ב׳
א׳כָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה חֲמִשִּׁים וּכְבָר נִמְנוּ:
1There are a total of 50 blemishes that disqualify both a man1I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple. and an animal.2From being offered as a sacrifice. They have already been listed.3See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
ב׳וְיֵשׁ מוּמִין אֲחֵרִים מְיֻחָדִין בַּבְּהֵמָה וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בְּאָדָם. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אִם הָיָה גַּלְגַּל עֵינָהּ עָגל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. עֵינָהּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה כְּשֶׁל עֵגֶל וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה קְטַנָּה כְּשֶׁל אַוָּז. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה אֹזֶן גְּדוֹלָה וְאֹזֶן קְטַנָּה אֲפִלּוּ קְטַנָּה עַד כְּפוֹל כָּשֵׁר. אִם יֵשׁ בְּלֹבֶן עֵינָהּ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִקַּב הָעוֹר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמֶיהָ בַּמָּקוֹם הַנִּרְאֶה. פִּיהָ דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר פָּרוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻדָּד כְּשִׁפּוּד:
2There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified. There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef Mishneh). if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b). d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6. e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.
ג׳חִטֶּיהָ הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִקְצָתָן אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמְמוּ אִם נֶעֶקְרוּ חִטֶּיהָ הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּעֵת שֶׁפּוֹתַחַת פִּיהָ וְצוֹוַחַת הֵן נִרְאִין חֲסֵרִין:
3f) If its outer tonsils8Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an alternate meaning, the animal's teeth. were perforated; g) their substance was reduced, even though a portion of them remained; h) they shriveled; i) its inner tonsils were removed;9If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes. [this is considered a blemish],10I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen. because when it opens its mouths and shriek, it will be seen that they are missing.
ד׳אִם נִטְּלוּ קַרְנֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. אֲבָל נְקֵבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קַרְנַיִם כְּשֵׁרָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הָעוֹר שֶׁחוֹפֶה אֶת גִּיד הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם נִפְגְּמָה הָעֶרְוָה שֶׁל נְקֵבָה. אִם נִפְגַּם הַזָּנָב מִן הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפֶּרֶק. אִם הָיְתָה רֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב מְפֻצָּל לִשְׁנַיִם בִּשְׁנֵי עֲצָמִים. אִם הָיָה בֵּין חֻלְיָא לְחֻלְיָא מְלֹא אֶצְבַּע בָּשָׂר. אִם הָיָה הַזָּנָב קָצָר. וְעַד כַּמָּה. בִּגְדִי חֻלְיָא אַחַת מוּם שְׁתַּיִם כָּשֵׁר. וּבְטָלֶה אֹרֶךְ שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת מוּם. הָיְתָה שָׁלֹשׁ כָּשֵׁר. זְנַב הַגְּדִי שֶׁהָיָה רַךְ וּמְדֻלְדָּל דּוֹמֶה לְשֶׁל חֲזִיר. אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִן הַזָּנָב. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם מִצַּלְעוֹתָיו כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּגָלוּי:
4j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11Compare to Halachah 8. a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach). k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)]. m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish. n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short.To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11 which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is considered such a limb; the ribs are not. If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.
ה׳בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם אוֹ אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ רַגְלַיִם. אִם הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו וְיָדָיו פַּרְסָתָהּ עֲגֻלָּה כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא סְדוּקָה וּפְרוּסָה. אִם הָיְתָה יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ קְלוּטָה כְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר וְזֶהוּ (ויקרא כב-כג) "קָלוּט" הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. אִם נִגְמְמוּ טְלָפֶיהָ וְזִכְרוּתָן עִמָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט קָרוֹב לַבָּשָׂר:
5A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11. u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the term kalut mentioned in the Torah;17Leviticus 22:23. w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,
ו׳כָּל מוּם מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְשִׁבְעִים מוּם הַמְּנוּיִין בַּבְּהֵמָה פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. וְאִם נָפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּתְמִימָה שֶׁהִיא קֹדֶשׁ תִּפָּדֶה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין. חוּץ מִזָּקֵן וְחוֹלֶה וּמְזֹהָם שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְקָרְבָּן אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה. אֶלָּא יִהְיֶה קַיָּם וְרוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד בּוֹ מוּם אַחֵר קָבוּעַ מִשְּׁאָר הַמּוּמִין וְיִפָּדֶה. וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ מוּם עוֹבֵר אֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית:
6All of the 73 blemishes18The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7. listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13. Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes." Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21Which would disqualify it in its own right. Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice. nor sacrificed.23Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice.
ז׳אַרְבָּעָה מוּמִין עוֹבְרִים יֵשׁ בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. גָּרָב לַח. חֲזָזִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִצְרִית. מַיִם שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בָּעַיִן וְאֵינָן קְבוּעִין. סַנְוִירִין שֶׁאֵינָן קְבוּעִין:
7There are four temporary blemishes [that disqualify] both a man and an animal:24In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed. a) a moist skin eruption;25See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4. b) a boil that does not resemble those of Egypt;26Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal. c) water that descends in the eyes that is not a permanent condition;27And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not. d) a degeneration of nerves in the eye that is not permanent.28See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
ח׳יֵשׁ שָׁם אַרְבָּעָה חֳלָיִים אֲחֵרִים אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים יב-יא) "מִבְחַר נְדָרֶיךָ". וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. מִי שֶׁבְּלֹבֶן עֵינוֹ יַבֶּלֶת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׂעָר. אִם נִגְמְמוּ קַרְנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר מִזִּכְרוּתָן מְעַט סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר. אִם נִפְגְּמוּ חִטָּיו הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בְּקָדָשִׁים לֹא קְרֵבִין וְלֹא נִפְדִּין. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם. וְאִם הִקְרִיבָן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהֻרְצוּ:
8The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.They are: a) an animal with an eruption in the white of its eye, but it does not have hair growing from it;30If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2. b) the substance of the horns of an animal was reduced, but their inner fibrous tissue remained;31Compare to Halachah 4. c) the substance of its inner tonsils were reduced; or d) its inner tonsils shriveled.32Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed.If a consecrated animal had one of these blemishes, it is neither sacrificed not redeemed.33For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a [disqualifying] blemish.34At which point, it can be redeemed. If it was sacrificed, it appears to me that it is acceptable.35For its blemish did not disqualify it.
ט׳וְכֵן בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיתָה אֶת הָאָדָם בְּעֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים לֹא קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהּ מוּם קָבוּעַ:
9Similarly, when a transgression was performed with a consecrated animal36It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6. or it killed a person, but [was observed] only by one witness or by the owner,37Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2. it is neither sacrificed not redeemed until it contracts a permanent blemish.
י׳בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בָּהּ אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפִיּוֹת הָאוֹסְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה אֲסוּרָה לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (מלאכי א-ח) "הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ". וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְקָרְבָּן אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לַכְּלָבִים. אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ וְיִקָּבְרוּ:
10When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten. and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God. Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain. [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11.
י״אנִשְׁחֲטָה וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הַפְּנִימִיִּין חָסֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּכֻלְיָא אַחַת אוֹ שֶׁנִּטַּל הַטְּחוֹל הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְתִשָּׂרֵף. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם שֶׁאֵין חִסָּרוֹן שֶׁבִּפְנִים מוּם אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר כְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כח-יט) (במדבר כ״ח:ל״א) (במדבר כט-ח) "תְּמִימִם יִהְיוּ לָכֶם". וְכָל הַיָּתֵר כְּחָסֵר לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצָא שָׁם שָׁלֹשׁ כֻּלְיוֹת אוֹ שְׁנֵי טְחוֹלִים פְּסוּלָה:
11If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1.If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz). [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed a tereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal as tereifah. Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11. Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46And is hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general principle in Torah Law. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al. Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.
י״באֵי זוֹ הִיא סַנְוִירִין קְבוּעִים כָּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁמוֹנִים יוֹם וְלֹא רָאָה. וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּיוֹם שִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים מֵעֵת שֶׁהִרְגִּישׁוּ בּוֹ וּבְיוֹם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וּבְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים. אִם רָאָה מוֹנִים לוֹ שְׁמוֹנִים מֵעֵת שֶׁפָּסְקָה הָרְאִיָּה:
12What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter. An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48In the midst of the above period. we count from the time it stopped seeing.
י״גוּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע שֶׁהַמַּיִם קְבוּעִין. כְּשֶׁאָכְלָה עֲשָׂבִים לַחִים מֵרֹאשׁ אֲדָר עַד חֲצִי נִיסָן וְאָכְלָה אַחֲרֵי כֵן עֲשָׂבִים יְבֵשִׁים אֱלוּל וַחֲצִי תִּשְׁרֵי וְלֹא נִתְרַפְּאָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַיִם קְבוּעִים:
13How is it known that the water [in its eyes] are permanent?49Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter. When it ate fresh grass from Rosh Chodesh Adar until the first half of Nisan50In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh. and then51I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order. ate dried grass during Elul and the first half of Tishrei52In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried. and was not healed.53Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3). This indicates that the water is permanent.
י״דוְכַמָּה תֹּאכַל מֵעֲשָׂבִים אֵלּוּ הַלַּחִים בַּזְּמַן הַלַּח וְהַיְבֵשִׁים בַּזְּמַן הַיָּבֵשׁ. כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת אוֹ יוֹתֵר קֹדֶם סְעֻדָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁל כָּל יָמִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים אֵלּוּ. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתֹּאכַל אוֹתָן בְּכָל יוֹם אַחַר שְׁתִיָּה. וְתִהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה בְּעֵת אֲכִילָה. וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה לְבַדָּהּ אֶלָּא הִיא וּבְהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לְצַוֵּות עִמָּהּ. אִם נַעֲשָׂה לָהּ כָּל אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נִתְרַפֵּאת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ קְבוּעִין וַדַּאי. וְאִם חָסֵר אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה וְלֹא נִפְדֵּית:
14How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value. an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55I.e., the two month and a half periods. They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment. and [the animal] should be neither offered,57For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed. nor redeemed.58For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed.
ט״וכֵּיצַד. אָכְלָה הַלַּח כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ בַּאֲדָר כֻּלּוֹ וַחֲצִי נִיסָן וְאָכְלָה אַחֲרָיו הַיָּבֵשׁ כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ בַּחֲצִי נִיסָן וְאִיָּר שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁאָכְלָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אוֹ שֶׁאָכְלָה כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַר אֲכִילָה אוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁתִיָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּגִּנָּה הַסְּמוּכָה לָעִיר וְלֹא נִתְרַפֵּאת מִכָּל אֵלּוּ סָפֵק קְבוּעִין אוֹ עוֹבְרִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הֵטִיל בָּהּ מוּם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲכָלָהּ כְּמִשְׁפָּטָהּ בִּזְמַנֵּי הָאֲכִילָה וְלֹא נִתְרַפְּאָה הֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ:
15What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59But not at the appropriate time of year. Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable. If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.
ט״זיֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם לְמַפְרֵעַ הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ מֵעֵת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ הַמּוּמִים אוֹ מֵעֵת שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ הַפּוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ וְנֶהֱנֶה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַפִּדְיוֹן אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ מֵרְפוּאָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק מוֹעֵל וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן מְעִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:
16There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal61Thus if the redemption was valid, the article used to redeem the animal is consecrated and the person who benefited from it transgressed. If, however, the redemption was not valid, the article is not given that status and hence, there is no transgression involved. after they despaired of its recovery,62I.e., even if the benefit was derived after they despaired of its recovery in which instance, it was definitely permanently blemished, since it was redeemed before that time, the situation is still questionable as explained. there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore63I.e., because the matter is unresolved. he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.64See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:5; Hilchot Shegagot 9:11. As will be explained in the notes to those halachot, it is not necessary to bring a sacrifice conditionally, stipulating: "If I transgressed, this will serve as atonement for my transgression, and if I did not transgress, it will be considered a free-will offering" (Radbaz).
ג׳
א׳אֵין הַמּוּמִין פּוֹסְלִין בָּעוֹף וְכֵן אֶחָד הַזָּכָר וְאֶחָד הַנְּקֵבָה בָּעוֹף שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כב-יט) "תָמִים זָכָר" אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה בִּלְבַד. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמוּמִין קְטַנִּים. אֲבָל עוֹף שֶׁיָּבַשׁ גַּפּוֹ אוֹ נִסְמֵית עֵינוֹ אוֹ נִקְטְעָה רַגְלוֹ אָסוּר לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר כְּלָל. וְכֵן אִם נוֹלַד בּוֹ אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת שֶׁאוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי זֶה נִפְסָל לְקָרְבָּן:
1Blemishes1I.e., those outlined in the previous chapter. do not disqualify a fowl [as a sacrifice]. This applies both with regard to a male and to a female in the instance of a fowl, for the expression [Leviticus 22:18] "a perfect male" was stated only with regard to an animal.2I.e., with regard to an animal, there are sacrifices which require a male and others which require a female. Such distinctions are not made with regard to sacrifices brought from fowl. All sacrifices are acceptable whether one brings a male or a female. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8.When does the above apply? With regard to small blemishes. Nevertheless, if the wing of a fowl became dried out, its eye was lost,3The commentaries explain that the fact that the fowl lost its sight is not enough to disqualify it. It must be as if the eye has been removed. or its foot was cut off, it is forbidden to [be offered on] the altar, for an animal that is lacking a limb is never offered.4See Chapter 2, Halachah 11. Similarly, if it incurred one of the factors that cause it to be deemed tereifah and forbidden to be eaten, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.5See ibid.:10.
ב׳תּוֹרִים קְטַנִּים פְּסוּלִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה גְּדוֹלִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א׳:י״ד) "מִן הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה". תְּחִלַּת הַצִּהוּב בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה פָּסוּל. וְעַד מָתַי יִהְיוּ בְּנֵי יוֹנָה כְּשֵׁרִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹקֵר כָּנָף וּמִתְמַלֵּא מְקוֹם עִקָּרוֹ דָּם. וְהַתּוֹרִים כְּשֵׁרִים מִשֶּׁיִּזְהֲבוּ:
2Small6I.e., young, underdeveloped birds. They are considered as "lacking in age" (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8). turtle-doves and large ordinary doves are unacceptable as [can be inferred from Leviticus 1:14]: "from the turtle doves and the children of the doves."7We have translated the verse literally so that the source for the concept derived is clear. None of the other animals prescribed for sacrifices are described as b'nai, "the children of." By using that term, the Torah sought to imply that the birds must be young and underdeveloped. When it begins to sprout yellow feathers,8An intermediate stage of development. it is unacceptable for both species.9It is unacceptable for turtle-doves, because such a fowl is still considered in its preliminary stages of development. It is not mature yet. Yet it is unacceptable for ordinary doves, because such a fowl has developed beyond its initial stages.Until when are young ordinary doves acceptable? As long as when one pulls out [a feather from] the wing, the place from which it was pulled out will fill with blood. Turtledoves are acceptable when [their feathers all] are of a golden hue.
ג׳הַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן פְּסוּלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִדֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת לְפִי שֶׁהֵן סָפֵק זָכָר סָפֵק נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִין אַחֵר. וּבַקָּרְבָּנוֹת נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא א-ג) (ויקרא א-י) (ויקרא ד-כג) "זָכָר תָּמִים" וּ(ויקרא ד-לב) "נְקֵבָה תְּמִימָה" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה זָכָר וַדַּאי אוֹ נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית. לְפִיכָךְ אַף הָעוֹף שֶׁהוּא טֻמְטוּם אוֹ אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס פָּסוּל לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
3Although there are no blemishes greater than that of a tumtum10An animal whose sexual organs were covered by a mass of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined. or an androgynus,11An animal with both a male and female sexual organ. they are not acceptable for the altar for another reason. Since there is an unresolved doubt whether they are males or females, they are considered of another type, and with regard to the sacrifices, it is said: "a perfect male" and "a perfect female." [Implied is that] they must be definitely male or definitely female. Therefore even a fowl12Which could be offered if it possessed a blemish. which is a tumtum or an androgynus is unacceptable for the altar.13Even though it makes no difference if a fowl is male or female, it must be definitely a male or definitely a female.
ד׳וְכֵן הַכִּלְאַיִם וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן וּמְחֻסַּר זְמַן פְּסוּלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם מוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ז) "שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כָּל מִין וּמִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ לֹא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְעֹרָב מִכֶּבֶשׂ וְעֵז. (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ז) "כִּי יִוָּלֵד" פְּרָט לְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן. (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ז) "וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים" פְּרָט לִמְחֻסַּר זְמַן. (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ז) "תַּחַת אִמּוֹ" פְּרָט לְיָתוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ:
4Similarly, a hybrid animal, one born through Caesarian section, and one that is lacking in age are unacceptable even if they are unblemished. [These are all excluded through the exegesis of Leviticus 22:27]: "An ox, a lamb, and a goat..." - [this implies] each of the species must be separate; an animal should not be a hybrid between a lamb and a goat. "When it gives birth..." - this excludes one born through Caesarian section.14For Caesarian section is not considered as "birth." "It will be seven days..." - This excludes one that it is lacking in age.15See Halachah 8. "Together with its mother" - This excludes an "orphan," i.e., an animal born after its mother was slaughtered.16I.e., the mother was pregnant. It was slaughtered and the fetus was removed alive from its womb and then consecrated as a sacrifice. The Radbaz explains that since this animal is also born through Caesarian section, it is not mentioned as a separate category in the first clause of this halachah and in Halachah 11.
ה׳הַנִּדְמֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּלְאַיִם הֲרֵי הוּא פָּסוּל לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כֵּיצַד. רָחֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין עֵז וְעֵז שֶׁיָּלְדָה כְּמִין כֶּבֶשׂ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת סִימָנִין הוֹאִיל וְהוּא דּוֹמֶה לְמִין אַחֵר פָּסוּל כְּבַעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם קָבוּעַ גָּדוֹל מִן הַשִּׁנּוּי:
5An animal which looks like a different species is unacceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar even though it is not a hybrid. What is implied? A ewe gave birth to an animal that resembled a goat or a she-goat gave birth to an animal that resembled a lamb. Even though it has some of the signs of its own species, it is unacceptable like an animal that has a permanent blemish. For there is no blemish greater than a change [in appearance].
ו׳וְכֵן הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמֻּקְצֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי הֵן פְּסוּלִין לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ה) "כִּי מָשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם" כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה פָּסוּל. וּבַעֲבֵרָה הוּא אוֹמֵר (בראשית ו׳:י״ב) "כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר". וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּתִיב (שמות לב-ז) (דברים ט׳:י״ב) "כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ". וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה וְעוֹף שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הָאָדָם הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרוֹבֵעַ אוֹ נִרְבָּע וּפְסוּלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
6Similarly, an animal that had relations with a person,17Either a male or a female. See Chapter 4, Halachah 3. which was sodomized,18In Chapter 4, Halachah 2, and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation where the forbidden sexual act was observed by only one witness, by the owners, or the animal was consecrated before being brought to court, or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If, however, the forbidden sexual act was performed by a Jew and observed by two witnesses, once the matter was ruled upon by the court, the animal must be executed and is certainly unacceptable as a sacrifice. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 3,5 for more details regarding the disqualification of such an animal. which was set aside for pagan worship,19Even if it had not been used for such worship as of yet. See Chapter 4, Halachah 4, which explains when such an animal is disqualified. As the Radbaz explains in his gloss to that halachah, this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity. or which was worshipped,20See Chapter 4, Halachah 6. even though it is permitted to be eaten,21This refers even to an animal that was worshipped or set aside for pagan worship, as stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1. is unacceptable as a sacrifice for the altar. [This is derived as follows: When describing animals unfit for sacrifices, Leviticus 22:25] states: "For their perversion is in them." [Implied is that] any [animal] characterized by perversion is forbidden. With regard to forbidden [sexual behavior, Genesis 6:12] states: "For all flesh has perverted [its path]."22The commentaries to that verse explain that its intent is that even animals were mating with partners from different species. It is, however, unlikely that this is the Rambam's intent in citing that prooftext. Most probably, the intent is that only animals that shared relations with humans are forbidden. With regard to pagan worship, [Exodus 32:7] states: "For your nation has perverted itself." Similarly, an animal or fowl which killed a person are considered equivalent to one that had relations with a person or which was sodomized and they are unacceptable for the altar.23See Chapter 4, Halachah 3, for more particulars concerning this category.
ז׳וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין הָאֵלּוּ רְאוּיִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְקָרְבָּן אִם עָבַר וְהִקְרִיבָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּרְשָׁה אַזְהָרָתָן. (דברים כג-יט) "אֲבָל אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר" כֶּלֶב אֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַמַּקְרִיב אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד לוֹקֶה אַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג-יט) "לֹא תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב". וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לוֹקֶה אַחַת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד:
7It appears to me that even though all of these types of animals are unfit to be brought as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered them as a sacrifice, he is not worthy of lashes according to Scriptural Law, because the prohibition [against using these animals as sacrifices] is not explicitly stated in the Torah. An animal given as a present to a harlot or exchanged for a dog are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. One who offers a sacrifice from either of them or from both together is liable for one set of lashes, 24Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 100) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 571) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the prohibition involves two subjects, not one, it is still considered as only one prohibition. See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9, for more details on why the two prohibitions are considered as one mitzvah. as [Deuteronomy 23:19] states: "Do not bring a present to a harlot or the exchange of a dog [to the house of God]." Why is one liable for only one set of lashes for them both? Because they are both mentioned in one prohibition.
ח׳מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַקְרִיב כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת מִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ״ב:כ״ז) "וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה". וְכָל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים נִקְרָא מְחֻסַּר זְמַן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּחֻסַּר זְמַן פָּסוּל אִם עָבַר וְהִקְרִיבוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא נִרְצָה הַקָּרְבָּן:
8It is a positive commandment25Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 60) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 293) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. to offer all of the sacrifices26Rabbi Akiva Eiger postulates that this mitzvah applies only with regard to animals. Young doves, by contrast, may be offered even before their eighth day of life. This conclusion can be derived from the Rambam's wording in the following halachah and in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:8. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 3:10 which allows a chick to be slaughtered for food even on the day of its birth. from the eighth day [of their lives] and onward, as [Leviticus 22:27] states: "It will be together with its mother for seven days and on the eighth day and onward, it will be desirable." Throughout these seven days, it is called lacking in age.27See ibid. 1:11-12 for more particulars. There the Rambam states that it is preferable to offer a sacrifice after it is at least one month old.Although an animal that is lacking in age is unacceptable as a sacrifice, if one transgressed and offered one, he is not liable for lashes,28The Rambam adds this explanation, because in contrast to the disqualifying factors mentioned in Halachah 7, this factor is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Radbaz). because the negative commandment comes as a result of a positive commandment. The sacrifice, [however,] is not acceptable.29As can be inferred from the prooftext cited.
ט׳תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן שֶׁהֵן כִּמְחֻסַּר זְמַן בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּן הַכּל כְּבַעַל מוּם וְהַמַּקְרִיבָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְלֹא נִרְצָה:
9Turtle-doves that have not reached the stage of development when they are fit for sacrifice30See Halachah 2 which explains when these doves are fit to be offered. and young doves that matured beyond the appropriate stage31That same halachah explains when these doves become unacceptable. are all considered as blemished [animals].32See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:7-9 which mentions other time factors that render an animal unfit to be sacrificed. One who offers them is not liable for lashes,33There is no specific prohibition forbidding such offerings. Instead, the manner in which the positive commandment is stated in the Torah makes it clear that a younger fowl is prohibited, as stated in the previous halachah. even though the sacrifice is invalid and is not acceptable.
י׳הַמַּקְדִּישׁ טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וּטְרֵפָה וְכִלְאַיִם וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים. לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עַל גּוּפָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶם כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאֵינָן כְּבַעַל מוּם שֶׁבַּעַל מוּם יֵשׁ בְּמִינוֹ קָרְבָּן. אֲבָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע וּמֻקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד וְאֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר. וְיִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם קָבוּעַ וְיִפָּדוּ עָלָיו. וְכֵן הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעַל מוּם עוֹבֵר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
10One who consecrates an animal which is a tumtum, androgynus, tereifah, a hybrid, or born through Caesarian section to the altar is like one who consecrated stones or wood,34Since these types of animals are not acceptable as sacrifices as explained in the previous halachot, the consecration is not effective. for the holiness does not take effect with regard to its physical substance. It is considered as ordinary property in all contexts. It should be sold35Immediately; there is no need that one wait until the animal is blemished. and the proceeds of the sale used to purchase any sacrifice one desires.36The Ra'avad emphasizes that the person's words are not entirely of no consequence. Instead, the animal must be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. This, he explains, applies only when the person states: "This animal is consecrated to the altar." If he states: "This animal is a sacrifice," his words are of no consequence and no holiness is attached to it at all. It is not considered like a blemished animal,37I.e., if an animal with a blemish is consecrated, the animal itself becomes holy. Also, the one who consecrates it is liable for lashes (Radbaz).See also Hilchot Temurah 1:14, 3:5, when one desires to transfer the holiness of a consecrated animal to a blemished animal, the transfer is effective and the blemished animal is considered as consecrated. This does not apply with regard to these animals. for a sacrifice may be brought from the species of a blemished animal.38Were it to be unblemished. Therefore even when it is blemished, the holiness of an animal can be transferred to it.When, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that had relations with a person, which was sodomized, which was set aside for pagan worship, which was worshipped, which was given to a harlot, or which was exchanged for a dog,39Which are all unacceptable, as explained in the previous halachot. it is considered as if he consecrated an animal with a temporary blemish. They should be left to pasture until they contract a permanent blemish for which they could be redeemed. Similarly, one who consecrates an animal that is lacking in age is considered as one who consecrates an animal with a temporary blemish.40For ultimately, it will come of age, and then be acceptable for sacrifice. Nevertheless, he is not liable for lashes, as we explained.41In Halachah 8. There the Rambam states that one who offers such a fowl is not liable. From that, we can infer that one who consecrates it is also exempt.
י״אנִמְצְאוּ כָּל הָאִסּוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ הֲרֵי הֵן י"ד וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. בַּעַל מוּם. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמֻּבְחָר. וּמְחֻסַּר אֵיבָר מִבִּפְנִים. וּטְרֵפָה. וְכִלְאַיִם. וְיוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן. וְרוֹבֵעַ. וְנִרְבָּע. וְשֶׁהֵמִית הָאָדָם. הַנֶּעֱבָד. הַמֻּקְצֶה. הָאֶתְנָן. הַמְּחִיר. מְחֻסַּר זְמַן:
11Thus there are fourteen types of animals that are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar: a blemished animal, one that is not choice,42As explained in Chapter 2, Halachah 8. one that is lacking an internal organ,43As explained ibid.:11. a tereifah, a hybrid, one born from Caesarian section, one that had relations with a person, one that was sodomized, one that killed a person, one that was worshipped, one set aside for pagan worship, one given to a harlot as her fee, one exchanged for a dog, one which is lacking in age.
י״בכָּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אוֹסְרִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן אֲפִלּוּ נִתְעָרֵב אֶחָד בְּרִבּוֹא נִפְסַד הַכּל וְנִפְסַל לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְכֻלָּן וַלְדוֹתֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ חוּץ מִוְּלַד נִרְבַּעַת וְנֶעֱבֶדֶת וּמֻקְצֵית וְשֶׁהֵמִיתָה אֶת הָאָדָם שֶׁוְּלָדָן אֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּמוֹתָן:
12All of the animals which are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar are forbidden regardless of the proportion in which they are intermingled. Even if one of them becomes mixed together with ten thousand,44And the forbidden animal cannot be identified. Note the parallels in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:2. they are all disqualified and unacceptable for the altar.45Zevachim 73a,b states that the rationale is that animals are important and therefore are never nullified in a mixture. The Sages then ask: Let us have the herd in which the animal is mixed moved and then we will follow the principle: Whenever one is separated, we consider it to have separated from the majority (which in this instance is permitted). They reply that this is not done because of a Rabbinical decree, lest an animal be removed from the mixture while it is at rest.In all instances, the offspring [of these unacceptable animals] are acceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar, with the exception of the offspring of an animal that was sodomized, worshipped, set aside for worship, or which killed a person. The offspring of these animals are forbidden for the altar as they are.46Temurah 30b states that it is disrespectful to offer an animal that has been associated with such a transgression as a sacrifice. From the following halachah, it appears that the rationale is that it is considered to have actually taken part in the transgression.
י״גבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִיתָה כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה מְעֵבֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי הַוָּלָד מָצוּי עִמָּהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה וְהָיָה כְּאֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ. אֲבָל אִם נִתְעַבְּרָה אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהֵמִיתָה הֲרֵי וְלָדָהּ כָּשֵׁר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲפִלּוּ נִרְבְּעָה כְּשֶׁהִיא מֻקְדֶּשֶׁת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְעַבְּרָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם נִרְבְּעָה וְהִיא חֻלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְנִתְעַבְּרָה שֶׁוְּלָדָהּ מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אֶפְרוֹחַ בֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה מֻתָּר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
13When does the above47The disqualification of the offspring in those four instances. apply? When the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person while it was pregnant, in which instance, the offspring was together with it when it became disqualified and was considered as one of its limbs.48In keeping with the principle (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:12; Temurah, loc. cit.): "A fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother." If, however, it became pregnant after the transgression was performed with it or it killed the person, its offspring is acceptable for the altar.49For in that instance, the animal was brought into being by two factors, one of which is associated with a source forbidden as a sacrifice (the mother) and another (the father) which was not (ibid.). Even if an animal was sodomized while it was consecrated and then it became pregnant, [the offspring is acceptable]. Needless to say, the offspring is acceptable if [the mother] was sodomized while it was of ordinary status and then it was consecrated and became pregnant. Similarly, a chick born from an egg from a tereifah is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar.50For a chick is an entirely new entity that was not directly associated with the forbidden animal (ibid. 31a).
י״דהַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַקָּמָה חִטֶּיהָ מֻתָּרִין לִמְנָחוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁתַּנּוּ וְנִדְמוּ לִוְלָדוֹת שֶׁל אִסּוּר מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁפִּטְּמָהּ בְּכַרְשִׁינֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מֻתֶּרֶת לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִשְׁתַּנּוּ:
14When a person bows down to standing grain, its kernels are permitted to be used for meal offerings, for their [form] has changed. They resemble the offspring of animals forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.51As mentioned in the previous halachot. I.e., just as the offspring is the product of the forbidden animal, the flour is the product of the grain. See Avodah Zarah 46b-47a. Similarly, an animal that was fattened with vetch from a false deity is permitted [as a sacrifice] for the altar, for the [form of the vetch] has changed.52In this instance, it is not even remotely connected to the forbidden entity. See Temurah, loc. cit.
ט״ולוֹקְחִין כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם לֹא מִשּׁוּם רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מֻקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד. עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁזֶּה נִפְסָל. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמואל א טו-טו) "מֵעֲמָלֵקִי הֱבִיאוּם אֲשֶׁר חָמַל הָעָם עַל מֵיטַב הַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר לְמַעַן זְבֹחַ לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ":
15[Animals for] any of the sacrifices may be purchased from gentiles.53Similarly, an animal brought by a gentile to sacrifice as a burnt offering is acceptable (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2). We do not suspect that [the animal] had relations with a person, had been sodomized, set aside for pagan worship, or worshipped unless it is known that it was disqualified. [Support for this concept can be brought from I Samuel 15:16:] "From the Amalekites, they were brought, for the people had mercy on the prime quality sheep and cattle, to sacrifice [them] to God your Lord."54King Saul gave this explanation to the prophet Samuel after failing to destroy the herds of the Amalekites. Although that excuse was rejected, it was rejected only because God had explicitly stated that the Amalekites' herds must be destroyed. Had there not been such a command, presumably they - and by extension, animals belonging to any other gentile nation - would have been acceptable.
ד׳
א׳אֶחָד הַבְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּרְבְּעָה אוֹ שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם אוֹ הֻקְצָה אוֹ נֶעֱבַד הַכּל פָּסוּל לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
1An animal or a fowl that was sodomized,1The Rambam does not mention an animal that had relations with a person, for that is not possible with regard to a fowl. which killed a person, which was set aside for pagan worship, or which was worshipped, are all unacceptable [as sacrifices] for the altar.2The Rambam mentioned this concept in the previous chapter. In this chapter, he outlines the details of these restrictions. The point of this halachah is that the restrictions apply to a fowl as well as to an animal.
ב׳הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע וְשֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם אִם הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים הֲרֵי הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף נִסְקָלִין וּבְשָׂרָן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לְגָבוֹהַּ. וּבַמֶּה אָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מֻתָּרִין לְהֶדְיוֹט. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד בִּלְבַד וְהַבְּעָלִים שׁוֹתְקִין אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵד כְּלָל. הָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד וְהַבְּעָלִים מַכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין אַף לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
2When an animal or a fowl had relations with a person, was sodomized, or killed a person, it should be executed by stoning if [the act was observed] by two witnesses.3See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:16; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:1. It is forbidden to benefit from their flesh.4Even if slaughtered according to Jewish Law (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:22; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9). Needless to say, such animals are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.With regard to which situations was it said that they are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar? When [the animals] were permitted to ordinary individuals, e.g., there was only one witness [who observed the transgression] and the owner remained silent5In matters of financial law, the testimony of one witness is of consequence only that it can require an oath to be taken. or the owner testified [concerning the transgression] although no witnesses were present.6Similarly, the testimony of a person regarding his own property is of no consequence.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam mentions two other instances where this law applies: the animal was consecrated before being brought to court or the forbidden sexual act was performed by a gentile. If there was one witness who observed the transgression and the owner contradicts him, the animals are permitted, even [as sacrifices] for the altar.
ג׳בְּהֵמָה שֶׁשָּׂחֲקוּ בָּהּ וְהִגִּיחוּהָ עַד שֶׁהֵמִיתָה אֶת הָאָדָם הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כַּאֲנוּסָה. אֵין הַבְּהֵמָה נִפְסֶלֶת מִשּׁוּם רוֹבֵעַ אוֹ נִרְבָּע עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאָדָם שֶׁרְבָעָהּ בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין עַכּוּ"ם [בֵּין] עֶבֶד הוֹאִיל וּרְבָעָהּ אָדָם נִפְסְלָה. וְאִם הָאָדָם הוּא שֶׁנִּרְבַּע מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ נִפְסֶלֶת עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הָאִשָּׁה הַנִּרְבַּעַת בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ יְהֵא הָאִישׁ הַנִּרְבָּע בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד:
3When sport was made with an animal and it was trained to gore until it killed a person, it is acceptable [as a sacrifice] for the altar, because it is considered as having been compelled against its will.7See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 6:5 which explains that such an animal is not executed, because Exodus 21:28 requires such a punishment: "When an ox gores...," i.e., that it does so on its own initiative, and not when it was prompted to gore.See the gloss of the Radbaz to Chapter 3, Halachah 5, where he states that such an animal should be forbidden to the altar under all circumstances just like a sodomized animal is.An animal is not disqualified because it had relations with a person or because it was sodomized unless the male who sodomized it was nine years old.8For relations with a male are not significant until that age (Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 1:16; et al). Whether it was sodomized by a Jew, a gentile,9See Hilchot Melachim 9:5-6 which states that although a gentile is liable to be executed for engaging in sexual relations with an animal, the animal itself is not executed. Nevertheless, involvement in the transgression disqualifies it as a sacrifice. or a servant, since it was sodomized by a human, it is disqualified. If a human was the recipient of sex from an animal, [the animal] is not disqualified unless the female with whom it had relations was three years old10See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:8, et al, where it is explained that until a girl is three years old, sexual relations with her are not significant. or the male with whom it had relations was nine years old.11The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on the latter point, noting that the ages the Rambam mentions are relevant with regard to the punishment of execution by stoning. Nevertheless, he argues that since the animal is disqualified from being offered as a sacrifice, because it becomes offensive to offer it after it engaged in forbidden relations, that concept would seemingly apply regardless of the age of the human with whom it engaged in those relations. Moreover, since the animal derived pleasure, the sexual activity should be considered significant. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that what is significant here is the halachic definition of sexual relations, not the pleasure the animal experiences. Since halachicly, the act is not considered as sex, the animal is not forbidden.
ד׳מֵאֵימָתַי תִּפָּסֵל הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף מִשּׁוּם מֻקְצֶה מִשֶּׁיַּעֲשׂוּ בָּהֶן הַכְּמָרִים מַעֲשֶׂה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּגְזְזוּ אוֹתָהּ אוֹ יַעַבְדוּ בָּהּ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲבָל בִּדְבָרִים אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה מֻקְצֶה שֶׁאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה:
4When is an animal or a fowl disqualified because it was set aside for pagan worship?12The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about both an animal which is itself going to be worshipped, and also an animal that will be used for the service of a pagan deity. When the priests perform a deed with it, e.g., they shear it or work with it for the sake of pagan worship. With words alone, by contrast, it is not considered as set aside for pagan worship, for an entity cannot be consecrated to a false deity.13The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that if one designated an animal as a false deity, that is sufficient to cause the animal to become repugnant and forbidden as a sacrifice, even if a deed is not performed. The Radbaz brings support for the Ra'avad's ruling from Isaiah 30:22 which when speaking about making the covering of idol's impure uses the expression: "Tell it: 'Be gone,'" implying that "telling it," i.e., speaking is sufficient to cause an article to be considered as an idol.The difference between the Rambam's view and that of the Ra'avad results from a variation in the text of Temurah 29a. According to the Rambam, the passage is speaking about an animal dedicated to the service of a false deity, while according to the Ra'avad, it refers to an animal intended to be worshiped as a false deity. (The standard printed text supports the Rambam's version, although Rashi mentions the other version as well.). The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam an animal is forbidden as a sacrifice only when it is forbidden to benefit from it. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, whether an animal is designated to be worshipped or as a sacrifice to a false deity, it does not become forbidden until a deed is performed. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the prohibition against benefiting from the animal is different from the prohibition against offering the animal as a sacrifice. More stringent rules apply in the latter context.
ה׳הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה בֵּין לִפְנֵי הֶקְדֵּשָׁהּ בֵּין לְאַחַר הֶקְדֵּשָׁהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל הַמֻּקְצֶה אִם הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ וְהֻקְצָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּקְדִּישׁ נִפְסַל. הִקְצָה שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִקְצָה שֶׁלּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְצֶה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ:
5An animal that had relations with a person or that was sodomized becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] for the altar whether it belongs to the person with whom it shared relations or it belongs to a colleague14The Radbaz states that in an instance where two witnesses did not observe the transgression (as stated in Halachah 2), the person who engaged in relations with the animal is not at all liable to its owner financially, for he is not prohibited against benefiting from the animal. and regardless of whether those relations were carried out under compulsion or voluntarily, whether they were willful or inadvertent, or whether they were performed before [the animal was] consecrated or afterwards.15In contrast to an animal which kills, which is not disqualified if it was goaded into killing (see Halachah 3), an animal that engaged in relations with a human is disqualified in all instances. Since the act causes it to be considered loathsome, the circumstances under which the act was performed are of no consequence.When, by contrast, an animal is set aside for pagan worship, it becomes disqualified if it belonged to the person who set it aside and he set it aside for pagan worship before he consecrated it as a sacrifice. If, however, one set aside an animal belonging to a colleague16This applies even (as stated in the previous halachah), he performed a deed indicating that the animal was set aside for pagan worship (Radbaz). or [even] his own animal after he consecrated it as a sacrifice,17For once he consecrated it as a sacrifice, it is as if it no longer belongs to him. it is permitted [to be offered as a sacrifice].18Since a transgression has not been performed with it as of yet, it is not considered as loathsome (Radbaz). [The rationale is that] a person cannot set aside an entity that does not belong to him [for pagan worship].19As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim (and in many other sources) a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to become forbidden.
ו׳הַנֶּעֱבָד בֵּין שֶׁעָבַד שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה בֵּין לִפְנֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֵּין לְאַחַר הֶקְדֵּשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְיִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם קָבוּעַ וְיִפָּדֶה בּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְהַנֶּעֱבָד הוּא וְכָל מַה שֶּׁעָלָיו אֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. שֶׁכָּל צִפּוּי נֶעֱבָד אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה. אֲבָל הַמֻּקְצֶה הוּא אָסוּר וּמַה שֶּׁעָלָיו מֻתָּר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
6[When an animal] has been worshipped as a false deity, it is forbidden [as a sacrifice] whether one served his own animal or one belonging to a colleague,20The Ra'avad quotes Avodah Zarah 54a which states that the above restriction applies only when one performs a deed with the article he worshipped. From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1, it is apparent that he maintains that the principle that a person cannot cause property that does not belong to him to be forbidden to be used applies even if he actually worships the article as a false deity and even when he performs a deed. The Rambam here is speaking about causing the article to be forbidden as a sacrifice to the altar and for that, a deed is not necessary. whether he acted under compulsion or voluntarily, willfullly or inadvertently, whether he did so before the animal was consecrated or afterwards. [In the latter instance,] it should be left to pasture until it becomes permanently blemished and then it should be redeemed, as we stated.21Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Since the animal was consecrated, it cannot be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed and it cannot be redeemed until it is blemished.When an animal is worshipped, it and everything upon it22Any garments or ornaments used to adorn the false deity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Teumrah 6:1), the Rambam explains the reason for this restriction is that the ornaments were worshipped together with the false deity. are forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar. For it is forbidden to benefit from all coverings of entities worshipped as false deities.23See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:7. If, however, [an animal has merely been] set aside for pagan worship, it is forbidden, but the entities on it are permitted [as sacrifices for the altar].24Since they have not been worshipped, one is permitted to benefit from them and they may even be used as sacrifices [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
ז׳הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְהָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה הֲרֵי אֲבָנָיו אֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְמַעְיָן הַנּוֹבֵעַ בְּאַרְצוֹ הֲרֵי מֵימָיו פְּסוּלִין לְנַסֵּךְ. אֲשֵׁרָה שֶׁבָּטְלָה אֵין מְבִיאִין מִמֶּנָּה גְּזָרִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה. וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לִבְהֵמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּךְ צֶמֶר שֶׁלָּהּ פָּסוּל לְבִגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה. וְקַרְנֶיהָ פְּסוּלִין לַחֲצוֹצְרוֹת וְשׁוֹקֶיהָ לַחֲלִילִין וּבְנֵי מֵעֶיהָ לְנִימִין הַכּל פָּסוּל:
7When a person bows down to a mountain, although he may benefit from it,25See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 which states that "Any article that was not touched by human hands or made by man will is permitted to be used even though it was worshipped as a false deity." its stones are forbidden to [be used as part of] the altar.26Or any other part of the Temple building (Radbaz). As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16, the altar was made with whole stones, both large and small over which is poured a liquid with lime, pitch, and molten lead. In the above instance, since the stones were taken from a mountain that was worshipped, it is inappropriate for them to be used for the altar. Similarly, when one bows down to a flowing stream in his land,27Implied is that if the water is not his own, it may be used even as a libation even though it was worshipped (Rav Yosef Corcus). The Radbaz notes that no such leniency is granted with regard to the stones mentioned in the previous clause. He differentiates between the two as follows: The water of a spring is constantly flowing. Thus the water that was worshipped is not the same water that will be used for the libation. The stones of the mountain, by contrast, were worshipped themselves. Hence even though they are not a person's private property, they may not be used for the Temple. its water is invalid28In this instance as well, an ordinary person is permitted to use the water, but it is inappropriate to be used for the altar. for use as a libation.29I.e., the water libation offered during the Sukkot holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-10.[Even though] an asherah30A tree that is worshipped. See Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5, 12:3, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:3; et al. has been nullified,31In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:8, the Rambam writes that once a gentile nullifies the connection of a worshipped entity to paganism, it is permitted to benefit from it. The subsequent halachot in that chapter describe the process of nullification. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that although it is permitted to benefit from the article afterwards, the fact that it was once worshipped - or served as an accessory to an article worshipped - prevents it from being offered as a sacrifice. one should not bring logs from it for the arrangement of wood on the altar.32Similarly, the branches of a palm tree that was worshipped should not be used as a lulav (Hilchot Lulav 8:1). Similarly, when one bows down to an animal, just as it is disqualified [as a sacrifice] for the altar, its wool is disqualified for use in the priestly garments,33See the conclusion of the tractate of Kinnim which mentions how a sacrificial animal can be used for these purposes.There the Mishnah states that the wool is unacceptable for use as techelet. The Kessef Mishneh notes that although in Chapter 3, Halachah 14, the Rambam ruled that even though wheat was worshipped, the flour made from it is not disqualified for use as a meal offering, because it underwent a change. In this and the other instances mentioned below, although the color and the form of the article may have undergone a change, that change does not alter its fundamental nature and it is still disqualified for the altar and its service.Such wool is also disqualified for use in tzitzit or for any other purpose associated with a mitzvah. See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:8). its horns are disqualified for use as trumpets,34I.e., as shofarot that are sounded together with the trumpets (Hilchot Taaniot 1:4). its thighs are disqualified for use as flutes,35Among the instruments sounded in the Temple service were flutes (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:4-6). Apparently, the thighs of sacrificial animals were hollowed out and converted into such instruments. and its intestines as strands [for the lyres].36Which were also employed in the Temple service (ibid.). Everything is unacceptable.37Because it was an integral part of an entity that was worshipped.
ח׳כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שֵׁם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה לִמְלֶאכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אֵי זֶהוּ (דברים כג-יט) "אֶתְנָן" הָאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה הֵא לִיךְ דָּבָר זֶה בִּשְׂכָרֵךְ. אֶחָד זוֹנָה כּוּתִית אוֹ שִׁפְחָה אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה עָלָיו אוֹ מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין. אֲבָל הַפְּנוּיָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן אֶתְנָנָהּ מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה אֶתְנָנָהּ מֻתָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה:
8Anything that is connected with the name of a false deity should not be employed in the service of the Sanctuary even though it is permitted to benefit from it.38This general principle summarizes the concepts mentioned in the previous halachot. The Rambam now goes on to discuss other reasons why animals were forbidden as sacrifices.What is meant by a present given to a harlot?39Which is forbidden to be used as a sacrifice as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7. When one tells a harlot, "This entity is given to you as your wages."40I.e., in exchange for intimacy. This applies to a gentile harlot, a maidservant, a Jewish woman who is forbidden to the man41The Rambam is explaining that here the emphasis is on the halachic meaning of the term zonah ("harlot") and not its popular meaning. The point is not that the present is forbidden because it was given in exchange for intimacy, but that it was given in exchange for intimacy with a woman who meets the halachic definitions of that term. That definition is given in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1: "Based on the Oral Tradition, we learned that the term zonah used by the Torah refers to one who is not a native-born Jewess (thus excluding a gentile woman or maidservant) [or] a Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable" (excluding the prohibited relations the Rambam mentions). as an ervah42Incestuous and adulterous sexual relations for which one is liable for karet (Hilchot Ishut 1:5). These forbidden relationships are mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 18. or by a negative commandment.43The nine forbidden relationships mentioned in Hilchot Isut 1:7. If, however, a woman is unmarried, the present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even if the man is a priest.44I.e., although he is engaging in intimacy out of lust and in exchange for payment, the woman is not termed a harlot, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:2 states: "Whenever a person has relations with an unmarried woman, even if she is a harlot who wantonly makes herself available to everyone... she is not deemed as a zonah... for she is not forbidden to marry [the people with whom she engaged in relations]." Similarly, if a person's wife is a niddah,45I.e., she has experienced menstrual bleeding and has not purified herself afterwards. a present given to her may be used [as a sacrifice] even though she is an ervah.46For such relationships are also punishable by karet (see Hilchot Issurei Biah 4:1). Nevertheless, the fact that a woman is in the niddah state does not prevent the consecration of a woman from taking effect.
ט׳נָשָׂא אַחַת מֵחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין כָּל שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ מֵחֲמַת בְּעִילָה הֲרֵי זֶה אֶתְנָן וְאָסוּר. וְהַזָּכוּר אֶתְנָנוֹ אָסוּר. נָתְנָה הָאִשָּׁה אֶתְנָן לַבּוֹעֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִשּׁוּם אֶתְנָן:
9If a man married one of the women forbidden to him because of a negative commandment,47The consecration of such a woman is binding and she is considered as his wife (Hilchot Ishut 4:14). whatever he gives her for the sake of intimate relations is considered as "the present [of a harlot]"48Because he is forbidden to marry her and thus the present meets the criteria mentioned in the previous halachah. and is forbidden [to be offered as a sacrifice]. A present given [by a male to] a male [for the purpose of intimacy] is forbidden [as a sacrifice].49See Temurah 29b. If a woman gives a present to a male for the purpose of intimacy, [it is not considered] "a present [of a harlot]" and is permitted [as a sacrifice].50The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that although in a strict halachic sense, there is no prohibition against offering such an article as a sacrifice, it is an abomination unto God and should not be offered.
י׳הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ דָּבָר זֶה וְתָלִין שִׁפְחָתְךָ אֵצֶל עַבְדִּי הָעִבְרִי הֲרֵי זֶה אֶתְנָן. וְהוּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בְּשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּאוֹמֵר לְזוֹנָה הֵא לִיךְ דָּבָר זֶה וְהִבָּעֲלִי לִפְלוֹנִי הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי הֲרֵי זֶה אֶתְנָן:
10When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an article for you. In return for it, have your [Canaanite] maidservant spend the night with my Jewish bondsman," it is considered "a present [of a harlot]."51There are two points expressed by this halachah: a) that, as stated above, a Canaanite maidservant is considered as a harlot;b) that even though the present is not being given by the person engaging in the intimate relations, the present is still forbidden as a sacrifice. [The above applies] provided [the Jewish bondsman] does not have a wife and children. If, however, he does have a wife and children, he is permitted [to engage in intimacy] with a Canaanite maidservant, as will be explained.52Hilchot Avadim 3:3-4. This also applies if one tells a harlot:53I.e., one might think that the law applies only with regard to a bondsman and his master, for the master has authority over the bondsman and has certain responsibilities toward him, but not with regard to two free men who are not associated in this manner (Kessef Mishneh). "Here is an article for you. In return for it, engage in relations with so-and-so who is Jewish." [The present is considered as] "a present [of a harlot]."
י״אפָּסַק עִם הַזּוֹנָה לִתֵּן לָהּ טָלֶה אֶחָד וְנָתַן לָהּ הַרְבֵּה אֲפִלּוּ נָתַן אֶלֶף כֻּלָּן אֶתְנָן וַאֲסוּרִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. נָתַן לָהּ אֶתְנָנָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא אָמַר לָהּ יְהִי אֶצְלֵךְ עַד שֶׁאָבוֹא עָלַיִךְ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא עָלֶיהָ יֵאָסֵר. קָדְמָה וְהִקְרִיבַתּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבוֹא עָלֶיהָ כָּשֵׁר [וְאִם הָיְתָה חַיֶּבֶת קָרְבָּן יָצְאָה יְדֵי חוֹבָתָהּ]. וְהוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ בְּעֵת שֶׁנָּתַן אֵימָתַי שֶׁתֵּרָצִי לִי קְנִי אוֹתוֹ מֵעַכְשָׁו. אֲבָל אִם לֹא אָמַר לָהּ כֵּן אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהַקְרִיב דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ:
11If a person made an agreement to give a harlot one lamb and [instead,] he gave her many - even if he gave her 1000 - they are considered as "presents [to a harlot]"54And not an ordinary gift (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). This applies even when he does not explicitly say that he gave them to her because of the relations they shared (Radbaz). and are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.If he gave her a present and did not engage in relations with her, but told her: "Let this be in your possession until I engage in relations with you," it becomes forbidden [as a sacrifice] when he engages in relations with her.55Because it was given to her in exchange for relations. It is not significant whether it was given before the relations or afterwards. If she had it sacrificed before he engaged in relations with her, it is acceptable56Because they had not engaged in relations yet. We do not say that since it was designated as "a present for a harlot," it is forbidden as a sacrifice (Radbaz). and if she was obligated to bring a sacrifice, she has discharged her obligation, provided when he gave it to he told her: "When you accept my [proposition], you acquire it from the present time."57Thus she was the legal owner at the time it was sacrificed. If he did not tell her so, [it is not acceptable] because she cannot bring an article that does not belong to her58If he did not make such a stipulation, he remains the legal owner of the animal. It is in the woman's possession as security, but she is not its owner. as a sacrifice.
י״בקָדְמָה וְהִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבוֹא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם הוּא אֶתְנָן הוֹאִיל וּבָא עָלֶיהָ קֹדֶם שֶׁתַּקְרִיבֶנּוּ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶתְנָן שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְדִּישַׁתּוּ קֹדֶם בִּיאָה. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִקָּרֵב וְאִם קָרַב נִרְצָה:
12If she took the initiative and consecrated it [for a sacrifice] before he entered relations with her and afterwards, he engaged in relations with her [before it was sacrificed], there is an unresolved doubt59Temurah 29b considers this question and does not reach a conclusion. whether it is considered "the present [of a harlot"] - because he engaged in relations with her before it was sacrificed - or whether it is not considered as such, since she consecrated it before relations.60And from the time an entity is consecrated, it is considered as having been given to the Temple. Hence, it could be considered as if it already had been sacrificed. Hence, it should not be sacrificed,61Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. but if it is sacrificed, it is acceptable.62As evident from Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:20, this is the ruling whenever there is a question whether an substance offered as a sacrifice is acceptable.
י״גבָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן נָתַן לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֶתְנָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּכוּתִית שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ הִבָּעֲלִי לִי בְּטָלֶה זֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מְשִׁיכָה. אוֹ בְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁהָיָה הַטָּלֶה בַּחֲצֵרָהּ וְאָמַר לָהּ אִם לֹא אֶתֵּן לָךְ מָעוֹת בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁלָּךְ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהּ הִבָּעֲלִי לִי בְּטָלֶה סְתָם וּבָא עָלֶיהָ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן שָׁלַח לָהּ טָלֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִשּׁוּם אֶתְנָן:
13If he engaged in relations with her, but did not give her anything, and then afterwards - even many years afterwards - he gave it to her, it is considered "the present [of a harlot"].When does the above apply?63The principle under which this halachah operates is that for a "present to a harlot" to be forbidden as a sacrifice, it must be acquired by the woman at the time of relations even though it does not come into her full possession until afterwards.(Temurah 29a). With regard to a gentile woman64I.e., if the gentile woman later desires to offer this animal as a sacrifice, it is not accepted from her. Although we do accept animals brought by gentiles as burnt offerings, the animals must be acceptable. whom he told: "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb," for she does not have to draw it into her domain [to acquire it]65According to Scriptural Law, an exchange is completed when an exchange is made. Hence, at the time the two engaged in relations, the lamb became the woman's property. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that movable property is not transferred to the legal domain of the recipient until he acquires it through meshichah, physically drawing it into his possession (Hilchot Mechirah 3:1). Our Sages, however, did not impose this decree with regard to gentiles and transactions with them follow the original guidelines of Scriptural Law (see (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14). Hence a gentile harlot became the legal owner of the lamb directly after the relations. Hence it is considered as "the present of a harlot." The fact that it was not given to her until years afterwards is not significant. or with regard to a Jewish woman when the lamb was left in her courtyard and he told her: "If I do not give you money on this day, [the lamb] is yours."66Because a person's courtyard can acquire an article on his or her behalf when it is placed within (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:8). Hence, while the women is holding the lamb in lieu of the money, it is considered to have entered her possession. If, however, he told her : "Engage in relations with me in exchange for this lamb" without any further explanation and then engaged in relations and sent her the lamb afterwards, it is permissible [to be sacrificed; it is not considered] "the present [of a harlot]."
י״דאֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם אֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר אֶלָּא גּוּפָן. לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ חָל אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לִקָּרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כְּגוֹן בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה וְתוֹרִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה וְיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וְסלֶת. נָתַן לָהּ מָעוֹת וְלָקְחָה בָּהֶן קָרְבָּן הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:
14Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money67Or other entities. and she bought a sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.
ט״ונָתַן לָהּ חִטִּים וַעֲשָׂאָתָן סלֶת. זֵיתִים וַעֲשָׂאָתָן שֶׁמֶן. עֲנָבִים וַעֲשָׂאָתָן יַיִן. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים שֶׁכְּבָר נִשְׁתַּנּוּ. נָתַן לָהּ בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים בְּאֶתְנָנָהּ לֹא נֶאֶסְרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ מָנָה אוֹתָהּ עַל פִּסְחוֹ וְעַל חֲגִיגָתוֹ בְּאֶתְנָנָהּ לֹא נִפְסְלוּ הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁכְּבָר זָכָה בָּהֶן גָּבוֹהַּ מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן לָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא פְּסָלוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן לָהּ עוֹפוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻקְדָּשִׁין אֶתְנָן חָל עֲלֵיהֶם וַאֲסוּרִים וּמִדִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה הוּא דָּבָר זֶה:
15If he gave her grain and she had it made into fine flour; [he gave her] olives and she had oil made from them; [he gave her] grapes, and she had wine made from them, they are acceptable, because their form has changed.68The finished product is considered as different from the raw material from which it is made.If he gave her a consecrated animal as her present, it does not become forbidden to the altar.69For a consecrated article is not considered as his personal property. Hence, it is not his to give her (Temurah 30b). Even if he designated her as one of those to eat from his Paschal sacrifice70To partake of a Paschal sacrifice, one must designated to partake of it from the outset. or his festive offering71This refers to the festive offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan to accompany the Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:11. as a present, the consecrated animals are not disqualified, for the Temple already acquired them at the time they were consecrated.72Although the owner retains the right to allow others to partake of the offerings, they are not considered as his private property. Instead, he is giving them the right to partake of consecrated property, not his own possessions. Similarly, if he gave her an entity that did not belong to him, he did not disqualify it, for a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be forbidden unless the owner despairs of its recovery.73For at that point - since the owner has despaired of its return and it has departed from the possession of the thief - the harlot becomes its legal owner (see Hilchot Geneivah 5:3). Accordingly, it is disqualified as a sacrifice.If, however, he gave her doves, even though they are consecrated, they can be considered as "a present to a harlot." This concept was conveyed as part of the Oral Tradition.74I.e., the Rambam understands Temurah 30b as deriving this law from the exegesis of a verse. According to logic, we would apply the principle: A person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him to be become forbidden.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam regarding the interpretation of the above passage. He maintains that it is speaking about ordinary doves. Nevertheless, since blemished doves are acceptable as sacrifices (Chapter 3, Halachah 1), one might think that a present to a harlot is also acceptable. Therefore, the Torah must teach us that this is not the case. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh favor the Ra'avad's understanding of the passage.
ט״זאֵי זֶה הוּא (דברים כג-יט) "מְחִיר כֶּלֶב". זֶה הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ טָלֶה זֶה תַּחַת כֶּלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן אִם הֶחְלִיף כֶּלֶב בְּכַמָּה בְּהֵמוֹת אוֹ עוֹפוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרוֹת לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
16What is meant by "an exchange for a dog"?75Which is forbidden for the altar, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 7. A person tells a colleague: "Take this lamb in exchange for this dog." Similarly, if he exchanged a dog for several animals or fowl, they are all forbidden [as sacrifices] for the altar.
י״זשְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ. זֶה לָקַח עֲשָׂרָה טְלָאִים וְזֶה לָקַח תִּשְׁעָה וְכֶלֶב אֶחָד. שֶׁעִם הַכֶּלֶב מֻתָּרִין. אֲבָל הָעֲשָׂרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדוֹ אִם יֵשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם דָּמָיו כִּדְמֵי הַכֶּלֶב אוֹ יָתֵר עַל דְּמֵי הַכֶּלֶב מוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הָעֲשָׂרָה כְּנֶגֶד הַכֶּלֶב וְיִהְיֶה מְחִירוֹ וּשְׁאֵרָן מֻתָּרִים. וְאִם כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן דָּמָיו פְּחוּתִין מִדְּמֵי הַכֶּלֶב הֲרֵי הָעֲשָׂרָה כֻּלָּן אֲסוּרִים:
17When two partners divided [their goods], one took ten lambs and one took nine lambs and a dog, [the lambs] that are with the dog are permitted [as sacrifices], but [there are restrictions with regard to] the ten given in exchange for them. If the value of one of them is equivalent to the value of the dog or greater, it should be set aside and it [alone] is considered as "the exchange [for a dog]." The remainder are permitted [as sacrifices]. If the value of each of them is less than the value of the dog, they are all forbidden.76For a certain portion of each one is being given in exchange for the dog.
י״חנִשְׁתַּנָּה הַמְּחִיר כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֶחְלִיף כֶּלֶב בְּחִטִּים וְנַעֲשׂוּ סלֶת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. אֶתְנַן כֶּלֶב וּמְחִיר זוֹנָה מֻתָּרִין. (דברים כג-יט) "אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב" מֻתָּרִין לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן מִשְׁתַּנִּין. אֲבָל גּוּפָן שֶׁל אֶתְנָן לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה רִקּוּעִין לַבַּיִת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג-יט) "לְכָל נֶדֶר" לְהָבִיא אֶת הָרִקּוּעִים:
18If [the entity given in] exchange [for the dog] underwent a change, for example, he exchanged a dog for wheat and ground it into flour, it is permitted.77For the article being offered is not considered as the article exchanged.The present [given] to a dog78I.e., a person sodomized a dog and separated a lamb as a fee. and an exchange given for a harlot79I.e., a person gave a colleague a lamb in exchange for a maidservant that was a harlot. are permitted. "A present to a harlot" and "the exchange for a dog" are permitted to be given to the Temple, for they undergo a change.80I.e., the articles donated to the Temple treasury are sold and the money used for improvements. Thus the distasteful article itself is not becoming part of the Temple. The actual substance of a present [to a harlot] should not be used as beaten metal for the Temple, as [implied by Deuteronomy 23:19]: "For every vow," [which is interpreted81See Temurah 30a.] as including sheet metal.