Missionary Renegade

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.

Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1

The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.).

The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests.

See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1.

For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.

Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi,Temurah 23a).

This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov toTemurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above.

And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.

And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above.

The act that brings about atonement.

This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]."

See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death.

For the same reason as stated in the previous note.

For both of these share a direct connection with the second.

So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering."

And he can offer either as a sacrifice.

A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old.

Through the offering of another sacrifice.

And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. TheKessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate.

According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death.

In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death.

As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.

Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance.

Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night.

As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost.

Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal's existence, it is not consigned to death.

As stated in Halachah 1.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to performsemichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed.

The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot1:6.

Through the sacrifice of another animal.

I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering.

For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.

All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.

For it was consecrated for that purpose.

If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.

All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated.

The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.

In contrast to a king or a High Priest.

All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15).

This is the interpretation of the term nasiused by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot15:6).

Instead of a he-goat as required.

Instead of a bull as required.

So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose.

55.

In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice.

56.

The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution.

57.

Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering,

58.

In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all.

59.

In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead.

60.

I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice.

61.

I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated.

62.

I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat.

63.

Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).

Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well.

64.

In the drainage channel.

65.

See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

66.

For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.

67.

Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all.

68.

I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard.

69.

See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

70.

I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it.

71.

As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering.

72.

Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances.

73.

The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering.

74.

More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old.

75.

As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man.

76.

A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12.

77.

When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12.

78.

As specifically stated in the Torah.

79.

This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torahand in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by theKessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice.

80.

He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less.

81.

I.e., when it was sacrificed.

82.

I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus).

83.

I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.

84.

For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount.

85.

Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4.

86.

Since it is of the required worth.

87.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if there is any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.

88.

I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite.

89.

As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings.

90.

E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unaceeptable.

91.

We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (seePesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour period.

92.

Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.

93.

When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

94.

The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned inLeviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah1:3..

95.

See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.

96.

See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus.

97.

I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering.

• 3 Chapters: Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9, Temidin uMusafim Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10, Pesulei Hamukdashim Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1
• English Text | Hebrew Text |

Audio: Listen | Download
• Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 9

Halacha 1

On the first day of Tishrei,1 for the additional offering of the day,2 we offer a bull, a ram, seven sheep, all as burnt-offerings and a goat as a sin-offering.3This is the additional offering of the day aside from the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh that is offered on every Rosh Chodesh.4 Therefore [if that date] fell on the Sabbath, three additional offerings were brought: the additional offering of the Sabbath, the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh, and the additional offering of that date.

Halacha 2

What is the order in which they were offered? First they would offer the additional offering of the Sabbath, then the additional offering of the new month, and then the additional offering of the festival.5 [The rationale is that any offering brought] more frequently than another takes precedence over the other one.6 Similarly, if [an offering] is on a higher level of holiness than another one, it takes precedence over it.7If one has a choice of [an offering that] is brought more frequently and one which is on a higher level of holiness, one may award precedence to whichever one desires.8

Halacha 3

If one transgressed and slaughtered [an animal for an offering that was] not [brought] more frequently or one which was on a lower level of holiness first, one should offer it [on the altar]9 and then slaughter the one [brought] more frequently or one which was on a higher level of holiness.

Halacha 4

If the two [animals]10 were slaughtered at the same time,11 one should stir the blood [of the one that is less frequent or less holy] until the blood of the one that is more frequent or holier is sprinkled [on the altar].

Halacha 5

The blood of a sin-offering is given precedence12 over the blood of a burnt-offering, because the blood of a sin-offering brings atonement.13 [The offering of] the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence over offering the fats and organs of a sin-offering, because a burnt-offering is consumed entirely by fire.14

[If one must choose] between the blood of a sin-offering15 or the limbs of a burnt-offering,16 one may give precedence to whichever one desires. Similarly, [if one must choose] between the blood of a burnt-offering and the fat and organs of a sin-offering17 or the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering,18 one may give precedence to whichever one desires.

Halacha 6

A sin-offering takes precedence over a burnt-offering.19 Even a sin-offering of a fowl takes precedence over a burnt-offering of an animal, as [Leviticus 5:8which] states: "[who shall offer] the sin offering first." This is a general principal teaching that every sin-offering takes precedence over the burnt-offering that accompanies it. Similarly, when setting aside [animals for sacrifices], one should set aside the animal to be offered as a sin-offering and then the one to be offered as a burnt-offering.

Halacha 7

This does not apply with regard to the sacrifices of the holiday [of Sukkot].20They are sacrificed in the order that they are mentioned in the Torah, for [Numbers 29:33] states: "according to their ordinance."

What is implied? At first the bulls [should be offered], after them the rams, and after them, the goats even though the goats are sin-offerings and those which preceded them are burnt-offerings.

Similarly, with regard to the burnt-offering of a bull and the sin-offering of a goat the community brings to atone for the inadvertent transgression [of the prohibitions] against the worship of false deities,21 the bull is given precedence, because [ibid. 15:24] states: "according to the ordinance."

The bull offered by the anointed priest22 is given precedence over the bull offered [to atone] for an inadvertent transgression by the community.23 The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the bull [offered to atone] for the worship of false deities.24The latter sacrifice takes precedence over the goat offered with it. Even though the bull is a burnt-offering and the goat is a sin-offering,25 [the bull is given precedence], for this is the order of the verses in the Torah.

The goat brought [to atone for] idolatry takes precedence over the goat brought by a king,26 for the king is one individual.27 The goat brought by a king takes precedence over the she-goat brought by an ordinary individual.28 The she-goat brought by a private individual takes precedence over a ewe,29 even though they are both sin-offerings. For a she-goat is fit to be brought [to atone] for [all] sins for which one is liable for karet for which a sin-offering is brought and the ewe may not be brought [to atone] for the inadvertent transgression of the prohibitions of idolatry.

Halacha 8

Even the sin-offering of a fowl brought by a woman after childbirth30 takes precedence over the sheep she brings.31 A sin-offering takes precedence over a guilt-offering, because its blood is applied to the four corners [of the altar] and on its base.32 All of the sin-offerings mentioned in the Torah take precedence over all of the guilt-offerings with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzaraat, because it comes to make a person fit.33

A guilt-offering takes precedence over a thanksgiving-offering and the ram brought by a nazirite, because it is a sacrifice of the most sacred order.34 A thanksgiving-offering and the ram brought by a nazirite take precedence over a peace-offering, because they may be eaten for only one day and require that bread bey brought with them. A thanksgiving-offering takes precedence over the ram of a nazirite, because it must be brought with four types of meal-offerings.35

A peace-offering takes precedence over a firstborn offering, because it requires two presentations of blood which are in fact four,36 leaning on the animal,37 waving the offering,38 and accompanying offerings.39 The firstborn offering takes precedence over the tithe offering, because it is sanctified from the womb and may be eaten only by priests.40

The tithe offering takes precedence over fowl41 because it involves ritual slaughter and it has an element of the most sacred order: its blood and the fats and organs are offered on the altar.42 Sacrifices of fowl take precedence over meal-offerings, for [they involve offering] blood.

If a person has a sin-offering of fowl, a tithe offering, and a burnt-offering of an animal [to sacrifice], since the burnt-offering takes precedence over the tithe offering and the sin-offering of the fowl takes precedence over the burnt-offering,43 he should sacrifice the sin-offering of the fowl first, then the burnt-offering and then the tithe offering.44

Halacha 9

When a person has several types of animals from one type of sacrifice,45in which order should they be offered? Bulls take precedence over rams, for their accompanying offerings are larger.46 Rams take precedence over sheep for the same reason. Sheep take precedence over goats, because they have more fats and organs offered on the altar, because the fat-tail is among the organs of the sheep offered and the goats do not have a fat-tail.47

The omer offering takes precedence over the sheep offered with it. The loaves take precedence to the two sheep [offered with them]. This is the general principle: An entity offered because of the day48 takes precedence over an entity brought because of the bread.49

Halacha 10

A meal-offering brought by a male takes precedence over one brought by a female.50 A meal-offering of wheat51 takes precedence over a meal-offering of barley.52 A meal-offering brought as a sin-offering takes precedence over a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering, because it comes [as atonement] for sin. With regard to a meal-offering brought as a free-will offering and the meal-offering of a sotah, one may give precedence to whichever one desires.53

Halacha 11

Meal-offerings receive precedence over wine libations.54 Wine libations receive precedence over oil.55 Oil receives precedence over frankincense.56Frankincense receives precedence over salt57 and salt receives precedence over wood.58

When does the above apply? When they are all brought at the same time. When, however, a sacrifice is brought first, it is offered first and one which is brought last, is offered last.59

Halacha 12

All [the sacrifices] that receive precedence with regard to being offered also receive precedence with regard to being eaten.

Halacha 13

If a person had before him a peace-offering that had been sacrificed on the previous day60 and one that was offered the present day, the one offered on the previous day is given precedence, because the limit [until when it may be eaten] is closer.61 If one has a peace-offering from the previous day and a sin-offering or a guilt-offering from the present day,62 the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, because they are sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.63

FOOTNOTES

Which is Rosh HaShanah. Sefer HaMitzvot(positive commandment 47) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 312) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Although at present - and as explained inHilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8, even at times in the Talmudic era - Rosh HaShanah was observed for two days, sacrifices were offered only on the day consecrated as the first of Tishrei.

See Numbers 29:1-5.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

I.e., Rosh HaShanah.

Zevachim 89a derives this from the fact thatNumbers 28:23 refers to the "the morning offering that is the continuous offering." The latter phrase teaches that it is given precedence because it is a continuous offering, brought every day.

For example, as stated in Halachah 5, since it brings about atonement, the blood of a sin-offering is considered as on a higher level of holiness than the blood of a burnt-offering. Hence, it is given precedence.

Zevachim 90b debates which of the two should be given precedence without resolving the matter. Hence, it is left to an individual's choice (Kessef Mishneh).

Lest its blood coagulate before the other animal was offered.

One from a sacrifice offered more frequently and one from a sacrifice offered less frequently or one on a higher level of holiness and one on a lower level.

More precisely, whenever the animal from the more frequent or holier offering was slaughtered before the blood of the other was sprinkled on the altar (see Radbaz).

I.e., this and the following instance exemplify the principle that an offering that is holier than another receives precedence over it.

While a burnt-offering, by contrast, is considered merely as a present to God (Zevachim 7b).

And hence is considered as holier.

As mentioned in the notes to the following halachah, this is speaking about a situation where both animals were already slaughtered.

Since each has a positive quality, neither is considered as holier than the other.

In this situation, neither possesses a distinctive positive quality in and of itself. Instead, the blood of the burnt-offering is secondary to its limbs and the fats and organs of the sin-offering are secondary to its blood.

Zevachim 89b states that the blood of a guilt-offering is not on the same level of holiness as that of a sin-offering. According to the Rambam's version, there is an unresolved question which is holier, its blood or that of a burnt-offering (Radbaz).

Rav Yosef Corcus understands this as referring to the slaughter of the sin-offering. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh ask: Since we know that a sin-offering receives precedence, why was it necessary to state previously that the blood of a sin-offering is given precedence? They explain that the previous halachah is speaking about a situation when both animals were already slaughtered and the question is which blood should be given precedence.

See Chapter 10, Halachot 3-4, where these offerings are described.

See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 where these offerings are described.

The High Priest. As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4; 15:1-2, when a High Priest inadvertently transgresses and violates a sin other than idol worship.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 12:1 if the High Court errs in the issuance of a halachic warning and causes the people at large to sin, each tribe is required to bring a bull as a sin-offering.

Horiot 13a derives the sequence of these offerings from Leviticus 4:21 which describes the bull brought by the High Priest as "the first bull." Our Sages understood that as implying that it is given precedence. Moreover, they maintain that it is logical to assume that the High Priest's offering should be given precedence, for he is the one who offers the bull on behalf of the community. Hence first he should atone for himself and then, offer atonement for the community.

When the community violates a transgression involving the worship of false deities due to an erroneous ruling by the High Court, each tribe must bring a burnt-offering of a bull and a sin-offering of a goat (Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.). Since this bull is a burnt-offering, the bull brought to atone for other transgressions is given precedence.

And sin-offerings should be given precedence, as stated in the preceding halachah.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 1:4, when a king sins and inadvertently performs a transgression punishable by karet other than idolatry. He must bring a goat as a sin-offering.

While the goat brought to atone for idolatry is brought on behalf of a tribe as a whole.

As a sin-offering. Hilchot Shegagot, loc. cit.,states that an ordinary individual who performs a transgression punishable bykaret must bring either a she-goat or a ewe as a sin-offering. The sin-offering brought by a king receives precedence, for his sacrifice is associated with his elevated position.

A she-goat can be brought to atone for all transgressions, including idolatry, while a ewe may not be brought for idolatry. This indicates that the goat is of greater power.

This offering is singled out, because it is not brought to atone for any particular transgression (Kessef Mishneh).

As related in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah1:2, after childbirth, in order to be able to partake of sacrificial foods, a woman must bring a dove or turtle-dove as a sin-offering and a sheep as a burnt-offering. Since the fowl is a sin-offering, it is given precedence.

See the description of the presentation of the blood of a sin-offering in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7. There are, by contrast, only two presentations of the blood of a guilt-offering on the altar (ibid. :6). Hence the sin-offering is given precedence.

As explained in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 10:5), this sacrifice enables the person to regain his ritual purity. Afterwards, he may enter the Temple Courtyard and partake of sacrificial foods. The order of the sacrifices brought by a person after he being healed from atzara'at affliction is described in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

While the latter two are considered as sacrifices of lesser sanctity.

The offering of these three types of sacrifices and the breads that accompany them are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh Korbanot, ch. 9. The fact that the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite's ram are eaten for only one day and a night indicate a higher level of holiness for those restrictions are also placed on a sin-offering and a guilt-offering which are sacrifices of the most sacred order (Radbaz). The inclusion of breads in these offerings also points to their importance.

The presentation of the blood on the altar for these sacrifices is described in ibid.:6.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3, which describes this practice.

The waving of the peace-offering is described in ibid. 9:6-8.

The obligation to bring accompanying offerings is mentioned in ibid., ch. 2. None of these rites are associated with the firstborn offering. Its blood is only poured out at the base of the altar (ibid. 5:17); it does not require the owner to lean upon it (ibid. 3:6); nor is it waved; nor are accompanying offerings brought with it (see (ibid. 2:2).

Both of these factors indicate a higher level of holiness.

I.e., sin-offerings and burnt-offerings brought from turtle doves and ordinary doves.

In contrast, when a fowl is brought as an offering, only its blood is offered on the altar.

As stated in Halachah 6.

I.e., were he not to have brought the burnt-offering, the tithe offering would have been sacrificed first, but because he brought it, the entire order is rearranged.

E.g., they are all burnt-offerings or sin-offerings.

As indicated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot2:4.

See ibid. 1:18.

I.e., the omer offering and the two loaves.

The sheep mentioned above.

This also applies to animal offerings brought by males (Radbaz).

Brought as a sin-offering, as evident from the concluding clause of the halachah.

I.e., the sotah offering, for this is the only individual meal-offering brought from barley. Wheat is a more important grain and hence, its offerings are given precedence.

For each have a positive quality lacking in the other. The free-will offering is brought together with frankincense and oil, but thesotah offering comes to clarify whether a transgression was performed (Menachot90a).

For the meal-offering is called a "sacrifice" and the wine libation is not (Radbaz). Alternatively, a handful of meal is sprinkled on the altar's pyre, while the wine is merely poured down the shittin, holes on the base of the altar.

55.

For the wine libations are poured out separately, while oil is always offered with other sacrifices (Radbaz). Alternatively, the majority of the oil is eaten by the priests, while the wine libations are poured on the altar in their entirety.

56.

Because the minimum quantity of oil is larger than the minimum quantity of frankincense (Or Sameach).

57.

The Radbaz questions the Rambam's statements, noting that nowhere does the Rambam mention offering salt as an independent offering.

58.

For salt is associated with the sacrifices by the Torah (Leviticus 2:13), while wood is called a sacrifice only by Scripture (Nechemiah 10:35, see Kiryat Sefer).

59.

This principle applies to all the above situations.

60.

Peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night.

61.

For the peace-offering sacrificed on the present day may also be eaten at night and on the following day, while the one offered the previous day must be completed by sunset.

62.

In which instance, one must complete eating both before sunset.

63.

Halachah 8; see also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:17.

Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 10

Halacha 1

On the fast day of Yom Kippur an additional offering is offered like that of Rosh HaShanah:1 a bull and a ram - this ram is called "the ram of the people"2 - and seven sheep. All are burnt-offerings. A goat [is brought as] a sin-offering and it is eaten in the evening.3

Halacha 2

In addition, the community offers another goat as a sin-offering, it is burnt.4 Its pair is the goat sent to Azazel.5

Halacha 3

On the first day of the Sukkot festival, the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: thirteen bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat which is eaten [is brought as] a sin-offering.6Similarly, on all the seven days of [the Sukkot] festival, two rams, fourteen sheep, and a sin-offering of a goat are offered.

Halacha 4

The number of bulls [offered], however, is decreased each day.7 On the second day, twelve bulls are offered, on the third eleven,... until on the seventh day, seven bulls, two rams, and fourteen sheep are all brought as burnt-offerings and a goat is brought as a sin-offering.

Halacha 5

On Shemini Atzeret,8 the following are brought as the additional offering of the day: a bull, a ram, and seven sheep. All are burnt offerings. And a goat [is brought as] a sin-offering.9 This is a separate offering in its own right.10

Halacha 6

On all the seven days of the [Sukkot] festival, a water libation is poured on the altar.11 This practice is a halachah communicated to Moses on [Mount] Sinai.12The water was poured as a separate libation together with the morning wine libation.13

Halacha 7

If one poured the water into the wine or the wine into the water and then poured the two of them as a libation from a single utensil, the obligation is fulfilled.14 If the water libation was offered before the [daily] sacrifice - indeed, even if it was offered at night - the obligation is fulfilled.15

The libation was poured at the southwest corner, above the mid-point of the altar, and then it would all descend to the shittin,16 as we explained.17 How was it offered? He would fill a golden vessel that contains three lugin18 from the Shiloach stream.19When they reached the Water Gate,20 tekiah, teruah,, and tekiah blasts are sounded.21 [The priest] would ascend the ramp and turn to his left22 and pour the water into a cup that was positioned there. For there were two silver cups there.23 The water [was poured] into the western one and the wine libation [was poured] into the eastern one. They were pierced with two small holes like two small nostrils. The hole for [the cup] of water was thinner than that for the wine so that the water would conclude flowing together with the wine.

Halacha 8

They would tell [the priest] who would pour the water libation: "Lift up your hands,"24 because once [a priest] poured [the water] on his feet,25 and the entire nation stoned him with their esrogim. For they said: "He was a Sadducee,"26 for they say that there is no water libation.

Halacha 9

[The water libation] was performed on the Sabbath in the same manner in which it was performed during the week, except that on Friday, a golden jug that was not a sacrificial vessel27 was filled28 [with water] and left in the chamber. On the morrow, [the pitcher used for the libation] was filled from it.29

Halacha 10

If the water was spilled or was uncovered,30 one should fill [the pitcher] from the basin and pour the libation.

Halacha 11

On every day of the Sukkot festival, a separate song31 was recited for theMusaf offering. On the first day of Chol HaMoed, they would say: "Render to God, children of the mighty..." (Psalm 29).32 On the second [day of Chol HaMoed], they would say "And to the wicked, God said..." (Psalm 50).33 On the third, they would say: "Who will stand up for me against the wicked?..." (ibid. 94:16).34 On the fourth, they would say: "Understand, you senseless among the people..." (ibid.:5).35 On the fifth, they would say: "I removed his shoulder from the burden" (ibid. 81:7).36 On the sixth, they would say: "All the foundations of the earth tremble" (ibid. 82:5).37 If the Sabbath falls on one of [the days of Chol HaMoed, the verses beginning] "All the foundations tremble" are superseded [by the song for the additional offering of the Sabbath].38

Halacha 12

We have already explained39 that there are a total of 24 priestly watches and they all serve with equal rights during the festivals. On the holiday of Sukkot, each watch would offer [only] one bull, one ram, or a goat as a sin-offering. With regard to the sheep, however, [there was a difference]. There were watches which would offer two sheep and there were watches that would offer one.

What is implied? On the first day of the festival of Sukkot, there are thirteen bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eight watches. Six watches offer two sheep and two watches offer one.

On the second day, there are twelve bulls,40 two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for nine watches. Five watches offer two sheep and four watches offer one.

On the third day, there are eleven bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for ten watches. Four watches offer two sheep and six watches offer one.

On the fourth day, there are ten bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for eleven watches. Three watches offer two sheep and eight watches offer one.

On the fifth day, there are nine bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for twelve watches. Two watches offer two sheep and ten watches offer one.

On the sixth day, there are eight bulls, two rams, and a goat. Every watch [that receives an animal to offer] would offer one of these animals. Thus there remain fourteen sheep for thirteen watches. One watch offers two sheep and twelve watches offer one.

On the seventh day, there are seven bulls, two rams, a goat, and fourteen sheep, [an amount of animals] equivalent to the number of watches. Each watch offers one animal.

Halacha 13

Whichever watch offered a bull one day did not offer a bull the next day. Instead, they would rotate. On the eighth day,41 they allot them through a lottery42 in which all watches are equal,43 as we explained.44

Halacha 14

When the first day of the festival of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath, there would be 61 esronim of accompanying meal-offerings from the additional offerings and the continuous offerings.45 They would not be mixed together.

Halacha 15

The accompanying meal-offerings46 are never mixed together.47Instead, the accompanying offerings of bulls [are prepared and offered] separately, those of rams separately, and those of sheep separately.48 [This applies] both with regard to communal offerings and individual offerings.

Halacha 16

All of the fats of the sacrifices [that are to be offered on the altar] - whether from communal sacrifices or from individual sacrifices - should not be mixed with each other.49 Instead, the fats and the organs of each sacrifice are offered on the altar's pyre separately. If, however, they become mixed together, they may be offered all as one.

Halacha 17

If the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings become intermingled after each type50 was mixed with oil separately,51 they are acceptable.

Halacha 18

Since the meal-offerings were mixed together and their oil and meal have become intermingled, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together as an initial preference. Similarly, if the meal-offerings of the accompanying offerings were already offered, each one separately, it is permissible to mix their wine [libations] together.52

Halacha 19

When the wine-libations of the accompanying offerings are mixed together, it is permissible to mix a wine libation of a sacrificed offered on the previous day with one offered on the present day53 or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering.

When one mixes together [wine libations], he may mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of bulls with those of the accompanying offerings of rams, or those of the accompanying offerings of sheep with others of the accompanying offerings of sheep. One should not, however, mix the wine libations of the accompanying offerings of sheep with those of bulls or rams.

Halacha 20

As an initial preference, one should not mix wine [libations] unless the meal-offerings have been mixed together or they have been offered, as we explained.54

Blessed be the Merciful One Who grants assistance.

FOOTNOTES

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 48) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 314) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:7-8.

In the Mishnah (Yoma 7:3). This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (Yoma70b) who maintains that the ram mentioned in Leviticus 16:5 is the same mentioned in Numbers. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.

After the conclusion of the fast.

See Leviticus 16:27; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:16.

As mentioned in Leviticus 16:5-9. SeeHilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 3, for a description of the service performed with these goats.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 50) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 320) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:12-34.

The fact that the sacrifices of each day of Sukkot differ from each other endow the days of the holiday with an advantage over the days of the holiday of Pesach. For that reason, the full Hallel is recited on each of the days of Sukkot, while this is not true with regard to Pesach. Nevertheless, the fact that the sacrifices differ is not sufficient for each day to be considered a separate mitzvah.

Literally, "the eighth day of assembly."

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 322) include the offering of these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. These sacrifices are mentioned in Numbers 29:35-38.

I.e., it is not a continuation of the Sukkot offerings. As Rosh HaShanah 4b, et al, state there are six aspects in which Shemini Atzeret is considered as an independent festival. One of them is that it has its own sacrifice.

In connection with the water libation, a special celebration, Simchat Beit HaShoevahwas held in the Temple Courtyard. The Rambam describes that celebration and the immensity of the joy expressed at that time at the conclusion of Hilchot Shofar Sukkah VeLulav. Interestingly, however, in that source, he does not associate the celebration with the water libation and here, he does not mention the celebration.

A practice that is part of the Oral Law, but is not specifically mentioned in the Written Law. As the Rambam mentions in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8), there are allusions to this practice in the Written Law.

I.e., initially, this is the preferred manner of observing the mitzvah.

I.e., after the fact; the initial preference is that each be poured separately as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Radbaz explains that since ultimately, when the wine and the water reach the shittin, they will be mixed together, after the fact, it is acceptable if they were mixed together initially.

As stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot4:5, libations offered in connection with a sacrifice must be offered by day, but those offered independently may be offered at night.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the Altar, through which the blood would run off and flow through the drainage canal and from there, to the Kidron River.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1 and the discussion of the Rambam's ruling by the other commentaries.

A log is 346 cc according to Shiurei Torahand 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

A stream that is located on the southern side of the Temple Mount.

One of the gates located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard. It was given its name, because the water for the libation was brought in through it.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 7:6.

Usually, the priests would circle the altar, turning first to the right. In this instance, they would turn to the left lest the smoke affect the water and the wine (Sukkah 48b; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:11).

In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot2:1, the Kessef Mishneh states that these cups were not a permanent part of the altar, but placed there only during the Sukkot holiday.

So that it would be obvious that he is pouring the water in the altar's cups (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Rather than on the altar.

Lit., "a follower of Tzadok." The Sadducees represented a splinter group within Judaism. They accepted the Written Law, but not the Oral Law. [In truth, they wanted to abandon Jewish practice entirely, but realized that they could never attract a large number of followers with such an approach and hence, adopted this ruse (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:3)]. Since the water libation is not explicitly stated in the Written Law, the Sadducees did not accept its validity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah4:9), the Rambam gives an original interpretation for the reason the water should not be held in a sacred vessel. Were it to be held in a sacred vessel, it would be possible that the priests would sanctify their hands with it. Thus they would perform that rite with water that was not consecrated or would use up the water and prevent it from being used for the libation (Rav Kappach's notes to that mishnah). This represents a different approach than that of the other commentaries.

With water from the Shiloach Stream.

This change was necessary, for going down to fill the pitcher with water from the stream was forbidden on the Sabbath, because one would be carrying from a public domain to a private domain.

Water that was uncovered is unacceptable as a libation, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:10.

I.e., in addition to the song recited for the daily sacrifice. See also Chapter 6, Halachot 8-9 which describe the Levites' songs.

This psalm contains the verse "The voice of God is upon the water" and thus is appropriate to mark the beginning of the offering of the water libation (see Sukkah55a).

This psalm warns of coming to the Temple to celebrate and offer sacrifices without first repenting (Rashi, Sukkah, op. cit.).

From this verse until the end of the psalm. These verses were chosen, because they speak of confronting wicked powers. Our Sages ordained that it be recited in the Second Temple period when the Temple was under the authority of Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers (ibid.).

I.e., from verse 5 until verse 16. These verses speak about God's watchful eye that surveys man's actions. These verses were chosen, because Sukkot marks the end of the harvest season when the agricultural gifts must be given to the poor. These verses serve as a warning, impressing the people with the awareness that God is observing them at all times and seeing whether they give these gifts or not.

Until the end of the psalm. These verses contain words of comfort and the reassurance of Divine blessings.

These verses speak of Divine judgement and Hoshaana Rabbah, the day on which these verses are recited marks the conclusion of the judgment begun on Rosh HaShanah.

The song for the additional offering of the Sabbath (a portion of the song Ha'azinu, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 9) is recited on that day and the songs for the remaining days are pushed back a day (Kessef Mishneh).

Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.

Because the number of bulls are being reduced by one each day. See Halachot 3-4 above.

When there are far fewer sacrifices, as stated in Halachah 5.

The Radbaz infers from this that no lotteries were conducted during the prior seven days. Although there were some days when one watch received more sheep to offer than another, they would balance that matter by allowing the other watches to receive more the following days.

There were two watches that did not offer three bulls throughout the Sukkot holiday. One opinion in Sukkot 55b maintains that on Shemini Atzeret, the lottery to offer the bull should be held only between these two watches. The Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi which maintains that all the watches are included in this lottery.

Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3-4.

According to the guidelines established inHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:4, for the additional offerings of Sukkot, the thirteen bulls required a total of 39 esronim, the two rams, a total of 4 esronim, and the fourteen sheep, a total of 14 esronim, a total of 57esronim. In addition, two esronim were brought for the additional offering of the Sabbath, and two esronim for the continuous offerings.

This includes the wine and the oil as well as the meal, as indicated by the concluding halachot of the chapter.

Indeed, if the meal-offerings for two types of animals become intermingled before they are mixed together with their oil, they are disqualified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:4)].

The rationale for the separation is that the ratio of oil to meal is different for the offerings of sheep and bulls.

The Sifra derives this concept from Leviticus 3:11 which states "And he shall offer it on the pyre," using a singular form.

I.e., those of bulls, those of sheep, and those of rams.

As required by Halachah 15.

For the rationale for the restriction against mixing their wine libations is only to prevent their meal-offerings from being intermingled. Once the meal-offerings have been offered, there is no longer any need for that constraint (Menachot 89b). They may be mixed as an initial preference [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. See Halachah 20.

For as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:12, the wine libations may be brought several days after the sacrifice was offered.

In Halachah 18.

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 1

Halacha 1

All persons disqualified from performing sacrificial service1 may slaughter sacrificial animals, even sacrifices of the most sacred order, as an initial preference2 with the exception of a person who is ritually impure who may not slaughter as an initial preference. Even though he stands outside the Temple Courtyard3 and inserts his hands and slaughters in the Courtyard,4 [he was restricted]. This a decree, lest he touch the [sacrificial] meat.5

Halacha 2

If [an impure person] transgressed and slaughtered [a sacrificial animal], the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, with regard to the bull [brought by] the High Priest on Yom Kippur even though [Leviticus 16:11] states: "And Aaron... shall slaughter [the bull],"6if a non-priest slaughtered it, it is acceptable. Even a red heifer that was slaughtered by a non-priest is acceptable,7 for there is no slaughter by a non-priest that invalidates [a sacrifice].

Halacha 3

When a person slaughters sacrificial animals, but does not have the intent to slaughter them, but instead, is merely busying himself [thoughtlessly], they are disqualified. [He must] have the intent to slaughter them.

Halacha 4

One should not slaughter the heads of two sacrificial animals at the same time.8 If one slaughtered [in this manner], the sacrifices are acceptable.9

Halacha 5

Two people may slaughter a sacrificial animal together, just as they may slaughter an ordinary animal.10

Halacha 6

A minor may not slaughter sacrificial animals even if an adult is standing over him.11 [The rationale is that the slaughter of] sacrificial animals requires concentrated intent and a minor does not have such a potential. Even when [a minor's] deeds indicate that he is acting with intention, [he is] not considered [to have acted] with intention if that will produce a leniency,12 only if it will produce a stringency.

What is implied? If [an animal to be sacrificed as] a burnt-offering was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] and a minor led it and brought it to the north where he slaughtered it - thus his actions indicate that he intended to slaughter a sacred animal13 - [the sacrifice] is still disqualified.

Halacha 7

When sacrifices of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard] or their blood was received there, they are disqualified.

Halacha 8

If one was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and slaughtered [a sacrifice of the most sacred order], his slaughter is acceptable.14

Halacha 9

If, [by contrast, a priest] was standing in the southern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], but he extended his hands into the northern portion and received the blood [of such a sacrificial animal], his receiving of the blood is unacceptable.15

Halacha 10

If he brings his head and the majority of his body into the northern [portion of the Temple Courtyard], it is considered as if he was standing there.16

Halacha 11

If one slaughtered [such an animal] in the northern portion [of the Temple Courtyard] and then in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, it moved to the southern portion or even if [a priest] took it to the southern portion, it is acceptable.17 If after these convulsive movements took it to the southern portion and then it returned to the northern portion and its blood was received there, it is acceptable.18

Similarly, if [animals to be slaughtered as] sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were inside [the Temple Courtyard]19 and one was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and inserted his hand inside and slaughtered it, his slaughter is acceptable.

Halacha 12

If, [while standing outside the Temple Courtyard, a priest] inserted his hand inside and received the blood, the receiving of the blood is unacceptable.20Even if [the entire body of the priest] performing the service was inside [the Temple Courtyard] and his locks of hair21 were outside, his service is unacceptable, for [when describing the priests' service in the Temple,Leviticus 10:9] states: "When you come to the Tent of Meeting."22 Implied is that one must enter in his entirety.

Halacha 13

If in the convulsive movements that accompanied its death, [such an] animal moved out of [the Courtyard] after its blood was received,23 it is acceptable. For even if the organs and fats to be offered on the altar and the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken outside [the Courtyard] before [the blood] was presented [on the altar], the sacrifice is acceptable, as will be explained.24

Halacha 14

If the entire body of [such an] animal was inside the Temple Courtyard and its foot was outside and it was slaughtered, the sacrifice is unacceptable. For [when speaking of bringing the sacrifices, Leviticus 17:5] states: "And they shall be brought to God." Implied is that they should be entirely within [the Courtyard].25

Halacha 15

If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal]26 while it was located entirely in [the Temple Courtyard] and afterwards, it moved one of its feet outside, he should cut off the meat until he reaches the bone27 and afterwards, the blood should be received. If he received the blood and afterwards, cut off the meat, it is disqualified because of the fat of the meat that is outside [the Temple Courtyard].28

With regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, there is no need to cut off [the meat]. Instead, he should bring its foot back inside [the Temple Courtyard], and receive the blood. For [even] if meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood was cast [on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.29

Halacha 16

If one hung the animal [above the earth] and slaughtered it in the free space of the Temple Courtyard, it is unacceptable, for [Leviticus 1:11] speaks [of slaughtering animals] "on the flank of the altar," implying that one must slaughter on the ground.30

Halacha 17

If the [sacrificial] animal was on the ground, but [the slaughterer] was hanging in the air and he slaughtered the animal while hanging, this disqualifies sacrifices of the most sacred order. Sacrifices of lesser sanctity, by contrast, are acceptable.31

Halacha 18

If one slit the lesser portion of the organs that must be slit for ritual slaughter32outside [the Temple Courtyard]33 and one completed the slaughter inside or one slit the lesser portion of the organs34 in the southern portion of [the Temple Courtyard] and completed the slaughter in the north, they are unacceptable. For ritual slaughter is considered as one continuous, integral act from the beginning to its completion.35

Halacha 19

If one was hung and received the blood from the neck of a [sacrificial] animal36 that is located on the ground, [the act] is unacceptable, because this is not the manner of Temple service.

Halacha 20

If one was standing in the Temple Courtyard and hung a receptacle over his arm and received the blood in the air or lifted the animal and thus received the blood in the air, [the act] is acceptable, for the open space above the place is considered as the space itself.37

Halacha 21

If one placed one receptacle within a second receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable,38 one substance is not considered as an interposing substance for another substance of the same type.39 If one placed fibers inside the receptacle and received the blood, [the act] is acceptable, because the fibers are porous and thus the blood descends into the receptacle and there is no interference. If, however, one does this while taking a handful of flour from a meal offering and took the handful with the fibers, it is unacceptable.40

Halacha 22

Receiving the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bringing it to the altar, casting it on the altar and bringing the limbs [of a sacrificial animal] to the ramp are all tasks41that are only acceptable if performed by a priest who is fit to perform service, as we explained with regard to taking the handful of flour from a meal offering42 or snipping of the head of a fowl.43

Halacha 23

Bringing [blood or limbs] to the altar in a way other than walking is not considered as bringing them. Therefore if a priest44 receives the blood [and while] standing in that place, casts it on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.45

Halacha 24

If [the priest] received [the blood] with his right hand and then transferred [the receptacle in which he received] it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand.46 If he received [the blood] with an ordinary utensil, the sacrifice is disqualified. If he received it in a sacred receptacle and transferred it to an ordinary receptacle, he should return it to a sacred receptacle.47

Halacha 25

If [the blood] spilled out of the receptacle on to the floor [of the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice] is acceptable if one gathers up [the blood].48 If, however, it spilled out from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal to the floor and then was collected and placed in a sacred receptacle, the sacrifice is disqualified.49

Halacha 26

If some of the blood from the neck of the [sacrificial] animal was spilled on the ground and not collected, but [a priest] received the remainder from the neck of the animal, [the sacrifice] is acceptable,50 provided the blood that was received is [the animal's] lifeblood51 and not blood concentrated [in the limbs]52 or the blood of the skin.

Halacha 27

If any of the individuals who are unacceptable to perform Temple service53receive the blood [of a sacrificial animal], bring the blood to the altar, or cast it on the altar as required by law,54 the sacrifice is disqualified. If [a priest] who is acceptable for such service receives the blood and gives it to one who is unacceptable, but the latter does not walk with it, but instead stands in his place, he should return it to the acceptable [priest].55 If, however, the unacceptable person carried it [toward the altar] and then returned it to the acceptable [priest] who carried it [to the altar] or the acceptable priest carried it [to the altar] and then gave it to the unacceptable one who carried it, since it was carried by the unacceptable person, whether at the beginning or the end, the sacrifice is disqualified, because this matter cannot be corrected.

Halacha 28

[The following laws apply if] the blood was received by an unacceptable person. If any of [the animal's] lifeblood remains, an acceptable [priest] should receive the blood, bring it [to the altar], and cast [it upon it]. [The rationale is that] individuals who are unacceptable for Temple service do not cause the remainder of the blood to be considered as remnants.56

An exception is one who is impure. Since he is fit to carry out Temple service when a sacrifice is brought in a state of impurity as explained,57 he causes [the blood to be considered as] remnants. What is implied? If an impure [priest] received58 the blood [of a sacrificial animal] even if an acceptable [priest] received [the animal's] lifeblood afterwards and cast it [upon the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. For [the blood] received by the acceptable [priest] afterwards is considered as remnants and is of no consequence.

Halacha 29

When even the slightest substance is taken from one of the [sacrificial] animal's limbs59 after it was slaughtered, but before its blood was cast upon the altar, it is disqualified. Even if one [merely] mutilated the ear of an animal before [its blood] was received, it is as if [its blood] was not received. [This is derived from Leviticus 16:14 which] states: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull." [Implied is that] it must be entirely whole at the time [the blood] is received. If one received [the blood] of an imperfect [animal] and cast it upon the altar, [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

Halacha 30

If, however, its substance was reduced after [its blood] was received,60before it was cast [on the altar], even if the meat was lost before the blood was cast [on the altar] or it was consumed by fire, he should cast the blood [on the altar] as long as an olive-sized portion of the meat or the organs and fats to be offered on the altar's pyre remain.61 If not even that remains,62 he should not cast the blood. With regard to a burnt-offering, even if half an olive-sized portion from the meat and half an olive-sized portion of the organs and fats [remain, he should cast the blood], because the entire [animal] is [offered on the altar's] pyre.63

Halacha 31

If less than an olive-sized portion [of a burnt-offering remains], [the blood] should not be cast [on the altar]. If it is cast [upon it], the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].64 If the meat65 is disqualified before [the blood] is cast on the altar or it was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above].66

Halacha 32

When the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity was taken out of the Temple Courtyard before the blood was cast [on the altar], even though the blood was cast [upon the altar] while the meat was outside, the sacrifice is acceptable,67 because ultimately, the meat will be taken outside [the Temple Courtyard].68

Casting [the blood on the altar] is effective with regard to [the obligation to have the sacrificial meat] which was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] burnt,69 but not to have it permitted to be eaten.70

Halacha 33

Similarly, when the organs and fats to be offered on the altar from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] before their blood [was cast on the altar] and the blood was cast [on the altar] when they were outside, the sacrifice was not disqualified. If they were returned [to the Temple Courtyard], they should be offered on the altar's pyre.71 Even if they were not returned [to the Temple Courtyard], one is liable for violating the transgressions72 [against partaking of] piggul,73 notar,74 and impure [sacrificial] meat75 if he partakes of them.76

Halacha 34

With regard to any sacrifices [brought by] a private individual, whether the meat became impure, but the fats are intact or the fats became impure, but the meat remains intact, the blood should be cast on the altar.77 If they both became impure, the blood should not be cast. If, however, it was cast on the altar, the sacrifice is received with favor [Above], for the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor.78 Similarly, when fats and organs to be offered on the altar's pyre or the limbs of a burnt-offering became impure and they were [nonetheless]79 offered on the altar, the High Priest's forehead plate arouses [God's] favor, as explained.80 With regard to any of the communal sacrifices, [even if] all of the meat and fats became impure, the blood should be cast [upon the altar].81

Halacha 35

When the blood of sacrificial animals was taken outside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is disqualified. Even though it was brought back inside and cast on the altar, the sacrifice is not received with favor [Above].82

Halacha 36

No blood from sacrificial animals is susceptible to ritual impurity at all.83 For [Deuteronomy 12:16] states with regard to blood: "You shall pour it on the earth like water." [Implied is that] blood which is poured out like water is considered as water and is susceptible to ritual impurity. The blood of sacrificial animals, by contrast, is not poured out like water84 and hence is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Halacha 37

When the sun sets and the blood from a sacrificial animal [slaughtered that day] has not been cast [on the altar], the sacrifice is disqualified. If [the blood] is cast [on the altar afterwards],85 [the sacrifice] is not received with favor [Above].

FOOTNOTES

A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified for various reasons. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15 for a detailed list of such individuals.

The wording of Zevachim 3:1 (the source for this ruling) could be interpreted as implying that the slaughter is acceptable only after the fact. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (based on Zevachim 31b), the Rambam explains that this restriction applies only to a person who is ritually impure.

And thus does not violate the prohibition against entering the Temple Courtyard while ritually impure (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash3:6).

Where the sacrificial animals must be slaughtered. As stated in ibid. 3:18, it is forbidden for an impure person to insert his hand into the Temple Courtyard according to Rabbinic Law. Nevertheless, this person was willing to transgress. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) the Rambam offers an interpretation that does not require that the person transgress: he slaughtered with a long knife.

In which instance he would make the sacrifice impure and disqualify it. That is forbidden.

Seemingly, implying that the slaughter must be performed by a High Priest. Nevertheless, Aaron's name is explicitly associated with the verb vihikriv, "and he shall offer." According to the Rambam, the verse should be interpreted as meaning that the offering of the bull must be performed by the High Priest, not necessarily its slaughter.

Nevertheless, as an initial preference, the slaughter should be performed by a priest (Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2; 4:17).

I.e., using a long knife so that the two are slaughtered with the same movements of the knife.

I.e., after the fact. This applies only with regard to sacrificial animals. Ordinary animals may be sacrificed in this manner as an initial preference. See Chullin 29a.

See Hilchot Shechitah 2:10.

Such slaughter is acceptable for ordinary animals after the fact (Hilchot Shechitah4:5).

This is a principle applicable in many different contexts of Jewish Law, e.g.,Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 3:10, 14:2; Hilchot Keilim 2:1.

For burnt-offerings may only be slaughtered in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:2-3). Thus he obviously had the intent to slaughter the animal as a burnt offering.

Zevachim 48b interprets Leviticus 1:11 as implying is that what is significant is the place where the animal is standing and not where the slaughterer is standing.

Zevachim, op. cit., interprets the above verse as implying that with regard to the receiving of the blood, what is important is where the person performing that act is standing.

This reflects a general principle of Torah Law: the majority of a person's body is considered as his entire body (Rav Yosef Corcus).

For the slaughter was performed in the appropriate place.

The fact that between the slaughter and the receiving of the blood, it entered the southern portion of the courtyard does not disqualify it.

Where it is required that they be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:4).

For the blood must be received in the Temple Courtyard.

This translation is necessary, because we are speaking of a portion of the person's body and not his garments. See Ezekiel 8:3for a similar usage.

Significantly, Zevachim 26a, the source for this law, uses a different prooftext. Some commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text of theMishneh Torah.

Implied is that if an animal moved out of the Temple Courtyard before its blood was received, it is disqualified.

See Halachot 32-33 of this chapter.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:15.

From the sacrifices of the most sacred order.

He should not, however, cut off the bone, because that would render the animal as blemished before the reception of the blood and thus disqualify it (see Zevachim 26a and commentaries).

As indicated by Zevachim, op. cit., the problem is not because of the blood from the meat that was outside the Temple Courtyard, because our Sages made a distinction between the blood that flows from the animal at the time of ritual slaughter and the blood that remains within its body (seeHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:4). Nevertheless, the fat from the portion of the animal that is outside the Temple Courtyard becomes mixed with its blood. This blood could also be part of the blood which is received, causing that blood to be disqualified (Kessef Mishneh).

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that sacrificial animals of the highest degree of sanctity become disqualified when they are removed from the Temple Courtyard whether before the blood was presented on the altar or afterwards. Moreover, even if the meat is cut off as Rambam suggests, the animal will become ritually impure, because there is an unresolved doubt whether our Sages decreed that any animal that is removed from the Temple Courtyard becomes ritually impure. Hence, because of the doubt, we should rule stringently (see Pesachim 85a). The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus resolve the Rambam's ruling.

Provided of course that the animal was returned to the Temple Courtyard and the blood received there. Even if a portion of the animal was outside the Courtyard, as long as the blood was received inside the Temple Courtyard, the sacrifice is not disqualified. Nevertheless, the portion that was outside the Temple Courtyard is forbidden to be eaten (see Halachah 32).

The Ra'avad states that after the blood was cast on the altar, the meat may be taken out of the Temple Courtyard. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is obvious, because the meat of sacrifices of a less degree of sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot11:5-6).

Based on Zevachim 26a, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring only to sacrifices of the most sacred order. (This is reflected also in the prooftext which refers to such a sacrifice.) Sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, by contrast, may be slaughtered if they are hoisted in the air as long as they are within the space above the Temple Courtyard.

Based on Zevachim, op. cit., the Kessef Mishneh - and his objections are also seconded by Rav Yosef Corcus - suggests emending the text of this halachah. As stated in Halachah 19, there is a difficulty in receiving the blood of a sacrifice while hanging in the air, because this is not befitting to the Temple service. Nevertheless, slaughtering an animal is not a formal part of the Temple service (and hence can be performed by a non-priest). Therefore there is no difficulty in performing it while hoisted in the air. And as stated in Halachah 20, the open space of the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard, so it is as if the slaughterer is standing in the Temple Courtyard.

The windpipe and the gullet.

For an animal to be sacrificed as a sacrifice of a lesser degree of sanctity.

Of an animal to be slaughtered as a sacrifice of the most sacred order.

See Hilchot Shechitah 4:13 for another application of this principle.

This applies both with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order and those of a lesser degree of sanctity.

Thus the animal's blood is considered to have been received in the Temple Courtyard.

It is considered as if one was holding the receptacle in which the blood was received in one's hands.

This is a general principle, applying in several areas of Torah Law (e.g., Hilchot Shofar Sukkah ViLulav 1:5; 7:12).

The difference is that the blood will flow through the fibers, but the flour will not.

I.e., they are considered integral parts of the process of offering a sacrifice and therefore require a priest's involvement.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:23; 13:12.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this refer toibid., ch. 6. The Lechem Mishneh states that he does not understand where in that chapter there is an allusion to the need for a priest to perform that service.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text states kohen gadol. Translating that term as "the High Priest" would not be appropriate at all in the present context. Some have suggested that the intent is a large priest, but most consider it a printing error.

Even if the blood was cast on the appropriate place.

And continue the service with it. If he received the blood while holding the receptacle with his left hand, the sacrifice is disqualified.

He may then continue the service; the sacrifice is not disqualified.

Since initially it was received in the proper manner, the fact that it spilled is not considered significant.

Since initially, it was not received in the proper manner.

For, after the fact, it is not necessary to receive all of the animal's blood (Kessef Mishneh). This is, however, the initial preference (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:8).

In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:3, the Rambam defines this term as "blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red." See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1).

Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

A non-priest or a priest who was disqualified. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 9:15.