Mishneh Torah — Sacrifices Rendered Unfit הלכות פסולי המוקדשין, Chapter 17

כָּל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מזִבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנָּתַן מֵהֶם מַתָּנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נְכוֹנָה. וְנָתַן מִמַּתָּנָה שְׁנִיָּה וְאֵילָךְ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם אוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זֶה כִּפֵּר וְהֻרְצָה הַקָּרְבָּן. וְאִם נָתַן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְהִשְׁלִים הַמַּתָּנוֹת בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. שֶׁמַּתָּנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה הִיא הָעִקָּר. אֲבָל כָּל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי הוֹאִיל וְכֻלָּן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אִם נָתַן אַחַת מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כְּתִקְנָהּ אֶלָּא הִפְסִיד בָּהּ הַמַּחְשָׁבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן כָּל הַשְּׁאָר כְּתִקְנָן הַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל:

Whenever blood must be presented on the outer altar and the first presentation was made with a proper intent and a second or further presentation was made for the sake of a different sacrifice or he had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place or time, atonement is achieved and the sacrifice is acceptable.If the first presentation [of blood] was made with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time and [the priest] completed the presentation of the blood with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to place, [the sacrifice] is piggul. [The rationale is that] the first presentation of the blood is of fundamental importance.. In the present instance, it is placed in the more severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the sacrifice piggul, the subsequent intentions the priest had are of no consequence.In contrast, with regard to all of the presentations of blood on the inner altar - since they are all absolute requirements [for the offering of the sacrifice], as we explained - if one of presentations was not made as required, but instead, one had a disqualifying intent, the sacrifice is unacceptable,. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations. even if all the other presentations were made as required.

חִשֵּׁב בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְשָׁתַק בַּשְּׁאָר. אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן כֻּלָּן כְּתִקְנָן חוּץ מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁנָּתַן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל עַד שֶׁיַּזֶּה בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּם בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת הֵן:

If one had a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time when making the first [of the presentations of the blood on the inner altar] 5:7. and had no specific intent regarding the remainder or he presented all of them as required with the exception of the final one, which he presented with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, [the sacrifice] is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is not given that distinction] unless one makes [all] the presentations with a [disqualifying] intent with regard to time, for they are all considered as one presentation.

טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע בְּדַם הַחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת מְפַגֶּלֶת. כֵּיצַד. חִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת טְבִילַת אֶצְבַּע בְּדַם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי זֶה כִּמְחַשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּיָה:

[Having a disqualifying intent while] immersing one's finger in the blood of a sin-offering:8. [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar can cause a sacrifice to become piggul. 44a: "If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offering piggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul." Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar the author of the statement cited does not accept the concept that one's intent when immersing one's finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam's ruling here.What is implied? If at the time [the priest] immersed his finger in the blood, he had a disqualifying intent concerning time, it is as if he had such an intent when presenting [the blood on the altar].

הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעֲזָרָה וְחִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בִּפְנִים בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. חִשֵּׁב בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל:

If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to one of the sin-offerings [whose blood is offered] on the inner altar with regard to an aspect of the sacrifice that is performed in the Sanctuary, [the offering] is not piggul. If he had such an intent with regard to an aspect that is performed in the Temple Courtyard, it is piggul.

כֵּיצַד. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעֲזָרָה וְאָמַר הֲרֵינִי שׁוֹחֵט לְהַזּוֹת דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר. אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. שֶׁהַהַזָּיָה לְפָנִים בַּהֵיכָל:

What is implied? If a priest was standing in the Temple Courtyard and said: "I am slaughtering [this animal] with the intent of presenting its blood tomorrow," [the offering] is not piggul, because presenting the blood is performed inside, in the Sanctuary.

הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּהֵיכָל וְאָמַר הֲרֵי אֲנִי מַזֶה לִשְׁפֹּךְ שְׁיָרִים לְמָחָר. אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל שֶׁהֲרֵי חִשֵּׁב בִּפְנִים בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעֲזָרָה וְשָׁחַט וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לִשְׁפֹּךְ שְׁיָרִים לְמָחָר אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לְמָחָר. הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי חִשֵּׁב בַּחוּץ בְּדָבָר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ:

If [a priest] was standing in the Sanctuary and he said: "I am presenting [the blood] with the intent to pour the remaining [blood] 5:10). on the following day, [the offering] is not piggul, because he had a disqualifying intent inside [the Temple Sanctuary] regarding a service performed outside. If, however, he was standing in the Temple Courtyard and slaughtered [the animal] with the intent to pour out the remainder [of the blood] on the following day or to offer the fats and the organs on the following day, [the offering] is piggul, for he had a [disqualifying] intent while outside concerning a service that is performed outside.

הַתּוֹדָה מְפַגֶּלֶת אֶת הַלֶּחֶם וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹדָה. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִבְּשָׂרָהּ אוֹ יִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ אוֹ שֶׁיַּקְטִיר אֵימוּרֶיהָ לְמָחָר. הַזֶּבַח עִם הַלֶּחֶם פִּגּוּל. אֲבָל אִם חִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ פִּגּוּל וְזֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל:

A [disqualifying intent] concerning a thanksgiving-offering causes the bread [that accompanies it] to become piggul, but a [disqualifying intent] concerning the bread does not cause the thanksgiving-offering to become piggul. 2:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.What is implied? When one slaughtered a thanksgiving-offering and had the intent to partake of its meat, cast its blood on the altar, or offer its fats and organs on the following day, the offering and the bread are piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the bread on the following day, the bread alone is piggul; the thanksgiving-offering is not piggul. 15a implies that it is forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely.

וְכֵן הַדִּין בִּשְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת עִם שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הַבָּאוֹת עִמָּהֶן שֶׁאִם חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בַּכְּבָשִׂים נִתְפַּגְּלוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם. חִשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִשְּׁתֵי הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר. שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם פִּגּוּל וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן פִּגּוּל. חִשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת לֶאֱכל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח עִם הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר. הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ פִּגּוּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אוֹ הַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן פִּגּוּל:

Similar concepts apply with regard to the two sheep offered on Shavuot with the two breads offered with them. If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to the sheep, the two breads are considered as piggul. If he had the intent to partake of the two breads on the following day, the two breads are piggul and the sheep are not piggul.)]. If while performing one of the four [significant] services, [the priest] had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the meat of the sacrifice together with the bread). tomorrow, the bread alone is piggul, mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuos and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuos, for they are interrelated as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20 . It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh). and the thanksgiving-offering or the sheep are not piggul.

הַמַּקְטִיר שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁעִם לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָתָן שֶׁיֹּאכַל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים לְמָחָר. הֲרֵי הַלֶּחֶם פִּגּוּל:

When [a priest] offers the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the showbread and, while offering them, had the intent to partake of the showbread on the following day, the bread is piggul.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת וְחִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי הַחַלּוֹת לְמָחָר שְׁתֵּיהֶם פִּגּוּל:

When one slaughters the two sheep for Shavuot and has the intent to eat one of the loaves on the following day, they are both piggul.

הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵי הַבְּזִיכִים וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי הַסְּדָרִים לְמָחָר. שְׁנֵי הַסְּדָרִים פִּגּוּל:

If one offered the two bowls [of frankincense] and he had the intent to partake of one of the two arrangements of bread on the following day, both arrangements are piggul.

וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן בְּאַחַת מֵחַלּוֹת הַתּוֹדָה אוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵחַלּוֹת מִנְחַת מַאֲפֵה הַתַּנּוּר. הֲרֵי כָּל הַחַלּוֹת פִּגּוּל:

Similarly, if one had a [disqualifying] thought concerning time with regard to one of the breads of the thanksgiving-offering or with regard to one of the breads of meal-offering baked in an oven, all of the breads are piggul.

אֲבָל אִם נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי הַחַלּוֹת אוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי הַסְּדָרִים אוֹ אַחַת מֵחַלּוֹת הַתּוֹדָה. בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה. אוֹתָהּ הַחַלָּה וְאוֹתוֹ הַסֵּדֶר אָסוּר. וְהַטָּהוֹר בְּטָהֳרָתוֹ יֵאָכֵל:

If, by contrast, one of the two breads [of Shavuot], one of the two arrangements [of the showbread], or one of the breads of the thanksgiving offering- whether before the casting on the altar 2:2)]. or afterwards - becomes impure, only that bread or that arrangement are forbidden to be eaten. What is pure may be eaten in its state of purity.

חִשֵּׁב בַּעֲבוֹדַת אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי הַכְּבָשִׂים שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר. וְכֵן אִם חִשֵּׁב בְּהַקְטָרַת אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי הַבְּזִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים לְמָחָר. הֲרֵי הַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל. וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל עַד שֶׁיְּחַשֵּׁב בְּכָל הַמַּתִּיר שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדַת שְׁנֵי הַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַקְטָרַת שְׁנֵי הַבְּזִיכִין:

If, while performing the sacrificial service associated with one of the two sheep, [the priest] had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion of the two breads on the following day - and similarly, if while offering one of the two bowls [of frankincense], he had the intent to partake of an olive-sized portion of the showbread on the following day, the bread is disqualified, but it is not piggul. [It is given that distinction] only when he has a [disqualifying] intent while performing all the services that permit the bread to be eaten: [i.e.,] bringing both sheep and offering both bowls [of frankincense] on the altar's pyre.

שָׁחַט אֶחָד וְחִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל חֲצִי זַיִת מֵחַלָּה זוֹ לְמָחָר וְשָׁחַט הַשֵּׁנִי וְחִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכל חֲצִי זַיִת מֵחַלָּה שְׁנִיָּה לְמָחָר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין לְפִגּוּל. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּשְׁנֵי הַבְּזִיכִין עִם שְׁנֵי הַסְּדָרִים:

If one slaughtered one [of the sheep] and had the intent to eat half an olive-sized portion from one loaf on the following day and slaughtered the second lamb and had the intent of eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day, [the two intents] are combined to render the loaves piggul. Similar concepts apply with regard to the two bowls [of frankincense] and the two arrangements [of showbread].

חִשֵּׁב בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי הַכְּבָשִׂים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. וְעָשָׂה הַשֵּׁנִי בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נְכוֹנָה. זֶה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהוּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן פִּגּוּל וְהַשֵּׁנִי כָּשֵׁר:

If one had a [disqualifying] intent concerning time with regard to one of the two sheep and offered the second with a proper intent, the one that was offered with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time is piggul and the other is acceptable.

שָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִבְּשַׂר הַשֵּׁנִי לְמָחָר שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּשֵׁרִים שֶׁאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה:

If one slaughtered one of [these two sheep] and had the intent while slaughtering it to partake of the meat of the other one on the following day, they are both acceptable. For the intent one has with regard to one is of no consequence regarding the second.

שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד. שְׁחָטָם וְזָרַק דָּמָם בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָם שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. שְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזָּרַק לִשְׁמָן לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם:

The two lambs [offered on] Shavuot do not cause the bread to be sanctified unless they are slaughtered.What is implied? If one slaughtered them and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, he did not sanctify the bread. If he slaughtered them with the proper intent and cast their blood [on the altar] for the sake of another sacrifice, the bread is sanctified, but is not sanctified. 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten .If they slaughtered it for the sake of another sacrifice even though he cast [the blood] for the proper intent, the bread was not sanctified.

שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁיָּצְאוּ בֵּין שְׁחִיטָה לִזְרִיקָה וְזָרַק דַּם הַכְּבָשִׂים בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן. נִתְפַּגְּלוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בַּחוּץ. שֶׁהַזְּרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הוּא בַּחוּץ:

When the two loaves were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard] between the slaughter [of the two sheep] and the casting [of their blood] and the blood of the sheep was cast on the altar with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time, the bread becomes piggul even though it is outside [the Temple Courtyard]. For casting [the blood] has an effect on [bread] that was taken out even though it is still outside [the Temple Courtyard].

כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן וְאָבַד הַלֶּחֶם. אִם זָרַק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין. זָרַק דָּמָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן אַחַר שֶׁאָבַד הַלֶּחֶם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ סָפֵק אִם הֻתְּרוּ בַּאֲכִילָה אוֹ לֹא הֻתְּרוּ:

When the two sheep offered on Shavuos were slaughtered with the proper intent and the breads were lost, they are disqualified if their blood was cast [on the altar] with the desired intent. 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire. If their blood was cast [on the altar] with a [disqualifying] intent concerning time maintains that this is a printing error and the text should read "with an intent for another sacrifice." This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. after the bread was lost, there is an unresolved doubt if [the meat of the sheep] is permitted to be eaten or not., the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room to say that they have been disqualified. A question concerning this issue was raised by Menachot 47b. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that according to the Rambam, the question was left unresolved. Rashi maintains that the question is rhetorical and that the meat is disqualified.The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam's descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider their meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.