Mishneh Torah — Sacrifices Rendered Unfit הלכות פסולי המוקדשין, Chapter 14

אֵין הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד. אֲבָל מַחֲשֶׁבֶת בַּעַל הַקָּרְבָּן אֵינָהּ מוֹעֶלֶת כְּלוּם. אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַעְנוּ הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁפִּגְּלוּ וְהָיְתָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הָעוֹבֵד נְכוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:

[With regard to the intent that could disqualify a sacrifice:] The only intent that is significant is that of the person performing the Temple service. The intent of the person bringing the sacrifice is of no consequence. 2:22. Even when we heard that the owner had an intent which would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, 22:7 states that even if the owner "sits and thinks [unacceptable intents] the entire day," the sacrifice is not disqualified. if the person performing the Temple service had the proper intent, the sacrifice is acceptable.

וְאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וּבַדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וּבְמָקוֹם רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי כֵּיצַד. אֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁקִּבֵּל הַדָּם. אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ. אוֹ זָרַק. וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הָעֲבוֹדָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. לֹא פָּסַל בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וְאוֹתוֹ הַדָּם שֶׁקִּבֵּל אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק מִקְצָתוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. וְאִם נִשְׁאַר דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ יַחְזֹר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה וִיקַבֵּל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נְכוֹנָה. אֲבָל אִם חָשַׁב הַפָּסוּל בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה פָּסַל בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה בִּפְסוּלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. יֵשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁאִם נַעֲשׂוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁרִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם קִבֵּל הַדָּם כֹּהֵן זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. אוֹ הוֹלִיכוֹ. אוֹ זְרָקוֹ. פָּסַל הַזֶּבַח כְּאִלּוּ עֲשָׂאָהוּ לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְחָזַר הַכָּשֵׁר וְקִבֵּל וְזָרַק כְּבָר נִפְסַל הַזֶּבַח. וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פָּסַל אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

The intent of [the person performing sacrificial service] is significant only when he is fit to perform this service, he is performing service with an entity fit for service, and is doing so in a place fit for service.What is implied? If a person who is unfit for Temple service receives the blood, brings it to the altar, or casts it on the altar and at the time he is performing this service has an unacceptable intent with regard to place or time, his intent does not disqualify the sacrifice, because he is not fit to perform Temple service. 3:1)]. The blood that he received or a portion that remained after he cast some [on the altar] should be poured into the drainage canal. If "the blood of the soul" remains [within the animal], a person who is fit to perform Temple service should receive it with a proper intent.If, however, a person who is unfit for Temple service has a disqualifying intent at the time he slaughters [the animal], he disqualifies it with his intent, because ritual slaughter is acceptable if performed by an unfit person, as explained.They are sacrifices that are acceptable if they are offered for an intent other than specified originally, as will be explained. Therefore, [in those instances,] if a priest who is not fit for Temple service receives the blood, carries it, or casts it on the altar, he disqualifies the sacrifice as if he offered it for the desired intent in which instance, it would be disqualified. Even if "the blood of the soul" remains and it was received by an acceptable [priest] and cast on the altar, the sacrifice was already disqualified. It was not disqualified because it was offered for a different purpose, but because [service] was performed by someone unfit for service, as we explained. explains that the Rambam is implying that since the sacrifice is acceptable in these instances, even though in other instances, such a change in intent would disqualify it, a person who is not fit for Temple service is considered just like one who is. His intent is significant and could disqualify the sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions on what the Rambam bases this principle.

בְּדָבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה כֵּיצַד. מִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית לִשְׁמָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים וְאֵין הַשְּׂעוֹרִים דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לִשְׁאָר קָרְבָּנוֹת. וְכֵן הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת וְהַלְּבוֹנָה עָלֶיהָ קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה אֵין מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard] to "performing service with an entity fit for service"? [For example,] if a handful was taken from the meal-offering of the omer without the proper intent, it is considered as if it was taken with the proper intent and the remnants are eaten. [The rationale is that] it is offered from barley and barley is not a substance fit for other offerings. offering is unfit to be used for other meal-offerings. Hence even if one had the intent to offer it as another type of offering, that intent is of no consequence. (The meal-offering of a sotah is also brought from barley, but there are fundamental differences between it and the omer offering.)The Rambam's understanding is based on his understanding of Menachot 5b which states that the omer offering is a chidush, something new and different than other meal-offerings, for it is from barley, as explained. The Ra'avad follows a different version of the text which states that the omer offering is different, because it is brought from chadash, wheat from the new harvest.There is an advantage to the Ra'avad's understanding, because - as he explains - according to the Rambam, the same rationale could seemingly be used with regard to the sotah offering mentioned in the second clause of the halachah. There would be no necessity to mention frankincense. The Kessef Mishneh favors the Rambam's version and explains that by mentioning frankincense, our Sages (and the Rambam) chose one of two possible answers. They could also have stated that it is unfit to be used for other offerings.Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the meal-offering of envy while frankincense was on it, before the frankincense was removed, there is no consequence to that intent, because [it does not involve] an entity fit for service. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה כֵּיצַד. מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנִּפְגַּם וְחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. לֹא פָּסַל הַזֶּבַח בְּמַחְשָׁבָה זוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַמָּקוֹם עַתָּה רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה. קָמַץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה בַּחוּץ וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה זוֹ כְּלוּם:

What is meant [by the concept that these principles apply only with regard to "performing service] in a place fit for service"? When the altar has become damaged and [the priest offering the sacrifice] had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the sacrifice was to be offered or eaten], he did not disqualify the sacrifice with this intent, because the place was not fit for Temple service at that time.If one took a handful of flour from a meal-offering outside the Temple Courtyard and had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to the time or place [the meal-offering was to be offered or eaten] while taking the handful, the intent is of no consequence.

אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וּרְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה. הַדָּם וְהָאֵימוּרִין וּבְשַׂר הָעוֹלָה וְהַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה מִן הַמְּנָחוֹת הַנִּקְמָצוֹת:

These are elements of sacrificial [animals] that are not fit to be eaten, but are fit to be offered on the altar's pyre:). its blood, its eimorim, 1:18). the meat of a burnt-offering, and the handful of meal and the frankincense from the meal-offerings from which such a handful is removed.

וְאֵלּוּ רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה. הַבָּשָׂר הַנֶּאֱכָל מִכָּל הַזְּבָחִים בֵּין הַנֶּאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים בֵּין הַנֶּאֱכָל לְכָל אָדָם. וּשְׁיָרֵי הַמְּנָחוֹת. וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים:

These are the elements that are fit to be eaten and are not fit to be offered on the altar: the meat that is eaten from any of the sacrifices, whether eaten by the priests or by all other people, the remainder of the meal-offering, the two breads [offered on Shavuot], and the showbread.

וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לֹא לַאֲכִילָה וְלֹא לְהַקְטָרָה. בְּשַׂר חַטָּאת הַנִּשְׂרֶפֶת. וְהָעוֹר שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה כֻּלּוֹ חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה שֶׁהוּא [רָאוּי] לַאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל הַמּוּרְאָה וְהוּא הַקְּרוּם הַדַּק הַדָּבֵק בָּעוֹר וּמַבְדִּיל בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין הַבָּשָׂר אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה. וְכֵן הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם. וְהַנּוֹצָה שֶׁל עוֹף וְהַצִּפָּרְנַיִם וְהַחַרְטֹם שֶׁלּוֹ וְרָאשֵׁי אֲגַפַּיִים וְרֹאשׁ הַזָּנָב. אֲפִלּוּ מְקוֹמוֹת הָרַכִּים מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבוּקִים בַּבָּשָׂר שֶׁאִלּוּ יֵחָתְכוּ מִן הַחַי יְבַצְבֵּץ הַדָּם וְיֵצֵא הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָן חֲשׁוּבִין נִקְרָאִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה לְעִנְיַן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. וְכֵן הַמָּרָק וְהַתַּבְלִין וְהַשָּׁלִיל וְהַשִּׁלְיָא וּבֵיצַת הָעוֹף וְהַבָּשָׂר שֶׁפּוֹלַטְתּוֹ הַסַּכִּין בִּשְׁעַת הֶפְשֵׁט וְיִשָּׁאֵר מֻדְבָּק בָּעוֹר וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אָלָל. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֵינָן חֲשׁוּבִין לְעִנְיָן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וַהֲרֵי הֵן כְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה:

These are the elements that are neither fit to be eaten, nor fit to be offered on the altar's pyre: the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt [outside the Temple Courtyard], 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices. the entire hide of an animal with the exception of the hide of the fat-tail which is fit to be eaten, [and] the murah, the thin membrane that clings to the hide and separates between it and the meat; it is not fit to be eaten. [This category] also [includes] the bones, the giddim, 3:4), the Rambam explains that this is a general term referring to blood vessels, nerves, and sinews. the horns, and the hoofs, the feathers 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed. [The Mishnah there uses the term mourah. The spelling of that term is important, for some spell it in the same way as a term the Rambam translates as referring to one of a fowl's stomachs.] of a fowl, its nails, its beak, the tips of its wings, and the end of its tail. Even with regard to the soft places of the above which cleave to the flesh and would cause bleeding if cut off from a living animal, since they are not important, they are considered as an entity that is not fit to be eaten with regard to the sacrifices. 4:18, 9:7; Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 1:7. This also applies to the sauce [in which a sacrifice is cooked], the spices [with which it is cooked], a fetus, a placenta, the egg of a fowl, and meat that slipped by the knife at the time the animal was skinned and remains cleaving to the hide; it is called the allal. All of the above are not significant with regard to an intent [that could disqualify] sacrifices. They are considered as a matter that is not fit to be eaten.

וּמְחַשְּׁבִין עַל דָּבָר הָעוֹמֵד לְאִבּוּד אוֹ עַל דָּבָר הָעוֹמֵד לִשְׂרֵפָה. הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאוֹתָן אַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּן. לֶאֱכל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לַאֲכִילָה אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה. בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. כֵּיצַד. חִשֵּׁב לִשְׁתּוֹת מִדַּם הַזֶּבַח אוֹ לֶאֱכל מֵאֵימוּרָיו אוֹ מִן הַקֹּמֶץ וּמִן הַלְּבוֹנָה. בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר מִבְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח אוֹ מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַמִּנְחָה בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר. הֲרֵי הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר מִן הָעוֹר וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַמָּרָק אוֹ הָאָלָל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל מִפָּרִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּשֵׁרִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

A [disqualifying] intent is significant [even though] it concerns an entity that ultimately will be destroyed or that will ultimately be burnt.If, while performing any or all of the four [significant] services, one has a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of an entity that is not usually eaten or to offer on the altar's pyre an entity that is not usually offered there, the sacrifice is acceptable.What is implied? One thought to drink the blood of a sacrifice or partake of its eimorim or of the handful of meal or the frankincense [taken from a meal offering] outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable. [This ruling also applies] if one had the intent of offering the meat of the sacrifice or what remains of the meal-offering outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day.Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of or to offer on the altar's pyre the hide [of a sacrificial animal], its bones, giddim, sauce, allal, or the like, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similarly, if one had the intent to partake of the bulls or the goats that are burnt, 7:2-5 which describes the burning of these sacrifices. outside [Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, the sacrifice is acceptable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

חִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ הַטְּמֵאִים אוֹ הַפְּסוּלִין מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה אוֹ שֶׁיַּקְטִירוּ הַטְּמֵאִים אוֹ הַפְּסוּלִין מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה חוּץ לִזְמַן אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה. הַזֶּבַח פִּגּוּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. חוּץ לִמְקוֹם אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

If one had the intent that [other] persons who are impure or who are disqualified shall partake of an entity that is fit to be eaten or that these persons should offer an entity that is fit to be offered on the altar's pyre outside of the set times for it to be eaten or offered, the sacrifice is piggul, notes that, as stated in the following halachah, our Sages considered an animal's consumption as "eating." Hence consumption by such individuals will certainly fall into that category. as we explained. If he [had the intent that they partake of it or offer it] outside the places designated for eating and offering, the sacrifice is unacceptable, but not piggul. applies only when the disqualifying intent applies to time alone.

אֵין אֲכִילָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת. וְלֹא הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הַמְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת אַחַר זְמַן אֲכִילָה וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת אַחַר זְמַן הַקְטָרָה. הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין. וְאִם הוֹצִיאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה וְאָמַר שֶׁיֹּאכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְתֹאכַל הָאֵשׁ חֲצִי זַיִת. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין לְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה אֶחָד הוּא. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּאוֹתָהּ הַמַּחְשָׁבָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְשֶׁתֹּאכַל בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה כַּחֲצִי זַיִת. בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין שֶׁשֵּׁם אֲכִילָה אֶחָד הוּא. חִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל כְּזַיִת בְּיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הֲרֵי זֶה מִצְטָרֵף. חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת זְבִיחָה לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּבִשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה לֶאֱכל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם בֵּין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת בִּשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה וְעַל כְּזַיִת בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָה. שֶׁאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת וַהֲרֵי הֵן כָּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת. חִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַקֹּמֶץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַלְּבוֹנָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. שֶׁהַלְּבוֹנָה עִם הַקֹּמֶץ לַמִּנְחָה כְּאֵימוּרִין לְזֶבַח. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חִשֵּׁב לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מִן הַלְּבוֹנָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר. אֶחָד הַמְחַשֵּׁב לִזְרֹק דַּם הַזֶּבַח כֻּלּוֹ בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִזְרֹק מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ בַּחוּץ אוֹ לְמָחָר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל כְּדֵי הַזָּיָה מִן הַדָּם פָּסַל:

The concept of eating does not apply to a substance smaller than an olive, nor does the concept of offering an entity on the altar's pyre apply to a substance smaller than an olive.. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15. Therefore if a person had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to partake of less than an olive size portion of an entity fit to be eaten or to offer less than an olive-sized portion of an entity fit to be offered, the sacrifice is acceptable.If he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] and offer half an olive-sized portion outside [the appropriate place] or he had the intent to eat half of an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for eating and offer half an olive-sized portion after [the appropriate] time for offering, the sacrifice is acceptable. [The rationale is that] eating and offering are not combined [to be considered as a single activity]. If, however, he used the wording achilah, saying: "Half an olive-sized portion should be eaten and half an olive-sized portion consumed by [the altar's] fire," the [two halves] are combined, for the wording of achilah is one.If one had a [disqualifying] intent to eat or offer half an olive-sized portion and then in the same thought had an intent concerning another half of an olive-sized portion, the two can be combined. If one had a [disqualifying] intent - whether concerning the place or the time - to eat half of an olive-sized portion and that an animal or beast should eat half of an olive-sized portion, 31b refers to II Kings 9:10 as support for the concept that consumption by animals can be termed achilah. they can be combined because both are called eating.If one had a [disqualifying] intent that two people partake of the sacrifice, the two are combined. Even though one intended to partake of an olive-sized portion in longer than the time it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread,, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. the eating is combined.). If at the time of slaughter, he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion and at the time of casting [the blood on the altar], he had a [disqualifying] intent to eat half an olive-sized portion, the two intents - whether concerning the place or the time - are combined. Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning an olive-sized portion suggests amending the text to read "half an olive-sized portion" and in that way fit the context of the entire halachah. The notes to the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah, however, indicate that all of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah speak of an olive-sized portion. at the time he received [the blood] and [such an intent] concerning an olive-sized. Both the mitzvot and the prohibitions involving eating center on partaking of an olive-sized portion of food. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:1; Hilchot Terumot 10:2, et al. This measure is also of consequence with regard to offering substances on the altar as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 15. portion while bringing [it to the altar, they are combined]. For all the four services [mentioned above] are combined and can be considered as a single service.If one had a [disqualifying] intent regarding offering half an olive-sized portion of the handful [of meal] and [a similar intent] regarding half an olive-sized portion of the frankincense, notes that in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the Rambam writes that two grains of frankincense are sufficient for a meal-offering to be considered acceptable. Seemingly, then, that amount should also be enough to disqualify such an offering. they are combined. For with regard to the meal-offering, the frankincense and the handful [of meal] are considered like the eimorim for an animal sacrifice. Therefore, if one had the intent to offer an olive-sized portion of frankincense at an improper time, [the meal-offering] is considered piggul, as we explained.Whether one had the intent to cast all [of an animal's] blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day or had the intent to cast [only] a portion of its blood outside [the Temple Courtyard] or on the following day, since he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning the amount of blood sufficient to present on the altar, [the sacrifice] is disqualified.