Missionary Renegade

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:3.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 44) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 302) include bringing the omer offering and the accompanying sacrifice as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:9-17.

In contrast to most of the other meal-offerings that may be brought from the Diaspora as well (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach6:15).

The words "your harvest" can be interpreted as a reference to the harvest of your land, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. Alternatively, the Rambam is referring to the beginning of the verse "When you come to the land," as some have inferred from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:1).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.10:2), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that it is improper to pass over the opportunity to perform a mitzvah. Since there was barley fit for this offering in Jerusalem, it was not fitting to seek it elsewhere.

Because the grain close to Jerusalem had not ripened (Rashi, Menachot 83b).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:3), the Rambam explains that this preference stems from the fact that the Counting of the Omer must be "seven perfect weeks" (Leviticus 23:15), including both day and night. The counting and the reaping should begin at the same time, as implied by Deuteronomy 16:9 which describes this offering with the phrase: "When the sickle is first put to the standing grain, you shall begin counting." Hence the reaping should also be done at night.

Since offering the omer supersedes the prohibition against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, this applies to all the aspects of its offering, including harvesting the barley.

Menachot 72a states that the Sages that maintain that it is acceptable to harvest the barley for the offering during the day do not accept the view that this barley may be harvested on the Sabbath. How then can the Rambam accept both rulings? Nevertheless, since the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 1:8, Megilah 2:7) does not see the two as contradictory, it is possible for the Rambam to accept both rulings.

For this offering with the phrase: "When the sickle is first put to the standing grain."

For Leviticus 23:14 uses the term karmelwhich has the connotation of fresh grain.

I.e., from the southern slopes of the mountains on the outskirts of Jerusalem which had greater exposure to the sun (Tosafot, Menachot 85a).

Plowing it, but not sowing it [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2)].

In this way, the field's power of growth would always be restored and the barley would be of high quality. Compare to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:4.

In contrast to all other meal offerings with the exception of the meal offering brought by asotah (a woman suspected of infidelity) which were from wheat. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:2, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:3.

I.e., a concept that, although not explicitly stated in the Torah, was given to Moses at Sinai and always practiced among the Jewish people.

Rashi (Menachot 65a) states that all the stalks of barley that could be gathered within the reach of one's forearm would be tied together.

This was to refute the approach of the Sadducees as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Perhaps the Rambam elaborates so extensively in the refutation of the Sadducees, because in his time there were Karaites who also rejected the authority of the Oral Law while claiming to follow the Written Law.

Thus emphasizing that reaping the omersupersedes the prohibition against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, as stated in Halachah 6.

The Sadducees who maintained that only the Written Law was of Godly origin and that the Oral Law should not be followed.

I.e., Pesach. This is an accepted interpretation, because the festivals are referred to as "Sabbaths" several times in the Torah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 2:4).

The Supreme Jewish court.

The proof proposed by the Rambam does not appear to be based on any prior Rabbinic source. Although Menachot 65b brings several proofs of this concept from the exegesis of different verses, the Rambam does not refer to them because he is seeking an explicit proof from Scripture which the Saduccees accept rather than a concept derived from exegesis which they do not accept. The Sages did not refer to the proof used by the Rambam, because they would rather employ a proof that has its source in the Torah itself rather than in the works of the prophets (Radbaz).

Thus we can assume the day when theomer was brought and new produce was permitted to be eaten was the day following Pesach.

And thus there would be no proof of what to do in a year when Pesach does not fall on the Sabbath.

Tosafot, Menachot 30a, mentions two opinions with regard to the day of the week on which Moses died: Friday or the Sabbath. Moses died on 7 Adar. Accordingly, Pesach, 15 Nisan, was either a Sunday or a Monday.

For according to the Saduccees' misguided conception, the fundamental point is that they ate the grain on the day after the Sabbath. If their approach was right, Scripture should have emphasized that the event took place then and not "on the day after Pesach."

See Sifra to the verse; Menachot 66b.

A se'ah is approximately 8.3 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. There are also more stringent views.

An isaron is one tenth of an ephah and anephah is three se'ah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot6:6)]. Thus an isaron is approximately 2.4 liter in contemporary measure according toShiurei Torah.

The priests would be endeavoring to get one tenth of the original amount of grain. There the Rambam explains that since the kernels of grain are still somewhat underdeveloped - for this offering is being made right at the beginning of the harvest - there will not be as much fine flour and much sifting will be required to produce the desired quantity.

Hilchot Ma'aser 3:25; Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3. The rationale is that once the flour has been redeemed, the holiness associated with it has departed. Hence, dough produced from it must be treated like ordinary dough. The obligation to separate terumah and tithes takes effect at the conclusion of the harvest. At that time, the produce is consecrated and therefore exempt. The obligation to separatechallah, by contrast, takes effect when the dough is kneaded and, at that time, the flour has already been redeemed and is no longer consecrated.

As all the other meal-offerings. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:7

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, loc. cit.

See the description of the waving of the offerings in ibid. 9:6-7.

See ibid. 12:6.

See ibid. 12:9.

For the offering brought more frequently receives priority (Kessef Mishneh).

Which accompanies the omer as stated in Halachah 3.

48.

Wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt.

49.

In the Diaspora, this is permitted, however, because the omer may not be brought from there.

50.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam puts the limit on the reaping of theomer and not on its offering. Some have suggested that since the verse mentions "your harvest," the prohibition applies only until then.

51.

As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot10:2-3, it is forbidden to partake of any grain before the offering of the omer. That prohibition is referred to as chadash ("new [grain]"). Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even harvesting such grain is forbidden. The prohibition is, however, an outgrowth of a positive commandment and is not considered as a negative commandment. See Halachah 21.

52.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:12. Since this grain is not of high quality, the offerings should not be brought from it. It must be emphasized that this is only an a prioriconsideration. After the fact, such a meal-offering is acceptable.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:2), the Rambam explains why this leniency is granted. The prooftext cited above states: "You shall reap your harvest and you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest." From the first portion of the verse, it appears that the harvest should precede the omer, but the second portion states that the omer is "the first of the harvest." The Oral Tradition resolves the difficulty by teaching: "From the place where you may bring the omer, you may not harvest, but from a place where that offering may not be brought, you may harvest."

53.

The Rabbis explain that it takes fourteen days between the time when seedlings trees are planted and when they took root. One may assume that it takes less time for grain to root.

54.

At this stage, it has not reached a state fit to serve as food for humans. Hence the prohibition mentioned above does not apply. Our translation is dependent on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:8).

55.

Larger bindings collected from several smaller bundles (ibid.).

56.

The Rambam does allow the stalks to be tied in contrast to Rashi's view (Menachot71a).

57.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:9.

58.

This also includes the wine for the libations (ibid.).

59.

The first-fruits are not mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit.

60.

Because the omer must be "the first of your harvest" as mentioned above.

61.

As explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach5:10, the two loaves are described byLeviticus 23:17 as "the first fruits unto God." Hence, no other grain offerings should be offered before them. Nevertheless, since this grain is acceptable for a private individual, after the fact, the offering is still acceptable.

62.

Since it is the first meal-offering to be brought from new grain, it warrants a blessing. The Rambam is interpretingMenachot 75b differently than Rashi.

63.

Our Sages discussed the issue in Menachot68b and did not arrive at a resolution.

64.

I.e., the two loaves of the previous year and the omer of the present year.

65.

Rav Yosef Corcus states that if one does bring a meal-offering from such grain, after the fact, he is not required to bring a second one. See also the conclusion of the following halachah.

66.

I.e., without the grain having become rooted in the ground. The Kessef Mishnehquestions how is it possible for the leaves of a plant to grow without it taking root. He explains that this refers to a situation where the seeds were sprouted in water which could produce leaves before roots.

67.

For the violation of a negative Scriptural commandment is not involved. The Radbaz maintains that one is, however, liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.

68.

Both as food and for a meal-offering (Rav Yosef Corcus). Needless to say, one must wait until the omer or the two loaves are offered.

69.

Verbalizing the reckoning of each day (see Radbaz).

70.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 161) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 306) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

71.

In Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam emphasizes that these are not two separate commandments. In some Ashkenazic communities, the custom is to count each night and, at the end of a week, to count the passage of the week. The Sephardic custom is to mention the days and the weeks each night when counting.

72.

For by including the night, the weeks will be "complete," without any lack (Menachot66a).

73.

It appears that according to the Rambam, after the fact, by counting during the day, one fulfills the mitzvah just as one does by counting at night. Rabbenu Asher does not accept this view. The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 489:7) states that if one did not count during the night, he should not recite a blessing while counting during the day.

74.

For in its reference to this mitzvah,Deuteronomy 16:9 mentions "standing grain," which our Rabbis interpret as an allusion to fulfill the mitzvah while standing (Kessef Mishneh).

75.

I.e., the mitzvah of counting is not entrusted to the court as is the mitzvah of counting the Jubilee, but rather is a personal responsibility for every individual (Radbaz).

76.

I.e., in both Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora.

77.

I.e., even after the destruction of the Temple. There are Ashkenazic authorities who differ and maintain that according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah is dependent on the harvest of the omer. Hence in the present era, our observance only possesses the status of a Rabbinic commandment.Shulchan Aruch HaRav 489:2 writes that although primacy should be given to this view, there is no difference in practice between the two approaches.

78.

As is true with regard to all other mitzvot associated with a specific time.

79.

As one does before fulfilling any other positive commandment (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

80.

For the failure to recite a blessing does not nullify the mitzvah (Kessef Mishneh).

81.

Even if one counted accidentally, one should not count afterwards with a blessing. Therefore if one's friend asks what day of the omer it is, one should answer "Yesterday was such and such" [Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 489:4)].

• 3 Chapters: Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7, Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8, Maaseh Hakorbanot Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text |

Audio: Listen | Download• Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 7

Halacha 1

It is a positive commandment to offer the sin-offerings1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah. How are the sin-offerings which are eaten2brought? One slaughters [the animal] and sprinkles its blood in the manner described,3 skins it, and separates the eimorim.4 He salts them and casts them on the pyre. If he desires to place the eimorim in a container while they are being carried to the altar, he may. The remainder of the meat in eaten by male priests in the Temple Courtyard.5

Halacha 2

How are the sin-offering which are burnt brought? One slaughters [the animal] and sprinkles its blood in the manner described. Afterwards, one rips open [its belly] and removes the eimorim. He places them into a container, salts them, and casts them on the pyre. The remainder [of the animal] should be taken outside the city6 and cut up there as the burnt offering is cut up7 with its hide.8[The pieces] are burnt there in the ash pile.9

Halacha 3

There are three places [where sacrifices] are burnt: The first is in the midst of the Temple Courtyard.10 [The following are] burnt there: sacrifices [of the highest order of sanctity] that have been disqualified,11 the eimorim of sacrifices of lesser sanctity which were disqualified,12 the bulls and goats that are burnt if they are disqualified, whether before their blood was sprinkled or after their blood was sprinkled,13 e.g., they became impure, they were taken outside the Temple Courtyard before the time they were supposed to be taken out arrived, or their meat or their eimorim remained overnight [without being burnt].14

Halacha 4

The second place is on the Temple Mount. It is called the birah.15There we burn sin-offerings that are to be burnt if they were disqualified16 after they departed from the Temple Courtyard.

The third place is outside Jerusalem. It is called the ash-pile. There we burn the sin-offerings that are burnt when they are burnt according to their commandment.17

Halacha 5

It is acceptable for the burning of all of [the sacrifices] that must be burnt18to be performed by a non-priest19 and at night.20 Any type of wood, even straw and stubble, is acceptable21 for the burning of all of the sacrifices that must be burnt outside the Temple Courtyard , as [Leviticus 4:12] states: "On wood with fire," any type of fire. Why is wood mentioned? To exclude lime or hot ash.

Halacha 6

How is a sin-offering from fowl brought? Melikah should be performed on the southwest corner [of the altar],22 as we explained.23 He should descend with his nail until he cuts the organs [required for ritual slaughter]24or [at least] the majority of one of them. He should not separate the head from the body.25 If he does, he disqualifies [the sacrifice] and is liable for lashes,26as [Leviticus 5:8] states: "He shall nip off its head at the nape [of the neck], but should not separate it."

He then sprinkles its blood on the wall of the altar, below its midpoint.27 The remainder of the blood should be squeezed out on the altar's base,28 as stated [ibid.: 9]: "And the remainder of the blood, he shall squeeze out on the altar's base." One can conclude from this that when one presents the blood on the wall [of the altar], [the fact that] the remainder [of the blood] is squeezed out toward the base [indicates that] "the wall" refers to the lower [portion] of the wall.29

Halacha 7

Squeezing out the blood of a fowl brought as a sin-offering is an absolute requirement.30 All the altar receives from this offering is its blood. The remainder is eaten by males of the priestly family like the meat of an animal brought as a sin-offering.31

Halacha 8

How should the fowl brought as a sin-offering be held at the time of melikah? He should hold its two feet between two of his fingers32 and its two wings between his other two fingers,33 extending its neck over [the thumb for]34 a width of two fingers and then snip off its head.35

This was one of the difficult tasks performed in the Temple. If one deviated and held the fowl in any other manner, it is acceptable.

Halacha 9

Every part of the altar is acceptable for melikah, provided he sprinkles its blood below the midpoint of the altar. If he sprinkles it anywhere [on the altar], it is acceptable provided he presents [at least] a small amount of the blood of the soul36 below [the midpoint of the altar].

Halacha 10

The upper half of southwest corner of the altar would serve three purposes and the lower half would serve three purposes. The lower half was used for the melikah of a fowl brought as a sin-offering, approaching the altar with the meal-offering,37 and pouring the remainder of the blood of the burnt-offerings, the sin-offerings that are eaten, the guilt-offerings, and the peace-offerings upon its [base].38

The three purposes for which the upper portion was used are: the water libation on Sukkos,39 the wine libation of the accompanying offering [of Sukkot],40 and the burnt offerings of fowl if there are many of them. If the southeast corner41 does not have the capacity for all of them,42 [the priests would] turn to the southwest corner and perform melikah there.43

Halacha 11

All of those who ascend the altar on the right [side of the ramp],44 circle it, and descend on the left [side] except for one who ascends for one of the latter three purposes mentioned above which are performed on the upper portion45of this corner. [Those involved in these services] ascend on the left side, turn to the left, to that corner, perform their task, and retrace their steps.

Why do they turn to the left? So that they will encounter the southwest corner first. For if they would turn to the right and circle the entire altar until they reached the southwest corner, the water or the wine might become smoky46or perhaps the fowl would die because of the altar's smoke.

Halacha 12

Therefore when someone who performs a water or wine libation circles the altar,47 he should not have anything in his hands. He begins circling from the southeast corner, [proceeding] to the northeast and then to the northwest and the southwest. He should not be holding anything. When he reaches the southwest corner, the water or the wine is placed in his hand and he performs the libation. If he does not [desire to] circle [the altar], he may ascend [the ramp], turn to the left, perform his service, and descend.

FOOTNOTES

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 64) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 138) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Even though there are several different types of sin-offerings, since they are all offered in the same manner, they are considered only as one mitzvah (Radbaz).

In Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16, the Rambam mentions which sin-offerings are eaten and which are burnt.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of the animal and Halachot 7-10 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.

The fats and inner organs offered on the altar. See Leviticus 4:8-10.

Leviticus 6:19 speaks of the priests partaking of the sin-offerings in the Courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. See Chapter 10.

Leviticus 2:12 speaks of these sacrifices being burnt outside the camp. See alsoHilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7.

Chapter 6, Halachot 5-9.

They are not skinned before being burnt, as related in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

See Halachah 4.

It was to the east of the ramp ascending to the altar (Sifra, Vayikra 9:3).

Rashi (Zevachim 104b) explains that since these sacrifices are eaten in the Temple Courtyard, they should also be burnt there.

Since these eimorim should have been burnt on the altar, they are burnt in the Temple Courtyard if they became impure (Radbaz). The sacrifices of lesser sanctity themselves should be burnt in Jerusalem (the place where they are eaten). We can assume that they were burnt on the Temple Mount, at thebirah (ibid., gloss to Halachah 4).

Although they had reached a stage where they were to be taken out of the Temple Courtyard, since in fact they had not been removed from the Temple Courtyard before they were disqualified, they should be burnt there (Radbaz).

See more details in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:3.

The term birah means "tower" or "large building." At times, it is used to refer to the Temple complex as a whole.

Because of impurity or because they remained overnight. These factors can still disqualify these sacrifices even though they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz).

I.e., when they have not been disqualified. The Biblical commandment is to burn them "outside the camp." In later times, that meant "outside Jerusalem" as stated in Halachah 2. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 6, Halachah 21.

I.e., those sacrifices which must be burnt outside Jerusalem. Those that must be burnt in the Temple Courtyard must be burnt with wood fit to be used for the altar (Sifra).

This indicates that burning them is not a fundamental element of the sacrificial service (Radbaz).

There are some exceptions to this as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:5.

I.e., the wood need not meet the criteria for wood required for the altar.

From Zevachim 63a,b, it is apparent that, after the fact, a sin-offering is acceptable ifmelikah is performed at any place in the Temple Courtyard. (See also Halachah 9.) This corner is mentioned as an initial preference, because the blood must be sprinkled there (Radbaz).

Rav Yosef Corcus states that the reference is to the order of melikah described at the conclusion of ch. 6. Melikah at the southwestern corner of the altar is not mentioned elsewhere.

The windpipe and the gullet.

In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 112) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 124) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Lechem Mishneh quotes authorities who understand this as meaning that one may not separate both the gullet and the windpipe entirely. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that the Rambam's words should be explained simply: the head may not be severed from the body. If it is attached, even if these two organs are severed, the prohibition is not violated.

In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

Hence when performing melikah, the priest does not ascend on the ramp, but rather stands on the ground (Radbaz).

The Rambam is explaining why the obligation is to present the blood of a sin-offering from fowl on the lower half of the altar in contrast to the blood of a sin-offering from an animal which is presented on the upper half.

Although there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Talmud and there are passages which appear to follow the other view, the Rambam's approach represents the consensus, as indicated byMe'ilah 9b (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

See Chapter 10.

The pinky and the finger next to it on his left hand.

The index finger and the middle finger.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:4).

With his right hand.

As indicated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot6:3, this term refers to the blood that flows out when the fowl is slaughtered.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 6; Chapter 13, Halachah 12.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 6, 10.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.

I.e., in contrast to the wine libations offered throughout the year which are offered on the lower portion of the altar. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, and notes.

Which was the preferential place for them to be offered, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

I.e., if many fowl were being offered and it was difficult to approach that corner of the altar.

For this is close to the place where portions of the sacrifices are discarded.

I.e., they should turn to the southeastern corner. The rationale is that, at the outset, one should always turn to the right.

Those who perform the tasks on the lower portion of this corner do not ascend the ramp at all, but instead, approach the altar from the ground.

Wine that became smoky is unacceptable for a libation (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:9). We can assume that the same law applies with regard to water.

There is no necessity - or even preference - that the priest circle the altar. The matter is solely dependent on his choice. The Mishnah (Tamid 6:6) that is the source for this teaching speaks about a High Priest, but as the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the concept applies to any priest. If he desires, he may circle the altar before performing this service.

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 8

Halacha 1

There is a stringency that applies with regard to an animal1 brought as a sin-offering that does not apply [even] to other sacrifices of the most sacred order. If blood from an animal brought as a sin-offering will spew from the container in which the blood was received2 onto a garment before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar],3 that garment is obligated to by washed with water4 in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:20] states: "If its blood is spewed on a garment, that which it has been spewed upon must be washed in a holy place."

Halacha 2

A garment made from wool or linen,5 a soft hide,6 or a garment from goat's hair7 is required to be washed. A firm hide, however, is considered as wood8and one should scrape the blood from it.

[The above applies to] the blood of sin-offerings that are eaten or those which are burnt,9 but not to sin-offerings from fowl, as implied by [ibid.:18]: "the sin-offering will be slaughtered," i.e., the Torah is speaking about [an offering] that is slaughtered and not one that is killed by melikah.10

Halacha 3

When a sin-offering was disqualified, its blood need not be washed [from garments]. This applies whether there was a time when it could have been acceptable or there was never a time when it could have been acceptable.

What is meant by [an offering] that had a time when it could have been acceptable? One which was left overnight, that became impure, or that was taken outside of the Temple Courtyard.11 What is meant by [an offering] that never had a time when it could have been acceptable? One that was disqualified because of [the manner in which] it was slaughtered12 or the manner in which its blood was sprinkled.

Halacha 4

Only the place where the blood [was absorbed] must be washed.13 [The above applies provided the garment or] utensil14 is susceptible to contract ritual impurity and is fit to be washed. If, however, the blood spews on a wooden utensil or a metal utensil, it need not be washed because it is not fit to be washed. Instead, one should merely scrape the blood off.

Halacha 5

If [the blood] spewed onto the skin of a fish, it is not necessary to wash it, for [the skin of a fish] is not susceptible to ritual impurity.15 If it was spewed onto the hide of an animal that was not skinned, it need not be washed. If, however, [the hide] was skinned [from the animal], it must be washed. Even though it is not susceptible to ritual impurity in its present state,16 it will be susceptible to ritual impurity after it has been treated.

Halacha 6

If blood spewed from [the animal's] neck onto a garment, it sputtered from the corner of the altar [to a garment],17 or the blood spilled to the floor [of the Temple Courtyard],18 it was gathered and then it spewed on to a garment, there is no requirement that [the garment] be washed, as [the prooftext] states: "If its blood is spewed...."19 [Implied is that the requirement] was stated only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred utensil and is fit to be sprinkled [on the altar], [because it is] of sufficient measure [to be sprinkled].20

Halacha 7

If the four presentations of blood21 were made and then some of the remainder of the blood spewed from the container onto a garment, it need not be washed even though the remainder of the blood was not yet poured out on the base [of the altar].22 Similar principles apply with regard to the sin-offerings that are burnt.23

Halacha 8

[If the blood of a sin-offering] sputtered from [a priest's] finger after he performed its sprinkling with his hand, [the garment onto which it sputtered] need not be washed, because the remainder of the blood on his finger is not acceptable for sprinkling.24

Halacha 9

If [the blood] spewed from one garment to another, the second garment need not be washed.25 If [blood] spewed on an impure garment, it need not be washed.26

If blood from a sin-offering sputtered onto a garment and then ordinary blood27sputtered onto the blood from the sin-offering, it must be washed.28 If, however, ordinary blood - or even blood from a burnt-offering - sputtered onto a garment and then blood from a sin-offering sputtered on to it, it is not required to be washed, because [the blood from the sin-offering] is not absorbed in [the garment].29

Halacha 10

When the place [stained by] the blood is washed, it should be washed very thoroughly with water until no trace [of the blood] remains. All of the seven detergents30that are used [to determine whether] a stain is blood or not31should be used to [wash away] the blood of a sin-offering with the exception of urine, for urine should not be brought into the Temple.32

Halacha 11

An earthernware vessel in which a sin-offering that is to be eaten33 was cooked must be broken34 in the Temple Courtyard. A metal vessel in which [a sin-offering] was cooked must be cleansed35 and rinsed in water36 in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:21] states: "An earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken."

Although this verse does not state "in a holy place,"37 the same laws that apply to washing [a garment] apply. Just as the washing must be performed in a sacred place, so too, the breaking of an earthenware vessel and the cleansing and the rinsing of a metal utensil must be performed in a holy place. [These laws apply equally to] a utensil in which [the sin-offering] was cooked and one into which it was poured while it was boiling.38

Halacha 12

"Cleansing" is performed with hot water and "rinsing" with cold water.39 The prooftext mentions "water," [excluding] wine, wine mixed with water, or other liquids. The thorough cleansing and rinsing [of the vessel] should resemble the thorough cleansing and rinsing of a cup.40

A spit and a grill [used to cook the meat of a sin-offering] must be purged41 in water that is heated by fire and then washed [in cold water].42

Halacha 13

When does the above apply? When one cooked [sacrificial meat] in these utensils after their blood was sprinkled as required by law. If, however, he cooked in [these utensils] before the sprinkling [of the blood]43 or he cooked meat from sin-offerings that were to be burnt in such utensils,44 it is not necessary that they be washed thoroughly and rinsed.45

If one cooked [the meat of a sin-offering] in [only] a portion of a utensil, the entire utensil must be washed thoroughly and rinsed.46

Halacha 14

There is an unresolved doubt [concerning the ruling] when meat [from a sacrificial offering] was roasted in the space of an earthenware oven:47 Must [the oven] be destroyed48 since [the meat] was cooked inside of it49 or need it not be destroyed, since it did not touch it?50 [The above] does not apply only with regard to a sin-offering. Instead, all utensils that were used for [meat] from sacrificial offerings with hot water,51 whether sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, are required to be washed thoroughly and rinsed after52 the time for eating from them.53Similarly, a spit and a grill should be purged after eating [from the sacrifice which they were used to cook].

They should not be left until one desires to eat from them a second time.54Instead, when the time for eating from them is completed, one should purge the grill and the spit and wash thoroughly and rinse the utensil whether it be a metal utensil or an earthenware utensil.55 [There is] one exception: [the meat from] a sin-offering. An earthenware utensil [in which it was cooked] must be broken. [Nevertheless,] one may cook [in a utensil] and do so a second and third time immediately, whether using a metal utensil or an earthenware utensil. [The requirement to] wash it thoroughly and rinse it [applies only] at the conclusion of the time permitted to partake [from these sacrificial foods].

Halacha 15

Utensils made from animal turds,56 stone, or earth57 are not required to be thoroughly washed and rinsed even [when the meat of] a sin-offering was cooked in them. All that is necessary is that they be cleansed.58

With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 6:20] states: "Anything that will touch its meat will become sanctified,"59 i.e., it will be of the same status. If it has been disqualified, anything that touches it is also disqualified. If it is kosher, anything that touches it should be eaten according to the laws that apply to it, with the same degree of holiness.60

Halacha 16

When does the above apply? When [the flavor of the meat of a sacrificial offering] was absorbed by it. If, however, it merely touched it, but its flavor was not absorbed, it does not cause it to become sanctified.61 The above applies both to a sin-offering and any other sacrificial offering, whether sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity or sacrifices of a severe degree of sanctity, as [implied by Leviticus 7:37]: "This is the law for the burnt-offering, the meal-offering...."62

Halacha 17

If the meat [of a sacrificial offering] touched a cake63 and [its flavor] was absorbed in a portion of it, [the cake] does not become sanctified in its entirety. Instead, one should cut off the portion in which it was absorbed.64

Halacha 18

[The following laws apply to] a utensil in which sacrificial food and ordinary food were cooked together or sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity were cooked together with sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. If there is a sufficient amount [of the sacrificial food] to impart its flavor,65 the entire mixture must be eaten according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category. The utensil must be thoroughly washed and rinsed according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category.66 If it did not impart its flavor to them, the foods of the more lenient category need not be eaten according to the laws governing the food of the most severe category and they are not governed by their laws at all. The utensil [in which the mixture was cooked], however, must be thoroughly washed and rinsed.67

Halacha 19

When the blood of a sin-offering sputtered on a garment and then that garment was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, it should be returned to the Temple Courtyard and washed there.

What should be done if [the garment] became impure outside the Temple Courtyard?68 It should be torn69 so that it will become pure.70 He should then bring it into [the Temple Courtyard] and wash it there. He must leave intact a portion of the garment the size of a handkerchief, for [the relevant verse]71speaks of a "garment," i.e., a garment must be washed.72 Even though [the remnants of the garment] are impure due to Rabbinic decree,73 because of the remnant the size of a handkerchief, since the majority of it is torn, it is ritually pure according to Scriptural Law and it is permitted to bring it into the Sanctuary to wash out the blood.74

Halacha 20

What should be done when blood from a sin-offering sputtered on [the High Priest's] cloak,75 it was taken out [of the Temple Courtyard], and became impure? [The difficulty is that] one who tears it is liable for lashes, as we explained. He should bring it into [the Temple Courtyard] less than three fingerbreadths at a time76 and wash it in [the Temple Courtyard]. After all the blood has been washed off it little by little, it should be immersed [in amikveh]77 outside [the Temple Courtyard].

Halacha 21

When an earthen-ware utensil in which a sin-offering78 was cooked was taken out of the [Temple] Courtyard, it should be brought back in and broken there.79If it became impure outside the Temple Courtyard, it should be perforated to the extent that a small root [could protrude through it] so that it will be ritually pure,80 and then bring it back inside [the Temple Courtyard] and break it there. If it is broken with a larger hole, it should not be broken in [the Temple Courtyard], because only utensils are broken there.81

Similarly, when a metal utensil in which [sin-offerings] were cooked was taken out of the [Temple] Courtyard, it should be brought back in and thoroughly washed and rinsed there. If it became impure when it was taken out, its [bottom] should be opened82 until it becomes pure83 and then it should be brought back inside [the Temple Courtyard] [The metal] should then be flattened so that the opening becomes closed as is the form of utensils.84Afterwards, it should be thoroughly washed and rinsed in the Temple Courtyard, as [Leviticus 6:21] states: "If [it was cooked] in a copper utensil, [it should be thoroughly washed and rinsed with water]." [Implied is that] only "utensils" are thoroughly washed in the Temple Courtyard.

FOOTNOTES

But not a fowl (Halachah 2).

If, however, it spewed forth from the animal at the time of slaughter, sputtered from the blood sprinkled to the altar, or spilled to the floor and was collected from there, these laws do not apply (Halachah 6).

Similarly, once the blood was sprinkled this stringency does not apply (Halachah 7).

See Halachah 10.

This is the meaning of the term beged(Rashi, Zevachim 93b).

See Halachah 5.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:1).

See Halachah 4.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16.

Although melikah is equivalent to ritual slaughter in certain contexts, since the verse specifies "slaughter," it is excluded in this instance (Radbaz).

I.e., in all these instances, the ritual slaughter and the sprinkling were performed in an appropriate manner and thus the meat could have been consumed in an acceptable manner.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1 which mentions several ways in which ritual slaughter can be disqualified.

And not the entire garment (Zevachim 93b).

I.e., this requirement applies not only to garments, but also other objects made from these materials.

See Hilchot Keilim 1:3-4; 10:1. Zevachim 93b states that only an article that is susceptible to ritual impurity must be washed.

For it is not considered as a k'li, a useful article, in its present state.

Since it has already been sprinkled on the altar, these laws no longer apply to it (Zevachim 92b).

Without first being received in a sacred utensil. In such an instance, it is not fit to be sprinkled on the altar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:25). If, however, it was first received in a sacred utensil and then spilled, it is fit to be sprinkled on the altar. Hence, if it spewed onto a garment, the garment must be washed.

The same Hebrew root haza'ah is used both for the sprinkling of the blood on the altar and the spewing of the blood on a garment, leading to the inference stated by the Rambam.

Our translation is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.

As prescribed in Chapter 5, Halachah 7.

Because pouring out the remainder of the blood is not an essential element of the sacrifice.

I.e., once the priest has completed the sprinkling of their blood that is required as explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-18, the remaining blood does not require that it be washed.

As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

Zevachim 92b compares this to the situation described in Halachah 6 when blood was spilled onto the floor and then sputtered onto a garment.

For it is considered as if the blood became impure beforehand and thus would have been unacceptable for sprinkling. Zevachim93a associates this situation with the question whether water set aside to be used for the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer that became impure can be purified or not. Based on that discussion, Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that there is a printing error in the text of the Mishneh Torah and the ruling is that the garment must be washed. This conclusion is supported by the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:36 which states that blood from consecrated animals can never contract ritual impurity.

I.e., blood from an animal that was not consecrated. As evident from the following clause, seemingly, the same law would apply with regard to blood from a burnt offering. Indeed, Zevachim 98a-b states this explicitly.

For the blood from the sin-offering is absorbed into it and is not washed away by the other blood.

For it had already absorbed the other blood.

The saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, marsh mallow, natron, glasswort, and soapwort. [The names of these detergents were taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Arabic terms used in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6).]

If the stain is removed when these seven detergents are applied to it, we conclude that it was blood. If it is not removed, we assume that it is paint or another type of dye.

For it is not respectful to bring such a substance into a place where the Divine Presence is overtly revealed.

The commentaries have noted thatZevachim 95a (the source for this halachah) mentions that urine was brought into the Temple, except that it was first mixed with the saliva so that it was not taken in as an independent entity.

As opposed to those which are burnt.

The rationale is that the flavor of the meat of the sin-offering can never be totally purged from an earthenware vessel.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8), the Rambam defines this term as meaning "thoroughly washing a utensil until everything attached to it is removed."

There the Rambam interprets this as meaning "pouring water over the utensil without scraping the filth off by hand." The Radbaz elaborates on the difference between the Rambam's approach (who appears to require only the thorough cleaning of the vessels) and that of Rashi who interprets Zevachim 95b as requiring that these utensils must be purged in the same manner as one purges non-kosher food from a vessel into which it was absorbed.

According to this conception of the Rambam's approach, the problem is not that the fat absorbed in the utensil becomesnotar, "sacrificial food that remained overnight," and must be destroyed. Instead, the question involves merely the thorough cleaning of the utensil. This interpretation is borne out by the continuation of the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah where he speaks about the issue of notar with regard to the food attached to the utensil, but does not mention the food absorbed within it.

As does the preceding verse which mentions washing the blood from a garment.

Since the stew including the meat of the sin-offering was boiling while it was poured into the vessel, it is considered as if it was cooked there.

This represents the Rambam's version ofZevachim, loc. cit. There are, however, other versions of that Mishnah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the intent of this comparison is to imply that the container must be washed until there is no trace of the previous substance, as one would a cup from which he would drink.

To remove the fat absorbed in the container (ibid.).

In the above source, the Rambam explains that this purging follows the same process in which non-kosher food is purged from cooking utensils. Significantly, however, when he mentions the process of purging non-kosher cooking utensils (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 17:3-4), he does not mention the need to rinse them in cold water although he does mention that requirement in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:23.

This would disqualify the sacrifice.

See Halachah 11.

The Radbaz questions this ruling, because seemingly, the fat absorbed in the utensil, becomes notar, "sacrificial food that remained overnight," and it must be destroyed. He offers three possible resolutions:

a) the Rambam is speaking about an instance when the utensil was used on the same day. Hence, the problem does not arise.

b) the issue does not concern notar at all, as explained in the notes to Halachah 12.

c) since the absorbed fat is more than a day old when it becomes notar, its flavor is impaired (notain taam lifgam). Hence, since the prohibition against the absorbed food is merely a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sages did not apply it in this instance, because the situation involves the Temple service.

The Radbaz uses this law as a further support, for his idea that the fat need not be purged from the utensil. For the concept that cooked food which is absorbed in part of a utensil is considered as if it were absorbed in the entire utensil is an established principle.

Similar laws apply with regard to sacrifices cooked in a metal oven, except that the question involves the requirement to be thoroughly washed and rinsed.

48.

As required by Halachah 11.

49.

For the Torah mentions the necessity of washing out or destroying the utensil after sacrificial meat was cooked in it. It does not state that for requirement to apply, the flavor of the meat must be absorbed in the utensil.

50.

I.e., the above question is discussed byZevachim 95b and is left unresolved by our Sages.

51.

I.e., sacrificial meat was either cooked in it or poured in it while warm [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim11:8)].

52.

Our translation is based on the glosses of the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh.

53.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam quotes Zevachim, loc. cit., explaining that this concept is derived as follows. Leviticus 6:21-22 states: "All of the priestly males shall partake of it" and directly afterwards states: "and it shall be washed thoroughly and rinsed in water," implying that the two activities should be performed in direct sequence.

54.

I.e., beyond the time when it is permitted to eat from them.

55.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that there is no point in washing an earthenware utensil thoroughly. Even if one does so, the taste of the sacrificial offering will remain absorbed within it. The Rambam's understanding is that the Torah only required that an earthenware utensil be broken when it was used for cooking a sin-offering, if it was used for cooking other sacrifices, there is no obligation. This difference of opinion relates to a question of greater scope: the difference of opinion mentioned above whether it is necessary to purge the utensils from the food absorbed in them or not.

56.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim10:1), the Rambam mentions that there are some who interpret the Hebrew term as referring to utensils made from marble. He, however, favors the translation given above.

57.

This refers to utensils made from earth that were not fired in a kiln and hence, are not governed by the laws applying to earthenware utensils.

58.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehexplain that since the Torah does not make any specifications with regard to such utensils (as it does with regard to earthenware and metal utensils), there is no obligation with regard to them. He does not mention wood utensils, because wood utensils do not resemble earthenware and metal.

59.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, which states that at the outset, a sin-offering should not be eaten together with other sacrifices.

60.

I.e., it can only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard by males of the priestly family on the day the sacrifice was offered and on the following night.

61.

Zevachim 97a, et al, derives this concept from the fact that the term the prooftext uses for "its meat," bibisarah, literally means "in its meat." Implied is the flavor must be absorbed into the meat of the other food.

62.

Zevachim 98b interprets this verse as teaching that there is a fundamental commonality to all the sacrificial offerings.

63.

A soft, spongy wafer [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:4)].

64.

And only that portion becomes sanctified.

65.

Unless there is a priest who can distinguish whether the taste was imparted or not, we assume that if the food in the more lenient category is 60 times the amount of the food in the more severe category, the taste of the more severe type of food has not been imparted. Otherwise, we must be stringent (Zevachim 97a).

66.

Similarly, if an earthenware vessel was used to cook meat from a sin-offering, according to the Rambam, it must be broken. According to Rashi and others, this applies whenever sacrificial offerings are cooked in an earthenware utensil (Radbaz).

67.

I.e., when meat from sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is cooked together with a larger quantity of meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity, the utensils need not be purged at the time the commandment to partake of the sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is concluded, because that meat is considered insignificant, due to the majority of the other meat. Nevertheless, when the time to partake of the sacrifices of the lesser degree of holiness is concluded, the utensils must be thoroughly washed and rinsed (ibid.). When sacrificial meat is cooked together with ordinary meat, even if its taste is not recognizable, we require that the utensils be thoroughly washed and rinsed, because of the stringencies involving sacrificial food (Radbaz).

68.

And thus it would not be permitted to return it to the Temple Courtyard in its present state [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:6)].

69.

This refers to both ordinary garments and priestly garments with the exception of the cloak. Although it is forbidden to tear priestly garments with a destructive intent (Hilchot K'lei Hamikdash 9:3), tearing it for this purpose is not considered as tearing it with a destructive intent.

70.

As stated in Hilchot Kelim 23:11, when the majority of an impure garment is torn, the remnants are considered as ritually pure.

71.

Leviticus 6:20.

72.

Anything smaller than a handkerchief could not be justifiably called a garment.

73.

And thus one might think that they should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.

74.

I.e., our Sages did not enforce their decree in this instance, because doing so would lead to the nullification of a Scriptural obligation.

75.

Concerning which there is an explicit prohibition not to tear it (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, loc. cit.). Hence the advice given in the previous halachah is not relevant.

76.

A portion of cloth less than three fingerbreadths wide is not considered as a garment. Hence, the laws of ritual impurity do not apply to it. Although in this instance, the cloak is intact and hence, is larger than this measure, since there is no alternative, this provision is allowed.

77.

To purify it.

78.

The Radbaz maintains that this law applies to the meat of a sin-offering, but not the meat of other offerings.

79.

Zevachim 94b explains that this concept is derived from the laws governing the washing of a garment mentioned in Halachah 19.

80.

Zevachim 95a explains that "a utensil" must be able to contain liquids and if has a hole, it is no longer fit for such a purpose. Thus once the utensil has been broken, it is ritually pure. (This represents the Scriptural Law. With regard to Rabbinic Law, seeHilchot Keilim 19:2.)

81.

And if it is broken to a greater extent, it is not considered as a utensil at all and therefore should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.

Why was a utensil broken to the extent that a root could project through it allowed to be brought into the Temple Courtyard? Since our Sages considered it a utensil in certain contexts, they allowed it to be considered a utensil so that the obligation to break utensils in the Temple Courtyard could be fulfilled.

82.

With a large hole (see Hilchot Keilim 11:1-2).

83.

Because it is no longer fit to be serve as a utensil.

84.

Hilchot Keilim 12:1 states that when a metal utensil that had regained ritual purity, because it had been opened, because closed again, it reverts to being ritually impure. This, however, is a Rabbinic safeguard and our Sages did not uphold their decree in this instance so that the practice of purging the utensils could be fulfilled.

Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 9

Halacha 1

13It is a positive commandment to offer the guilt-offerings1 according to its statutes as they are written in the Torah. How are the guilt-offerings brought? Both the definite guilt offerings2 and the conditional guilt-offerings3 should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.4They are skinned,5 the portions offered on the altar6 are removed, salted,7 and tossed on [the altar's] pyre. If one desires to carry [these portions] to the altar in a [sacred] utensil, he may. The remainder of the meat is eaten by males of the priestly family according to [the laws that govern the consumption of] sin-offering.8

Halacha 2

There is a difference with regard to [the laws governing] the acceptance of the blood of the guilt offering brought by a person who had been afflicted withtzara'at,9 as will be explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.10 Nevertheless, all of its other procedures, the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, and its consumption are analogous to that required for other guilt-offerings in all regards.11

Halacha 3

It is a positive commandment to offer all the peace-offerings12 as commanded. There are four types: one is the communal peace-offerings13 and the [other] three are individual peace offerings.14

Halacha 4

What is the procedure for bringing the communal peace offerings? [The sacrificial lambs] should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.15 They are skinned,16 the portions offered on the altar17 are removed, salted,18 and brought to be consumed by [the altar's] pyre. The remainder [of the meat] is eaten by males of the priestly family according to [the laws that govern the consumption of] sin-offering and a guilt-offering, for these [sacrifices] are also sacrifices of the most sacred order, as we explained.19

Halacha 5

There are three types of individual peace-offerings:

a) a peace-offering that is brought without bread, e.g., the festive peace-offering20 or the peace-offering of celebration,21 they are called peace-offerings;

b) peace-offerings brought with bread because of a vow or a pleadge;22 these are called thanksgiving offerings and the bread is called the bread of the thanksgiving offering;

c) the peace-offering brought by a nazirite on the day he completes his nazirite vow; this offering is accompanied by bread and is called the nazirite's ram.23

Halacha 6

What is procedure for bringing these three [types of offerings]? [The sacrificial animals] should be slaughtered and their blood should be sprinkled on the altar, as we explained.24 They are skinned25 and the portions offered on the altar26 are removed. Afterwards, the meat is cut up and the breast and the right thigh are set aside.27 The portions to be offered together with the breast and the thigh are placed on the hands of the owners. A priest places his hands below the hands of the owner and performs tenufah28 with all these items "before God," to the east [of the Altar].29 Whenever there is a requirement for tenufah, it is performed to the east [of the Altar].

Halacha 7

How is tenufah performed? [The items] are taken [to each of the directions]30and returned, lifted up and brought low.31 If the sacrifice was a thanksgiving offering, one should be taken one from each [of the four] groups of ten breads that are brought with it32 and place it together with the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar. Tenufah should be performed with all of these items upon the owner's hands, as explained.33

Halacha 8

How are they placed on the owner's hands? The fats are placed on the owner's hands with the breast and the thigh above them. The two kidneys and the lobe of the liver are placed above them and if [the offering includes] bread, it is placed above them34and tenufah is performed with all these items.

Halacha 9

If the sacrifice was a nazirite's ram, [the priest] should remove the portions to be offered on the altar, set aside the breast and the thigh, and cook the remainder of the ram in the Women's Courtyard.35 The priest takes the cooked foreleg from the ram36 and one from each [of the two] groups of ten breads that are brought with it,37 together with the breast, the thigh, and the portions offered on the altar and places everything on the nazirite's hands. The priest places his hands under the owner's hands and moves all [items] as we described.38

Halacha 10

What is meant by the breast? The portion [of the animal's body] that faces the ground that extends from the neck until the belly. Two ribs on either side should be cut off [and given to the priest] together with it. What is meant by the foreleg? The portion from the upper-joint until the ankle joint; two limbs, one connected with the other.39 The foreleg that is mentioned refers to the right foreleg. The corresponding portion in the rear leg is the thigh that is referred to universally.

Halacha 11

After tenufah is performed with [these portions], they are offered on the pyre of the altar except for the breast and the thigh that are eaten by the priests,40as [Leviticus 7:34] states: "but the breast with which tenufah was performed and the thigh that was lifted up...." The remainder of the peace-offerings are consumed by the owner.41 The priests do not acquire the breast and the thigh until after the portions to be offered on the altar were placed on its pyre.42

Halacha 12

Similarly, the bread with which tenufah was performed from the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram and the cooked foreleg are eaten by the priests. The remainder of the bread and the remainder of the meat are eaten by the owner. The bread with which tenufah was performed together with the breast and the thigh is referred to43 as "the elevated portion from the thanksgiving offering." The cooked foreleg together with the breast and the thigh and the bread with which tenufah was performed are referred to as "the elevated portion from the nazirite's ram."

Halacha 13

There is an unresolved doubt whether the bread from the elevated portion of the thanksgiving offering44 is categorized as terumah or not.45 Therefore one is not liable for death,46 nor to repay an additional fifth, [as one is when partaking of] terumah. Nor is a mixture of it subject to the laws of dimua47 as is a mixture of terumah.48

Halacha 14

If the person bringing the thanksgiving offering was a priest, the remainder of the bread may be eaten by the owner like a thanksgiving offering brought by an Israelite. For the bread that accompanies a thanksgiving offering or a nazrite's ram is not called a meal offering.49

Halacha 15

When two people bring a peace-offering in partnership, one should performtenufah with the other's permission.50 Even if there are 100 [partners], one should perform tenufah for the sake of all of them. This does not apply with regard to semichah.51

Halacha 16

When a woman is the one bringing a sacrifice, she does not perform tenufahwith it. The priest must perform that rite,52 for the sacrifice requires thattenufah be performed with it and a woman is unacceptable to perform that rite. A woman never performs tenufah except in two instances: a sotah53and a female nazirite, as we explained.54 Tenufah should always be performed before [the elements of the sacrifice] are brought close to the altar.55

Halacha 17

What is meant by the bread that is brought together with the thanksgiving offering? One should take 20 isaronim56 of fine flour. He should make tenisaronim leavened and ten unleavened. The ten that are made leaven should be made into ten loaves.

Halacha 18

How are they made leavened? He should bring enough yeast to cause the dough to leaven and place it in the measure of an isaron. He then fills the measure. Even though ultimately, [the measure] will be lacking or excessive because of the yeast,57 for at times [the yeast] will be thick and hard58 and at times it will be soft [and inflated],59 we are concerned only with its measure at the present time. Hence he should measure full isaronim.

From the ten isaronim for the unleavened bread, he should make 30 loaves of the same size, ten of each [of the following three] types: ten loaves baked in an oven, ten loaves of flat-cakes, and ten loaves of fried cakes.60

Halacha 19

How are the fried cakes prepared? [The cakes] should be scalded with boiling water.61 Then they should be baked slightly and then fried in oil in a roasting pot or the like, like doughnuts and fried. A large amount of oil is used for them. This is the deepfrying process mentioned in all places.

Halacha 20

How much oil is used to prepare these 30 loaves?62 Half a log of oil.63 This measure is a halachah communicated to Moses from Sinai. A fourth is used for the fried doughballs, an eighth for the loaves [baked in the oven], and an eighth for the wafers.64

Halacha 21

With regard to the loaves [that are baked]: their flour should saturate in the eighth [of a log]. Afterwards, they should be kneaded and baked. The oil should be poured over the wafers after they have been baked.

The priest takes four loaves from the entire [mixture], one of each type, as [Leviticus 7:14] states: "One from each [type], a sacrifice."

Halacha 22

When one made [only] four loaves for the bread for the thanksgiving offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. [The Torah] mentions 40 only as [the optimum way of fulfilling] the mitzvah. [This applies] provided he separates a challahfrom each of the types of sacrifices while they are still dough.65 For a piece of bread may not be separated [as a sacrificial portion].66 [This is implied by the prooftext:] "One from each [type], a sacrifice," that the priest should not receive a portion.

Halacha 23

What is meant by the bread that is brought together with the nazirite's ram? He should take six and two thirds isaronim of flour and make 20 equal sized loaves from them. They must all be unleavened bread.67 Ten should be wafers with oil poured over them and ten loaves whose flour was saturated in oil. The entire amount should be baked in an oven. A fourth [of a log] of oil is used for them.68 This measure is a halachah communicated to Moses at Sinai. The priest takes two of the loaves, one from each type.69

Halacha 24

Each of the two types of bread [brought by] a Nazirite and the four types of bread brought for the thanksgiving offering is an absolute necessity.70 The bread for both these offerings is prepared outside the Temple Courtyard.71

Halacha 25

How are the firstborn, tithe, and Paschal sacrifices offered? After their blood is poured on the altar as we explained,72 they are skinned, the portions offered on the altar are removed,73 salted, and placed on [the altar's] pyre.74 The remainder of the meat of the firstborn offering is eaten by the priests. The remainder of the meat of the tithe sacrifice is eaten by the owner. The remainder of the meat of the Paschal sacrifice is eaten by those enumerated upon it according to its laws, as will be explained in Hilchot [Korban] Pesach.

FOOTNOTES

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 65) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 140) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 9, for a description of the transgressions for which these sacrifices are brought.

See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.

For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).

For Leviticus 7:7 establishes an equation between the guilt-offering and the sin-offering. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 3.

A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy, that afflicts people, their clothes, and their homes because of spiritual inadequacies, in particular speaking lashon hara, uncomplimentary gossip (the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at).

Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

This sacrifice is given as an example of one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis taught by Rabbi Yishmael (Sifra 1:4), It describes an entity (the guilt offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at) that was once included in a general category (all guilt offerings), was singled out with regard to a new stipulation (that its blood be received in a different manner). Hence the laws that apply to that general category apply to it only because there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 14:13) that returns it to the general category.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 66) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 141) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The two lambs offered on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:19).

The Radbaz emphasizes that there is a difference between peace-offerings and other sacrifices. Most of the peace-offerings are brought voluntarily, while most of the other offerings are brought due to an obligation.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.

For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).

Chapter 1, Halachah 17; Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

Brought when making the festive pilgrimages (Hilchot Chagigah 1:1).

Additional peace-offerings brought at the time of the festive pilgrimages (ibid.).

The term "vow" refers to a promise to bring a sacrifice. The term "pledge" refers to a promise to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice (Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).

See Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.

Ultimately, they will be given to the priests as stated in Halachah 12.

As explained in the following halachah.

Our translation is based on Rashi, Menachot61a. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:6), the Rambam writes: "With regard to the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at..., it is written (Leviticus 14:12): 'And tenufah should be performed with them before God.' A tradition has been received interpreting 'before God' as meaning 'in the east.'

Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this to mean that even the area to the east of the altar is considered as "before God," but the area to the west certainly warrants that description. The Rambam does not accept this understanding. His interpretation is question by the Kessef Mishneh and others, for the Holy of Holies was to the west of the altar. Seemingly, the closer one comes to it, the more one is "before God."

The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:5). This is also the perspective of Rashi (Menachot 62a) based on our Sages' statements that this action is intended to prevent destructive winds.

This is intended to prevent harmful dews (ibid.).

See Halachot 17-22 for a description of the breads which would accompany the thanksgiving offering.

In the previous halachah.

In this way, the bread will not be spoiled through excessive contact with the meat (Radbaz). In his gloss (based on Menachot61b), he cites exegetical reasons why the other items are placed in the order mentioned.

More particularly, as mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8, there was a chamber in the southeast portion of the Women's Courtyard set aside for this purpose.

As commanded by Numbers 6:19. The Radbaz explains that it would appear that the foreleg would be placed above the other portions of the sacrifice, but below the bread.

See Halachah 23.

In the previous two halachot.

An animal's foreleg is comprised of three bones. According to the Rambam, the lower two are given to the priest. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 10:4). Others maintain the upper two should be given to the priest.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

And any - both male and female - with whom he desires to share the meat.

Pesachim 59b derives this law from the order in which the concepts are stated in the Torah. Similarly, the owner may not partake of his portion until that time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:7).

See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:21;Hilchot Bikkurim 1:15.

There is, however, no such doubt with regard to the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram (Radbaz).

For Leviticus 7:14 uses the word terumahwhen describing this offering. Nevertheless, since we find exclusions with regard to penalties associated with terumah in other verses, it is possible that they do not apply with regard to these breads. Accordingly,Menachot 77b leaves the matter unresolved.

Hilchot Terumot 6:6.