Mishneh Torah — Sacrifices Rendered Unfit הלכות פסולי המוקדשין, Chapter 12

שְׁתֵי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וְעֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה שֶׁהוֹסִיף בְּמִדָּתָן אוֹ חִסֵּר כָּל שֶׁהוּא פְּסוּלוֹת:

If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot], 8:1. the showbread, 5:1. and the omer that is waved, 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5. they are disqualified.

חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דַּם הַזֶּבַח פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דַּם הַזֶּבַח כְּשֵׁרִין:

With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering 9:17-22. and the cakes of a nazirite:23. that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דָּמָן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָן כְּשֵׁרִים:

Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if they lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.

וְכֵן שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטְרוּ הַבְּזִיכִין פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁהֻקְטְרוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:

And with regard to the showbread, if they lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre, it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were already placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.

אֲבָל הַנְּסָכִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַזֶּבַח בֵּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב כְּשֵׁרִים. וְיָבִיא נְסָכִים אֲחֵרִים לְמַלְּאוֹתָן:

With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].

נְסָכִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת וְנִפְסַל הַזֶּבַח. אִם נִפְסַל בִּשְׁחִיטָה לֹא קָדְשׁוּ הַנְּסָכִים לִקָּרֵב. נִפְסַל מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ קָדְשׁוּ הַנְּסָכִים לִקָּרֵב. שֶׁאֵין הַנְּסָכִים מִתְקַדְּשִׁים לִקָּרֵב אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַזֶּבַח. וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶן. אִם הָיָה שָׁם זֶבַח אַחַר זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה יִקָּרְבוּ עִמּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה שָׁם זֶבַח אַחַר זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נַעֲשׂוּ כְּמִי שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ בְּלִינָה וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקָרְבַּן צִבּוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֵּב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל בְּקָרְבַּן יָחִיד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ עִם זֶבַח אַחֵר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֶלָּא מַנִּיחָן עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ:

[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered. If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note. the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner]. 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]? If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire. 7:4).When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them. [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices. Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.

וְכָל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן יִקָּרְבוּ נִסְכֵּיהֶם:

Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated, the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.

וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ. וְהַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. אִם הֱבִיאָן לְאַחַר שֶׁכִּפֵּר בְּתוֹדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא כִּפֵּר בָּהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא וַחֲלִיפָתָהּ אוֹ הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ אוֹ הִיא וּתְמוּרָתָהּ. עוֹמֶדֶת. הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן צְרִיכִין לֶחֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּנוֹדֵר תּוֹדָה. אֲבָל תּוֹדַת נְדָבָה חֲלִיפָתָהּ וּתְמוּרָתָהּ טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וּוְלָדָהּ אֵינוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם. בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה:

[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it. If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.When does the above apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering. When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them]. explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transferred, Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. Its offspring does not require bread. 4:1. [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering. maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.

הִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. שְׁלִישִׁית טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית. שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. רִאשׁוֹנָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵינָן טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם:

[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it. The third one, however, requires bread.If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it. The first one, however, requires bread. If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מָעוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ תּוֹדָה בְּלַחְמָהּ. וְהַשְּׁאָר יָבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה. וְאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם אֲבָל טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת. יָבִיא בַּמָּעוֹת תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת. יָבִיא מִן הַמָּעוֹת תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ. וְזוֹ הַתּוֹדָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה תִּקָּרֵב בְּלֹא לֶחֶם:

[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering, but it does not require bread. It does, however, require accompanying offerings.Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money. Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.

הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹדָה וַהֲרֵי זֶה לַחְמָהּ. אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר. אָבְדָה הַתּוֹדָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַלֶּחֶם בָּא בִּגְלַל הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵין הַתּוֹדָה בָּאָה בִּגְלַל הַלֶּחֶם:

[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread." If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering. [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.

הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְנוֹתְרוּ מֵבִיא בָּהֶן לֶחֶם. הִפְרִישׁ לַלֶּחֶם וְהוֹתִיר אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה:

When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering. 80a).

הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹדָה וְנִתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא. הֲרֵי זוֹ הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה שֶׁאִם יָבִיא עִמָּהּ לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא הַתְּמוּרָה הִיא. וְאִם הֱבִיאָהּ בְּלֹא לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא הַתּוֹדָה הִיא. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּקָּרֵב זוֹ לְעוֹלָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם:

[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering," it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred. [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering. Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.

תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּפְרְסָה חַלָּה מֵחַלּוֹתֶיהָ כֻּלָּן פְּסוּלוֹת. יָצָאת הַחַלָּה אוֹ נִטְמְאָה. שְׁאָר הַחַלּוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת. נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה הַתּוֹדָה. מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט נִפְרַס אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא. הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל. וְהַלֶּחֶם כֻּלּוֹ פָּסוּל וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא. נִזְרַק הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִפְרַס מִקְצָת הַלֶּחֶם אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא. תּוֹרֵם מִן הַשָּׁלֵם עַל הַפָּרוּס וּמִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וּמִמַּה שֶּׁבִּפְנִים עַל שֶׁבַּחוּץ:

When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified. If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure, 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic. the remainder of the breads are acceptable.If the bread was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified. The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow. 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves 9:12, 17-18). for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.

תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת. לֹא קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים. וְאִם אָמַר יִקָּדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים מוֹשֵׁךְ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים וּמֵרִים מֵהֶם אַחַת מִכָּל קָרְבָּן. וְהָאַרְבָּעִים הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִפָּדוּ וְיֵצְאוּ לְחֻלִּין:

When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated. If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה וְהָיָה לַחְמָהּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פַּגִי לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ לְפָנִים:

When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)]. the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.

שְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְמוּ פְּנֵי הַלֶּחֶם בַּתַּנּוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרְמוּ כֻּלָּן חוּץ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן. לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם:

If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.

שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. נִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ טְרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּאֵיל נָזִיר עִם הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁלּוֹ:

If he slaughtered [the animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] and its slaughter was disqualified because of an improper intent concerning the time or the place [where the sacrifice will be offered or eaten] the bread is sanctified. If [the animal] is discovered to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it was tereifah, or it was slaughtered with an improper intent, states that for the bread to be consecrated, the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering. the bread is not consecrated. These laws also apply with regard to the ram brought by a nazirite.