Mishneh Torah — Sacrifices Rendered Unfit הלכות פסולי המוקדשין, Chapter 16

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת מַחֲשֶׁבֶת המָּקוֹם הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הַקָּרְבָּן פִּגּוּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן מַחֲשָׁבָה אַחֶרֶת. אֲבָל אִם עֵרֵב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּפֶסַח וּבְחַטָּאת עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. כֵּיצַד. שָׁחַט וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ וְזָרַק וּמַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וּבִשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת הָיְתָה מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה. אוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם מַחֲשָׁבָה כְּלָל בִּשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת. הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא פָּסוּל בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. אֵין זֶה פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא פָּסוּל. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּעוֹפוֹת וּבִמְנָחוֹת. אֵין שָׁם פִּגּוּל אֶלָּא קָרְבָּן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בְּסוֹף וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּקָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסָלִין בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם:

We have already explained that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place [a sacrifice will be offered or eaten] while performing one of the four [specified] services, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time [the sacrifice would be offered or eaten], it is piggul.When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the intent concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place - or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice. - was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul., he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.What is implied? If one slaughtered, received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time or [even if] he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time while [perfoming] one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, [the sacrifice] was piggul. If, however, one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place or slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.. In Zevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast it [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, but received [the blood], brought it [to the altar], and cast [on the altar] for a different purpose, [the sacrifice] is not piggul, merely disqualified.The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings. The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a [disqualifying] intent concerning place combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.

הַמְחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת אוֹ בְּכֻלָּם לֶאֱכל כְּזַיִת מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה בַּחוּץ וּכְזַיִת לְמָחָר. אוֹ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר וּכְזַיִת בַּחוּץ. אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר. אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְכֵן אִם עֵרֵב הַמַּחְשָׁבָה בְּהַקְטָרָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and an olive-sized portion on the following day;an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten],half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten] and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, orhalf an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside [the limits of where it may be eaten], the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering [a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice] is disqualified, but not piggul.

חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְלֶאֱכל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. בֵּין שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת כְּזַיִת בֵּין שֶׁאִחֵר אוֹתָהּ. שֶׁאֵין חֲצִי זַיִת חָשׁוּב אֵצֶל כְּזַיִת:

If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [This applies] whether the [disqualifying] intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. [The rationale is that] half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.

חִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְעַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְחָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב עַל כְּזַיִת חֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְחֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:

If he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a [disqualifying] intent concerning place with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, and then a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to [another] half an olive-sized portion, [the sacrifice] is piggul. 31a) states lyrically: "The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.".Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a [disqualifying] intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a [disqualifying] intent concerning place, [the sacrifice] is piggul.

חִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְמַעְלָה אוֹ עַל הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לְתִתָּם לְמַטָּה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּמַחְשָׁבוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן פּוֹסְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְעֵרֵב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לְבַדָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion [of the altar] on the upper portion [of the altar] or he had an intent to present [blood] that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion [of the altar] or the like, [these] intents that do not disqualify [a sacrifice], as explained; if one combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the sacrifice] is piggul.. If he combined a [disqualifying] intent concerning place alone, notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is not piggul. [the sacrifice] is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

חִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַעְלָה לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַטָּה. אוֹ עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַטָּה לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַעְלָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן לְתִתּוֹ לְמָחָר בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל. אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הוֹאִיל וְשִׁנָּה מְקוֹם נְתִינַת הַדָּם בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּהֲלָכוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נִתַּן בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָמָּה לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה פִּגּוּל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה זוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב לִתֵּן הַדָּם שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לְמָחָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַדָּם הַנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר אֵינוֹ מַתִּיר הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל זְרִיקָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה אִם חִשֵּׁב לִתְּנָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ לֹא פִּגֵּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר וְחִשֵּׁב בְּזֶבַח זֶה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,[an intent] to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion [of the altar] on the lower portion on the following day,he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, orhe had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, [the sacrifice] is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but is not piggul. explains that the Ra'avad's objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.Since we have explained in these halachot that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is [the sacrifice] not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? [The rationale is that] even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained. [There is a general principle:] In any situation where blood is cast upon [the altar, but it] does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time [after the prescribed time], it is not piggul. Therefore, [in the circumstances mentioned above,] if one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.

חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה. אוֹ שֶׁחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל עַד שֶׁיְּחַשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בְּכָל הַמַּתִּיר שֶׁהוּא הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה. בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצַת הַקֹּמֶץ וְלִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נְתִינַת שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּכְלִי. אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָתָן אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָתָן:

If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took [the handful of flour from a meal-offering], but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took [the handful of flour, the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [An offering becomes piggul] only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all [the substances which] cause it to be permitted [to be eaten], i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought [to the altar], or cast [upon its pyre].

חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרַת הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁיַּקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְמָחָר אֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל שֶׁאֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה. וְכֵן אִם הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל שְׁיָרִים לְמָחָר הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְטִיר אֶת הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיַּקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה וְחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּשְׁטָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בְּכָל הַמִּנְחָה:

If at the time he cast the handful [of meal] on the altar's pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar's pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul. only when one thinks of it while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah. Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only] half [the substances which] cause an offering to be permitted [to be eaten], does not cause it to be considered as piggul.If, [by contrast,] one offered only the handful [of meal] and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for the [disqualifying] intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering., when combined, they have this effect.To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.

הִקְטִיר כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֹׁם מִן הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֹׁם מִן הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר. עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כָּל הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָךְ מְעַט מְעַט אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטַר קֻמְצָהּ:

If one offered a portion of the handful [of meal] the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder [of the offering] on the following day, [even if] he continues offering the entire handful [of meal] with the frankincense with [the same disqualifying] intent concerning time, [the meal-offering] is disqualified, but is not piggul. [The rationale is that] even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating, this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar's pyre. 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. One maintains that it is piggul, and one rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions, negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא אוֹ מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה וְחִשֵּׁב בָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁלִּקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה חִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:

When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah and one had a [disqualifying] intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, [the offerings] are disqualified, but are not piggul. If after he collected the frankincense he had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.

שְׁיָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה וְהִקְטִיר הַקֹּמֶץ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִקְבְּעוּ לְפִגּוּל וַהֲרֵי הֵן פִּגּוּל. אוֹ לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

If the remaining portion [of a meal-offering] was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established [as fit to become] piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.) and thus it is piggul or it was not established and it is not piggul.