify it - but he walked in that direction, away from the altar (see Rashi, Zevachim 16b). having a disqualifying intent, [like one] involving the time [the sacrifice would be eaten] or the like, he causes it to be disqualified.30The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion in Zevachim, loc. cit., and the halachah appears to follow the view of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that a priest's intent can disqualify the sacrifice only when he is carrying the blood to the altar. The Kessef Mishneh offers a resolution of the passage according to the Rambam's understanding.