י״ד
א׳אֵין הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד. אֲבָל מַחֲשֶׁבֶת בַּעַל הַקָּרְבָּן אֵינָהּ מוֹעֶלֶת כְּלוּם. אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַעְנוּ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁפִּגְּלוּ וְהָיְתָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הָעוֹבֵד נְכוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:
1[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence.1Note the parallel in Hilchot Shechitah 2:22. Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul,2Vayikra Rabbah 22:7 states that even if the owner "sits and thinks [unacceptable intents] the entire day," the sacrifice is not disqualified. if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.
ב׳וְאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וּבַדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וּבְמָקוֹם רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי כֵּיצַד. אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁקִּבֵּל הַדָּם. אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ. אוֹ זָרַק. וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הָעֲבוֹדָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. לֹא פָּסַל בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וְאוֹתוֹ הַדָּם שֶׁקִּבֵּל אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק מִקְצָתוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. וְאִם נִשְׁאַר דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ יַחְזֹר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה וִיקַבֵּל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נְכוֹנָה. אֲבָל אִם חָשַׁב הַפָּסוּל בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה פָּסַל בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה בִּפְסוּלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. יֵשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁאִם נַעֲשׂוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁרִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל הַדָּם כֹּהֵן זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. אוֹ הוֹלִיכוֹ. אוֹ זְרָקוֹ. פָּסַל הַזֶּבַח כְּאִלּוּ עֲשָׂאָהוּ לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְחָזַר הַכָּשֵׁר וְקִבֵּל וְזָרַק כְּבָר נִפְסַל הַזֶּבַח. וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פָּסַל אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
2The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.3The Rambam proceeds to define each of these concepts.What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service.4For these undesirable intents disqualify a sacrifice only when they alone are the factors that disqualify it and not when it is disqualified for other reasons [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:1)]. The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal.5For it is disqualified and must be disposed. If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.6He should then bring it to the altar and cast it upon it. The sacrifice is then acceptable. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 27-28, the rationale is that "individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants." Hence it is as if the blood of the sacrifice had never been taken.If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has a disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.7Chapter 1, Halachah 1.They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally,8E.g., a burnt-offering is offered with the intent that it is a peace-offering. as will be explained.9Chapter 15, Halachah 1. Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained.10The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is implying that since the sacrifice is acceptable in these instances, even though in other instances, such a change in intent would disqualify it, a person who is not fit for Temple service is considered just like one who is. His intent is significant and could disqualify the sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions on what the Rambam bases this principle.
ג׳בְּדָבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה כֵּיצַד. מִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית לִשְׁמָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים וְאֵין הַשְּׂעוֹרִים דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לִשְׁאָר קָרְבָּנוֹת. וְכֵן הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת וְהַלְּבוֹנָה עָלֶיהָ קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה אֵין מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
3What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent,11I.e., with the intent that it be offered as another type of meal-offering. it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings.12I.e., all of the other meal-offerings were brought from wheat and thus the barley used for the omer offering is unfit to be used for other meal-offerings. Hence even if one had the intent to offer it as another type of offering, that intent is of no consequence. (The meal-offering of a sotah is also brought from barley, but there are fundamental differences between it and the omer offering.)The Rambam's understanding is based on his understanding of Menachot 5b which states that the omer offering is a chidush, something new and different than other meal-offerings, for it is from barley, as explained. The Ra'avad follows a different version of the text which states that the omer offering is different, because it is brought from chadash, wheat from the new harvest.There is an advantage to the Ra'avad's understanding, because - as he explains - according to the Rambam, the same rationale could seemingly be used with regard to the sotah offering mentioned in the second clause of the halachah. There would be no necessity to mention frankincense. The Kessef Mishneh favors the Rambam's version and explains that by mentioning frankincense, our Sages (and the Rambam) chose one of two possible answers. They could also have stated that it is unfit to be used for other offerings.Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy13The term used by Numbers 5:15,18 to describe the meal-offering brought by a woman suspected of adultery. while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed,14It is forbidden to place frankincense on this offering (Numbers 5:15 . Thus before the offering is brought, the frankincense must be removed and until it is removed, the offering is not fit. Hence, whatever intent the person has concerning the offering at that time is of no consequence. there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ד׳בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה כֵּיצַד. מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם וְחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. לֹא פָּסַל הַזֶּבַח בְּמַחְשָׁבָה זוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַמָּקוֹם עַתָּה רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. קָמַץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה בַּחוּץ וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה זוֹ כְּלוּם:
4What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent,15And it may be offered when the altar is repaired. because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.16This applies even if he had this intent while performing service in the Temple Courtyard. Since the altar is not fit for sacrifices to be offered upon it, the place is not considered as fit for service.If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.17Because the act was performed outside the Temple Courtyard, a place where sacrificial service may not be performed.
ה׳אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וּרְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה. הַדָּם וְהָאֵימוּרִין וּבְשַׂר הָעוֹלָה וְהַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה מִן הַמְּנָחוֹת הַנִּקְמָצוֹת:
5These are elements of sacrificial [animals] that are not fit to be eaten, but are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre:18The definitions given in this and the following two halachot are necessary to understand the laws stated in Halachot 8-10 (Kessef Mishneh). its blood,19The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's wording is not exact, for although the blood is presented on the altar, it is not "offered on the altar's pyre." its eimorim,20The fats and organs offered on the altar (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:18). the meat of a burnt-offering, and the handful of meal and the frankincense from the meal-offerings from which such a handful is removed.
ו׳וְאֵלּוּ רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה. הַבָּשָׂר הַנֶּאֱכָל מִכָּל הַזְּבָחִים בֵּין הַנֶּאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים בֵּין הַנֶּאֱכָל לְכָל אָדָם. וּשְׁיָרֵי הַמְּנָחוֹת. וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים:
6These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal-offering,21I.e., what remains after the handful is removed. the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.
ז׳וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לֹא לַאֲכִילָה וְלֹא לְהַקְטָרָה. בְּשַׂר חַטָּאת הַנִּשְׂרֶפֶת. וְהָעוֹר שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה כֻּלּוֹ חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה שֶׁהוּא [רָאוּי] לַאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל הַמּוּרְאָה וְהוּא הַקְּרוּם הַדַּק הַדָּבֵק בָּעוֹר וּמַבְדִּיל בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין הַבָּשָׂר אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה. וְכֵן הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם. וְהַנּוֹצָה שֶׁל עוֹף וְהַצִּפָּרְנַיִם וְהַחַרְטֹם שֶׁלּוֹ וְרָאשֵׁי אֲגַפַּיִים וְרֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב. אֲפִלּוּ מְקוֹמוֹת הָרַכִּים מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבוּקִים בַּבָּשָׂר שֶׁאִלּוּ יֵחָתְכוּ מִן הַחַי יְבַצְבֵּץ הַדָּם וְיֵצֵא הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָן חֲשׁוּבִין נִקְרָאִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה לְעִנְיַן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. וְכֵן הַמָּרָק וְהַתַּבְלִין וְהַשָּׁלִיל וְהַשִּׁלְיָא וּבֵיצַת הָעוֹף וְהַבָּשָׂר שֶׁפּוֹלַטְתּוֹ הַסַּכִּין בִּשְׁעַת הֶפְשֵׁט וְיִשָּׁאֵר מֻדְבָּק בָּעוֹר וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אָלָל. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֵינָן חֲשׁוּבִין לְעִנְיָן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וַהֲרֵי הֵן כְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה:
7These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard],22See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices. the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim,23In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews. the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers24In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed. [The Mishnah there uses the term mourah. The spelling of that term is important, for some spell it in the same way as a term the Rambam translates as referring to one of a fowl's stomachs.] of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail.25In the above source, the Rambam explains that when the feathers are removed from these places, they remain dry projections that are unfit for consumption unless the fowl is very fat. Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices.26Similarly, they are not considered as meat with regard to the prohibitions against partaking of forbidden foods and the laws of ritual purity. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:18, 9:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:7. This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.
ח׳וּמְחַשְּׁבִין עַל דָּבָר הָעוֹמֵד לְאִבּוּד אוֹ עַל דָּבָר הָעוֹמֵד לִשְׂרֵפָה. הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאוֹתָן אַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּן. לֶאֱכל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לַאֲכִילָה אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה. בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. כֵּיצַד. חִשֵּׁב לִשְׁתּוֹת מִדַּם הַזֶּבַח אוֹ לֶאֱכל מֵאֵימוּרָיו אוֹ מִן הַקֹּמֶץ וּמִן הַלְּבוֹנָה. בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר מִבְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח אוֹ מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַמִּנְחָה בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר. הֲרֵי הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר מִן הָעוֹר וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַמָּרָק אוֹ הָאָלָל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל מִפָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּשֵׁרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
8A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt.If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services,27See Halachah 2 above. one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable.What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard]28I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the place. or on the following day,29I.e., a disqualifying intent because of the time. the sacrifice is acceptable.30Because the substances mentioned are not usually eaten. [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day.Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable.31For these entities are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre. Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt,32See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices. outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable.33Because these sacrifices are not fit to be eaten. With regard to a disqualifying intent while burning these sacrifices, see Chapter 13, Halachah 8. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ט׳חִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ הַטְּמֵאִים אוֹ הַפְּסוּלִין מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה אוֹ שֶׁיַּקְטִירוּ הַטְּמֵאִים אוֹ הַפְּסוּלִין מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה חוּץ לִזְמַן אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה. הַזֶּבַח פִּגּוּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. חוּץ לִמְקוֹם אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:
9If34While performing one of the four services mentioned previously. one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul,35The Kessef Mishneh notes that, as stated in the following halachah, our Sages considered an animal's consumption as "eating." Hence consumption by such individuals will certainly fall into that category. as we explained.36In Chapter 13, Halachah 1. The fact that the person who was intended to partake of the sacrifice or offer it was impure or disqualified is not significant. If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul.37See Chapter 13 which explains that the concept of piggul applies only when the disqualifying intent applies to time alone.
י׳אֵין אֲכִילָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת. וְלֹא הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת אַחַר זְמַן אֲכִילָה וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת אַחַר זְמַן הַקְטָרָה. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין. וְאִם הוֹצִיאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה וְאָמַר שֶׁיֹּאכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְתֹאכַל הָאֵשׁ חֲצִי זַיִת. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין לְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה אֶחָד הוּא. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּאוֹתָהּ הַמַּחְשָׁבָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְשֶׁתֹּאכַל בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה כַּחֲצִי זַיִת. בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין שֶׁשֵּׁם אֲכִילָה אֶחָד הוּא. חִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כְּזַיִת בְּיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הֲרֵי זֶה מִצְטָרֵף. חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת זְבִיחָה לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּבִשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת בִּשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה וְעַל כְּזַיִת בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָה. שֶׁאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת וַהֲרֵי הֵן כָּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת. חִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַקֹּמֶץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַלְּבוֹנָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. שֶׁהַלְּבוֹנָה עִם הַקֹּמֶץ לַמִּנְחָה כְּאֵימוּרִין לְזֶבַח. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מִן הַלְּבוֹנָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר. אֶחָד הַמְחַשֵּׁב לִזְרֹק דַּם הַזֶּבַח כֻּלּוֹ בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִזְרֹק מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל כְּדֵי הַזָּיָה מִן הַדָּם פָּסַל:
10The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.38An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15. Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.39Because his forbidden intent is of no consequence.If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one.If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion,40Zevachim 31b refers to II Kings 9:10 as support for the concept that consumption by animals can be termed achilah. they can be combined because both are called eating.If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,41I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. Generally, if a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized portion beyond this time span, it is not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. the eating is combined.42For here the emphasis is not on the person's activity of eating, but on the sacrifice being eaten (Kin'at Eliyahu). If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion and at the time of casting [the blood on the altar], he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion, the two intents - whether concerning the place or the time - are combined. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning an olive-sized portion43The Kessef Mishneh suggests amending the text to read "half an olive-sized portion" and in that way fit the context of the entire halachah. The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah, however, indicate that all of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah speak of an olive-sized portion. at the time he received [the blood] and [such an intent] concerning an olive-sized44An olive-sized portion is 27 cc according to Shiurei Torah. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15. portion while bringing [it to the altar, they are combined]. For all the four services [mentioned above]45See Halachah 2 above. are combined and can be considered as a single service.If one had a [disqualifying] intent regarding offering half an olive-sized portion of the handful [of meal] and [a similar intent] regarding half an olive-sized portion of the frankincense,46The Mishneh LiMelech notes that in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the Rambam writes that two grains of frankincense are sufficient for a meal-offering to be considered acceptable. Seemingly, then, that amount should also be enough to disqualify such an offering. they are combined. For with regard to the meal-offering, the frankincense and the handful [of meal] are considered like the eimorim for an animal sacrifice. Therefore, if one had the intent to offer an olive-sized portion of frankincense at an improper time, [the meal-offering] is considered piggul, as we explained.Whether one had the intent to cast all [of an animal's] blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day or had the intent to cast [only] a portion of its blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, since he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning the amount of blood sufficient to present on the altar,47I.e.,. a very small amount. [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
ט״ו
א׳כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בְּמַחִשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. בֵּין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד בֵּין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר. כְּשֵׁרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת וְהַפֶּסַח שֶׁאִם נַעֲשׂוּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פְּסוּלִין. וְאֶחָד הַמְשַׁנֶּה שֵׁם הַזֶּבַח בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָה אוֹ בִּזְרִיקָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. כֵּיצַד לֹא עָלוּ לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לֹא מִשּׁוּם עוֹלָה שֶׁהֵם חַיָּבִין בָּהּ וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁלָמִים. אֶלָּא חַיָּבִין לְהָבִיא זֶבַח אַחֵר. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט עוֹלַת רְאוּבֵן לְשֵׁם שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא עָלְתָה לֹא לִרְאוּבֵן וְלֹא לְשִׁמְעוֹן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁעָקַר שֵׁם הַזֶּבַח בְּזָדוֹן. אֲבָל אִם טָעָה וְדִמָּה שֶׁזּוֹ הָעוֹלָה שְׁלָמִים הִיא וְעָשָׂה כָּל עֲבוֹדוֹתֶיהָ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. וְכֵן הַחַטָּאת וְהַפֶּסַח שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּטָעוּת כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁעֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת אֵינָהּ עֲקִירָה. וְכֵן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ אוֹ שֶׁמִּצָּה דָּמָהּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף פְּסוּלָה:
1Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices1The mention of communal sacrifices represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1, which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that a communal sacrifice slaughtered for a different intent fulfills the community's obligation. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura also follows this view. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text). Note also Rabbi Akiva Eiger's gloss who questions the initial version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable,2Hence, even if one slaughtered an animal designated as a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, one should continue performing all the subsequent tasks for the sake of a burnt-offering [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. See Halachah 3. but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.3See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others. If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, at the time he brings it to the altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained.4Chapter 13, Halachah 4.What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon.5See Halachah 3 which explains the derivation of this concept. The Mishneh LiMelech questions the Rambam's equation of sacrifices offered for a different purpose than they were originally designated and those offered for the sake of a different person. There is, he explains, a fundamental difference between them. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of another person, the owner is still considered to have fulfilled his obligation. It is only when the blood is cast on the altar for the sake of another person that he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be interpreted as referring to an instance when one slaughtered the animal with the intent to cast its blood on the altar for the sake of another person.When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence.6This also represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that if an intent is supplanted in error, it is considered to be supplanted. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text).Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable,7This applies even if its blood was presented on the lower portion of the altar as is the blood of a sin-offering. but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable.
ב׳וְכֵן כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם כְּשֵׁרוֹת וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁאִם חִשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פְּסוּלוֹת. שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּמִנְחָה כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּמַץ מִנְחַת נְדָבָה לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא. אוֹ מַרְחֶשֶׁת לְשֵׁם מַחֲבַת. אוֹ מַחֲבַת לְשֵׁם מַרְחֶשֶׁת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
2Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner8I.e., the meal-offering brought by a transgressor obligated to bring an adjustable guilt-offering who is very poor. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 10. and a meal offering of a sotah.9A woman suspected of adultery. This meal-offering is comparable to that of a sinner. If while performing one of the four services10Mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 6. one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable.11See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan.12See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 13, for a description of the differences between these offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
ג׳אָסוּר לְחַשֵּׁב בְּקָדָשִׁים מַחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נְכוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. לְפִיכָךְ זֶבַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. אוֹ מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה. חַיָּב לְהַשְׁלִים שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת לִשְׁמָן. אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם חַיָּב לִזְרֹק בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נְכוֹנָה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה דִּין הַחַטָּאת וְהַפֶּסַח מִכָּל הַזְּבָחִים. וְדִין מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מִכָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעִיֵּן עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּחַטָּאת (ויקרא ד לג) "וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת". שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. וְכֵן שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹתֶיהָ לִשְׁמָהּ. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד לה) "עַל חַטָּאתוֹ" שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ הַחֵטְא. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד לה) "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לְשֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ. וְנֶאֱמַר בְּפֶסַח (דברים טז א) "וְעָשִׂיתָ פֶּסַח לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" שֶׁתִּהְיֶה כָּל עֲשִׂיָּתוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. וְנֶאֱמַר (שמות יב כז) "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא לַה'" שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זְבִיחָתוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. הָא אִם שִׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ אוֹ שֵׁם בְּעָלָיו פָּסוּל. וּבְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הוּא אוֹמֵר מִנְחָה הִיא. וּבְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ה טו) "כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת הִיא". שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לִשְׁמָן:
3It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained.13Chapter 18, Halachah 1. Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose.14The rationale is that since the sacrifice is acceptable, its functions must be performed for the proper intent.Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner.15Zevachim 7a interprets the phrase cited as implying: for him and not for his colleague. See Halachah 8.And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to God, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner,16In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), the Rambam states that the first verse teaches that the offering must be brought as a Paschal sacrifice and the second, that it must be brought for the sake of its owner. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions only the second verse and states that a Paschal sacrifice that is not offered for the proper purpose is unacceptable. See also Halachah 11. it is not acceptable.And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering."17Our text reflects an amended version. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah contains a different prooftext. And with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah, [Numbers 5:15] states: "It is a meal-offering [resulting from] envy." [The implication is that] all of the actions associated with them must be performed for that purpose.
ד׳חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם זֶבַח אַחֵר כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה אוֹ לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם אוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. פְּסוּלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אִם שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חֻלִּין. הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים:
4When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
ה׳מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁהַקָּדָשִׁים מְחַלְּלִין קָדָשִׁים וְאֵין הַחֻלִּין מְחַלְּלִין קָדָשִׁים:
5According to the Oral Tradition,18Zevachim 46b derives this principle through Biblical exegesis. it was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.
ו׳שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חֵטְא אַחֵר כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּאָה עַל אֲכִילַת חֵלֶב וּשְׁחָטָהּ עַל אֲכִילַת דָּם פְּסוּלָה:
6If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.19I.e., even though it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, since it was not slaughtered for the sake of the sin for which the animal was originally designated, it is unacceptable.
ז׳שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם אָדָם אַחֵר שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת. אֲפִלּוּ חַטָּאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְבוּעָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה:
7If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering,20Since this is a different type of sacrifice, one might think that the situation is comparable to that stated in the following halachah, slaughtering a sin-offering for the sake of a person obligated to bring a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since both offerings atone for sins punishable by karet, they are considered as comparable. Hence the sacrifice is disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 9b). it is unacceptable.
ח׳אֲבָל אִם שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב עוֹלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. (ויקרא ד לא) (ויקרא ד לה) "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת כְּמוֹתוֹ:
8If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burnt-offering,21To atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment. it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.[The concept mentioned previously22I.e., the law stated in Halachah 7. From this concept, it is also possible to derive the law stated in this halachah, for the implication is that when one offers a sin-offering for the sake of another person who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, it is disqualified, but not when one offers it for the sake of another person who is not so obligated (Zevachim 7a). derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.
ט׳שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם מֵת כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁאֵין כַּפָּרָה לַמֵּתִים. שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב קָרְבָּן כְּלָל לֹא חַטָּאת וְלֹא עוֹלָה וְלֹא שְׁאָר קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁמָּא מְחֻיָּב הוּא וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ:
9If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices].23Hence the deceased person is not considered as obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore, this is not considered as an instance where one offered a sacrifice for the sake of another person obligated to bring a sacrifice.If one slaughtered it for the sake of a person who is not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, not a sin-offering, nor a burnt-offering, nor any other sacrifice, it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] perhaps he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice],24A burnt-offering to atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment. but does not know.25Hence he is considered to be obligated to bring a sacrifice.Zevachim 71-7b explains that there is a difference between such a situation and a person who knows he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering (in which instance, the sin-offering is not disqualified, as stated in the previous halachah). When the person knows he must bring a burnt-offering, his atonement is associated with that offering only. When, however, he does not know that he must bring a burnt-offering, he will not seek atonement. Hence, the sin-offering he brings will bring him a certain measure of atonement for the positive commandments he did not perform. For as stated in Halachah 14, everyone has certain positive commandments that he has failed to fulfill.
י׳שְׁחָטָהּ לִשְׁמָהּ וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁחִיטָה לִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. לְפִי שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה. וְזֹאת הַמַּחְשָׁבָה שֶׁחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּאִלּוּ חִשְּׁבָהּ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה וּלְפִיכָךְ פְּסוּלָה:
10If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant].26The Mishneh LiMelech restricts the scope of the Rambam's statements, maintaining that if at the time of slaughter or the performance of one of the other three services mentioned in Halachah 2, one has a disqualifying intent concerning receiving the blood or bringing it to the altar, the sacrifice is still acceptable. Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.
י״אהַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. בֵּין שֶׁשִּׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם זֶבַח אַחֵר בֵּין שֶׁשִּׁנָּהוּ לְשֵׁם חֻלִּין פָּסוּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב כז) "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא לַה'". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁהוּא יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ בְּשַׁחֲרִית בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פָּסוּל. אֲבָל אִם שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּעָלִים בִּזְמַנּוֹ וּפָסוּל:
11A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal27The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, because even a sin-offering is acceptable when slaughtered as an ordinary animal. The Kessef Mishneh states that the phrase "unto God" in the prooftext excludes slaughtering the animal for ordinary purposes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud which states that the phrase "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice' excludes all other intents. - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,'28See Halachot 1 and 3.When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day29The Paschal sacrifice may not be sacrificed until the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. Nevertheless, since it is offered on that day, the morning is considered "the time of its sacrifice" with regard to the disqualification of an offering. for a different intent, it is unacceptable.30There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Zevachim 1:3. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam maintaining that the more lenient opinion should be accepted. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam accepted the more stringent view because it is debated in the Talmud. If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable.31For if it was slaughtered at such a time, it is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering that was slaughtered with a different intent is acceptable.In the clause which follows, the sacrifice is unacceptable, because there is no one to partake of it and a Paschal sacrifice is brought only to be eaten (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 2).[If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.
י״בפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר קֹדֶם חֲצוֹת פָּסוּל לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַנּוֹ. עָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ וְשָׁחַט בִּזְמַנּוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁאָר זְבָחִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה:
12When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year32At this age, it is no longer fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice. and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.
י״גתּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וּשְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה לֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים. לְפִי שֶׁהַתּוֹדָה נִקְרֵאת שְׁלָמִים וּשְׁלָמִים לֹא נִקְרְאוּ תּוֹדָה:
13When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering,33See Leviticus 7:15 which speaks of "the thanksgiving-peace sacrifice." but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.
י״דעוֹלָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב קָרְבָּן כְּלָל לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לִשְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב כְּלוּם בְּעִנְיָנוֹ. אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה חַיָּב כַּפָּרָה לַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר מֵעוֹלָם עַל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה:
14When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation,34For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.35And atonement for these unknown faults will be secured by this sacrifice.
ט״ועוֹלָה הַבָּאָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. שֶׁאֵין בְּעָלִים לְאַחַר מִיתָה:
15When a burnt-offering that was brought after the death [of the person who set it aside] was offered for the sake [of that person who set it aside and] not for the sake of its owner,36The heir. the owner37For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for there is no conception of ownership after death.
ט״זשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם אֵילִים לֹא עָלוּ לַצִּבּוּר לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. וְאִם דִּמָּה שֶׁהֵן אֵילִים וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם אֵילִים עָלוּ לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא עֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת:
16When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams,38As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings. the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation.39And two other sheep must be brought. If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.40As stated in Halachah 1.
י״זאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מִדָּמוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהוֹנוֹת. טָעוּן נְסָכִים. שֶׁאִם יִקָּרֵב בְּלֹא נְסָכִים נִמְצָא כְּמַקְרִיב נְדָבָה וְאֵין הָאָשָׁם בָּא נְדָבָה:
17When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from] tzara'at41A skin malady similar to, but not identical to leprosy that renders one ritually impure. was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement,42See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2. accompanying offerings43See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2. are required.44Even though the person has not fulfilled his obligation and must bring another sacrifice, he is required to bring the accompanying offerings, for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. For if it was offered without accompanying offerings, it would be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.
י״חכֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. לֹא יָבִיא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁלּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֶלָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד כִּשְׁאָר הַנְּדָבוֹת. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָלָה לְשֵׁם חוֹבָתוֹ. וְכֵן תָּמִיד שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ לֹא יַעֲלֶה עִמּוֹ שְׁנֵי גִּזְרֵי עֵצִים כִּשְׁאָר הַתְּמִידִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָלָה לְחוֹבַת הַתָּמִיד אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל הַנְּדָבוֹת:
18When the sheep that is brought together with the omer offering45See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3. was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering.46As would be required were it offered for the specified intent (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:5). Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation.47In contrast to the guilt-offering mentioned in the previous halachah, it is customary to bring burnt-offerings as freewill offerings. Hence, the accompanying offerings should be brought accordingly.Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood48See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:2-3. should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.
י״טשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן בֵּין לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן. הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַצִּבּוּר לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת לֹא יִזְרֹק. וְאִם זָרַק הֻרְצָה לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב:
19When the sheep offered on Shavout49As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings. were slaughtered for a different intent or were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten50The commentaries note that it is forbidden to offer the eimorim on the festival and question whether the intent is that the meat may be eaten on the festival or whether it is necessary to wait until the evening. even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar].51For only obligatory sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath. If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.
כ׳וְכֵן שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וְכֵן אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן נֶאֱכָלִים:
20Similarly when the peace-offerings of a nazirite were offered for a different intent, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation, they are eaten for a day and a night52Like the peace-offerings of a nazirite, rather than for a two days and a night like other peace-offerings. and do not require bread.53Bread must be brought with the peace-offerings of a nazirite (Hilchot Nizirut 8:1). Similarly, when the guilt-offering of a nazirite or the guilt-offering of one [to be purified from] tzara'at54A skin malady similar to, but not identical to leprosy that renders one ritually impure. were offered for a different intent, they are eaten, even though the owner does not fulfill his obligation.
ט״ז
א׳כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת מַחֲשֶׁבֶת המָּקוֹם הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הַקָּרְבָּן פִּגּוּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן מַחֲשָׁבָה אַחֶרֶת. אֲבָל אִם עֵרֵב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּפֶסַח וּבְחַטָּאת עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. כֵּיצַד. שָׁחַט וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ וְזָרַק וּמַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וּבִשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת הָיְתָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה. אוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם מַחֲשָׁבָה כְּלָל בִּשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת. הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא פָּסוּל בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. אֵין זֶה פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא פָּסוּל. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּעוֹפוֹת וּבִמְנָחוֹת. אֵין שָׁם פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא קָרְבָּן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בְּסוֹף וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּקָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסָלִין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם:
1We have already explained1Chapter 13, Halachah 1. that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services,2Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah. the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the intent concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul. - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.5I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first, as long as another intent is mixed together with the intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. In Zevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.
ב׳הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּם לֶאֱכל כְּזַיִת מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה בַּחוּץ וּכְזַיִת לְמָחָר. אוֹ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר וּכְזַיִת בַּחוּץ. אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר. אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְכֵן אִם עֵרֵב הַמַּחְשָׁבָה בְּהַקְטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:
2When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6More precisely, that the meat be eaten whether by himself or by someone else. an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7See Chapter 14, Halachah 8. outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],8Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time.half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, orhalf an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],9As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined. the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.
ג׳חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְלֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. בֵּין שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת כְּזַיִת בֵּין שֶׁאִחֵר אוֹתָהּ. שֶׁאֵין חֲצִי זַיִת חָשׁוּב אֵצֶל כְּזַיִת:
3If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text.
ד׳חִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְעַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת חֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְחֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:
4If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul.11I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halachah applies in this instance as well. The fact that - had the person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, the first half portion would have been combined with the second half portion is not of consequence Ravva (Zevachim 31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.".Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.12Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded.
ה׳חִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְמַעְלָה אוֹ עַל הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְתִתָּם לְמַטָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּמַחְשָׁבוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן פּוֹסְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְעֵרֵב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לְבַדָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:
5If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained;13Chapter 2, Halachah 10. if one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.14Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent the sacrifice from being considered as piggul. If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone,15The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is not piggul. [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
ו׳חִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַעְלָה לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַטָּה. אוֹ עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַטָּה לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַעְלָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל. אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הוֹאִיל וְשִׁנָּה מְקוֹם נְתִינַת הַדָּם בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּהֲלָכוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נִתַּן בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָמָּה לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה פִּגּוּל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה זוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִתֵּן הַדָּם שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לְמָחָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַדָּם הַנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר אֵינוֹ מַתִּיר הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל זְרִיקָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה אִם חִשֵּׁב לִתְּנָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ לֹא פִּגֵּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב בְּזֶבַח זֶה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:
6If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, orhe had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul.16The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.Since we have explained in these halachot17Chapter 2, Halachah 10. that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.18Chapter 2, Halachah 10. [There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.
ז׳חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל עַד שֶׁיְּחַשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בְּכָל הַמַּתִּיר שֶׁהוּא הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה. בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצַת הַקֹּמֶץ וְלִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נְתִינַת שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּכְלִי. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָתָן אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָתָן:
7If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul.19Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought. [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].
ח׳חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרַת הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁיַּקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְמָחָר אֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל שֶׁאֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה. וְכֵן אִם הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל שְׁיָרִים לְמָחָר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְטִיר אֶת הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיַּקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה וְחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּשְׁטָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בְּכָל הַמִּנְחָה:
8If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.20For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggul only when one thinks of it while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah. Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.21Even though neither of the intents in their own right would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, when combined, they have this effect.To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.
ט׳הִקְטִיר כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֹׁם מִן הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֹׁם מִן הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר. עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כָּל הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָךְ מְעַט מְעַט אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטַר קֻמְצָהּ:
9If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,22As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable. this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre.23There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance in Menachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).
י׳מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא אוֹ מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וְחִשֵּׁב בָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁלִּקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה חִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:
10When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah24Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10. and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul.25Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed. If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.26Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar.
י״אשְׁיָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה וְהִקְטִיר הַקֹּמֶץ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִקְבְּעוּ לְפִגּוּל וַהֲרֵי הֵן פִּגּוּל. אוֹ לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:
11If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul27For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.) and thus it is piggul or it was not established28For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering. and it is not piggul.