Mishneh Torah — Sacrifices Rendered Unfit הלכות פסולי המוקדשין, Chapter 18

כָּל הַמְחַשֵּׁב מַחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁאֵינהּ נָכוֹנָה בְּקָדָשִׁים. הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא ז יח) "לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב":

Anyone who has an incorrect intent [while performing] sacrificial service violates a negative commandment,, does he count this charge in that reckoning. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 4) does give this charge that distinction. Megilat Esther explains that this charge is part of the directive to offer sacrifices in the proper manner and hence need not be considered as a separate mitzvah. See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 144) where the issue is discussed. for [Leviticus 7:18] states: "He may not intent this."

מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁבִּכְלַל דִּין זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יַפְסִיד הַקָּדָשִׁים בְּמַחְשָׁבָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמַטִּיל מוּם בְּקָדָשִׁים. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה מַעֲשֶׂה:

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that included in this prohibition is not to cause sacrificial offerings to be disqualified through thought, for this is comparable to causing a blemish in sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, [a transgressor] is not punished by lashes, 1:7). for thought is not considered as deed. 18:2).

כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל בֵּין שֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחְשָׁבָה בֵּין בְּמַעֲשֶׂה בֵּין שֶׁאֵרַע בּוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁפְּסָלוֹ. כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת בְּמֵזִיד לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ג) "לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל תּוֹעֵבָה":

Whenever a sacrifice is defined as unacceptable - whether it was disqualified because of an intent, an action, or something which caused it to be disqualified - anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for lashes, as [a result of the prohibition, Deuteronomy 14:3]: "Do not partake of anything abhorrent." (negative commandment 140) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 469) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מַזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:

According to the Oral Tradition, we learned to the verse cited. that the verse was warning solely against [partaking of] sacrificial animals that were disqualified.). Lashes are not given for violating a prohibition of this nature (Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).

וְכֵן קָדָשִׁים שֶׁהֻטַּל בָּהֶם מוּם. הָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶם כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה. הֲרֵי הֵם בִּכְלַל (דברים יד ג) "כָּל תּוֹעֵבָה" עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהֶם מוּם אַחֵר וְיֵאָכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכָל שֶׁפִּסּוּלוֹ מִסָּפֵק אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו:

Similarly, when sacrificial animals which were [intentionally] blemished, a person who eats an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, for they are included in the category of "anything abhorrent." [It is forbidden to partake of them] until they contract another blemish, [at which time,] elaborates, in addition to contracting a blemish, an animal dedicated as a sacrifice must be redeemed before the prohibition against partaking of its meat is lifted. (This constitutes a difference between the laws pertaining to such an animal and a firstborn animal.) Even after the Scriptural prohibition is lifted, there is a Rabbinic prohibition to partake of its meat until it contracts another blemish on its own accord. (This prohibition was instituted as a penalty lest one intentionally inflict such a blemish. See Bechorot 34b.) they may be eaten because of the blemish, as we explained. 2:7, where the entire law stated here is mentioned. As such, it would have been more correct for the Rambam to have stated "as will be explained." Some have suggested that the intent here is to the concept that a sacrificial animal that has contracted a blemish may be eaten after being redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:10. Whenever there is a unresolved doubt whether [a sacrificial animal] has been disqualified, lashes are not given.

כָּל קָרְבָּן שֶׁנִּתְפַּגֵּל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז יח) "וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֹנָהּ תִּשָּׂא". וְאִם אָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:

Whenever a sacrifice has been deemed piggul because of a disqualifying intent concerning time, as we explained, anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it intentionally is liable for karet, 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). as [implied by Leviticus 7:18]: "The soul which partakes of it will bear its sin." (sacrificial meat left beyond its limit) in Leviticus 19:8 and the punishment of karet is explicitly stated with regard to that prohibition in that verse, the Sifra makes an equation with regard to the punishment for the two transgressions. If one partakes of [the meat of such a sacrifice] inadvertently, he should bring a fixed sin-offering. 1:3-4.

אֵין חַיָּבִין כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל אֲכִילַת דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֻתְּרוּ בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל מִן הַמַּתִּיר עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה כְּאוֹכֵל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם פִּגּוּל. כֵּיצַד. מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּגְּלָה. הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל מִן הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁלָּהּ אוֹ מִן הַלְּבוֹנָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת. לְפִי שֶׁהֵן הֵן הַמַּתִּירִים אֶת הַשְּׁיָרִים לְאָדָם. וְכֵן זֶבַח שֶׁנִּתְפַּגֵּל. הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ אוֹ מֵאֵימוּרָיו אוֹ מִבְּשַׂר הָעוֹלָה חַיָּב כָּרֵת. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַדָּם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל. שֶׁהַדָּם מַתִּיר אֶת הָאֵימוּרִין לִקָּרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהָאֵימוּרִין מַתִּירִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר לָאָדָם. וְדַם הָעוֹלָה מַתִּיר בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְדַם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מַתִּיר בְּשָׂרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְדַם עוֹלַת הָעוֹף מַתִּיר בְּשָׂרָהּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְדַם חַטָּאוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת מַתִּיר אֵימוּרֵיהֶם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּבִין עַל אֵימוּרֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל. הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה מַתִּירִין הַשְּׁיָרִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת מַתִּירִין שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה מַתִּירִין לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים לַכֹּהֲנִים. אֲבָל דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם מַתִּירִין כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר חַטָּאוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת וּמְנָחוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת אֵינָן מִתְפַּגְּלִין לְעוֹלָם:

One is not liable for karet unless one partakes of entities that were permitted for consumption, either by a person or by the altar. 4:3), the Rambam explains this concept as follows: The prohibition of piggul is derived from Leviticus 7:18 which pertains to the peace-offerings. Our Sages explain that the peace-offerings are unique in that they involve both consumption by the altar and consumption by man and that there is an act that permits such consumption (the offering of the blood permits the fats and organs to be offered and offering them permits the meat to be eaten). Hence this is established as a general rule with regard to all sacrifices. If, however, one eats of the entity that permits [the sacrifice to be eaten] itself, one is not liable for karet. Instead, he is liable for lashes like one who partakes of disqualified sacrificial animals for which the transgression of karet is not involved.What is implied? When a meal-offering becomes piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the remaining [meal] intentionally, is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of the handful [that is separated to be offered on the altar] or from the frankincense, he is not liable for karet, for these are the substances that enable [the meal to be eaten] by men. Similarly, when a sacrifice is deemed piggul, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion of its meat or of the fats and organs offered on the altar or from the meat of a burnt-offering is liable for karet. If, however, he partakes of an olive-sized portion of the blood, he is not liable for karet, because [the casting of] the blood permits the fats and the organs to be offered on the altar and [the offering of] the fats and the organs permit the meat [to be eaten by] a person. [Similarly,] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its meat [to be offered] on the altar. [The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering of fowl permits its meat to be eaten by the priests. [The presentation of] the blood of a burnt-offering of fowl permits its meat to be offered on the altar.[The presentation of] the blood of a sin-offering that is burnt permits its fats and the organs to be offered on the altar. Therefore one is liable for [partaking of] the fats and the organs as piggul. [Offering] the handful [of meal] and the frankincense permit a meal-offering to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two sheep, as stated in Chapter 17, Halachah 16. on Shavuot permit the two loaves to [be eaten by] the priests. [Offering] the two bowls of frankincense permit the showbread to [be eaten by] the priests. Sacrificial entities that do not have entities that permit them [to be consumed either by the altar or by man], e.g., the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt or the meal-offerings that are burnt, are never deemed as piggul.

וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל לְעוֹלָם. הַקֹּמֶץ. וְהַלְּבוֹנָה. וְהַקְּטֹרֶת. וְהַדָּם. וְהַיַּיִן. בֵּין יַיִן הַבָּא עִם הַנְּסָכִים בֵּין יַיִן הַבָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּמְנָחוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת כֻּלָּן שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לָהֶם קֹמֶץ לְהַתִּירָן. כְּגוֹן מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים וּבְשַׂר חַטָּאוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת. וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצֹרָע. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא דַּם הָאָשָׁם מַתִּירוֹ. אֵינוֹ תָּלוּי בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ הַיּוֹם וְלוֹג אַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:

These are the entities that are never deemed as piggul: the handful [of meal] and the frankincense; the incense-offering; the blood [of any sacrifice]; wine - whether wine that comes as part of the accompanying offerings, ch. 2. or wine that is offered independently; 17:12. and the meal-offerings that are burnt in their entirety; for there is not a handful that permits them, e.g., the meal-offering of a priest or the meal-offering of the accompanying offerings; the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt; and the log of oil brought by a nazirite.If one would ask [with regard to the latter instance]: Does not the blood of the guilt-offering [brought by the nazirite] permit the oil to be eaten? [In resolution, it can be said that] one is not dependent on the other, for a person may bring his guilt-offering one day and the log of oil after several days, as will be explained in the appropriate place. 4:2.It must be noted that the latter point is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the log cannot become piggul, while Rabbi Meir maintains that it can for the reasons stated here. Although the standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah states that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon's view (as the Rambam rules here), Rav Kappach notes that all the manuscript copies of the Commentary to the Mishnah state that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.

אָסוּר לְהוֹתִיר מִבְּשַׂר הַקָּדָשִׁים לְאַחַר זְמַן אֲכִילָתָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּקָרְבַּן תּוֹדָה (ויקרא כב ל) "לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר" וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַקָּדָשִׁים כֻּלָּם. וְהַמּוֹתִיר אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב י) "וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר בְּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ":

It is forbidden to leave sacrificial meat beyond the time in which it may be eaten, (negative commandment 120) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 142) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 22:30] states with regard to the thanksgiving-offering: "Do not leave it over until the morning." This same applies to all other sacrifices. (negative commandments 117-119) does count the prohibitions against leaving over the meat of the Paschal sacrifice, the chagigah offering, and the second Paschal sacrifice as separate commandments.One who leaves over sacrificial meat is not liable for lashes, for Scripture enables [the transgression] to be corrected questions why the Rambam mentions this point. True, it is mentioned by Pesachim 84a, but that passage follows the opinion that lashes can be given for the violation of a prohibition even if a deed is not involved. The Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2) maintains that lashes are not given unless the transgression involves a deed. Hence, seemingly, he does not have to add the explanation given here. by [the fulfillment of] a positive commandment, (positive commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 143) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Exodus 12:10] states: "That which remains from it until the morning should be burnt with fire."

הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנּוֹתַר. בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט ח) "וְאֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ ה' חִלֵּל וְנִכְרְתָה". וּמֵאֵימָתַי יִתְחַיֵּב כָּרֵת עַל אֲכִילַת הַנּוֹתָר. אִם קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים הֵם חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן מֵאַחַר שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. וְאִם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים הֵם חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשְּׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה שֶׁל יוֹם שֵׁנִי שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה שֶׁל יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי. וְהֵיכָן הִזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב עַל הַפִּגּוּל וְעַל הַנּוֹתָר. בַּמִּלּוּאִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר שָׁם (שמות כט לג) "לֹא יֹאכַל כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הֵם" לְהַזְהִיר עַל כָּל שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בְּקֹדֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ:

One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of sacrifices that were left beyond their required time intentionally is liable for karet. (negative commandment 131) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 215) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. If he did so unintentionally, he must bring a fixed sin-offering, as [Leviticus 19:8]: "He who partakes of it shall bear his sin, for he has desecrated what is holy unto God; [that soul] shall be cut off."From when is a person held liable for partaking of notar [this left-over meat]? If it is from sacrifices of the most sacred order, he is liable from dawn. If it is from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, he is liable from sunset on the second day which is the beginning of the third day.Where does the Torah warn against piggul and notar? With regard to [the sacrifices of] the dedication [of the Sanctuary], [Exodus 29:34] states: "[They shall not be eaten, for they are holy." This warns against [partaking of] any [sacrificial food] disqualified [in the Sanctuary], [stating] that there is a negative commandment against partaking of it.

וְהַפִּגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִכְזַיִת. וְכָל הַפִּגּוּלִים וְהַנּוֹתָרִין מִצְטָרְפִין:

Piggul and notar can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion 4:3), one might think that these two prohibitions are not combined. Nevertheless, the Talmud (Meilah 17b) states that the Mishnah is speaking about the impurity of one's hands, but that with regard to the prohibition against partaking of the food, they may be combined. [for which one is held liable]. All sacrificial foods that became piggul or notar can be combined [for this purpose].

אָסוּר לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים אוֹ לְסַבֵּב לָהֶם טֻמְאָה שֶׁהֲרֵי פּוֹסְלָן. וְהַמְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אָדָם טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז יט) "וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכָל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל". וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁאִם אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִלְּבוֹנַת הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה בִּכְלִי לוֹקֶה. אֶחָד קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אוֹ לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה. בֵּין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּאַב הַטֻּמְאָה אוֹ בִּוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם נִטְמְאוּ בְּטֻמְאוֹת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילָתָן. אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא הָאוֹכֵל אַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל קֹדֶם זְרִיקָה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל קֹדֶשׁ טָמֵא. אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

It is forbidden to cause sacrificial foods to contract impurity or to create a circumstance that makes them impure, 12:1. for he disqualifies them. comments that the Rambam's wording implies that if the sacrificial foods were disqualified for other reasons, it is permitted to cause them to contract impurity. See Chapter 19, Halachot 5-6. One who makes sacrificial foods impure is not liable for lashes, but a person who is pure who partakes of an olive-sized portion of sacred foods that have become impure is liable for lashes, (negative commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 145) as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 7:19] states: "Meat that will touch anything impure should not be eaten."The same also applies with regard to other sacrifices. [For example,] if one partakes of an olive-sized portion of the frankincense of a meal-offering that became impure after it was sanctified in a utensil is liable for lashes. [This refers] both to sacrificial food that became impure before atonement was attained 25b). And since, after the fact, it is acceptable, one is liable for partaking of it if it became piggul. or afterwards, whether it became impure because of contact with a primary source of impurity, literally, "a father of impurity," an object deemed inherently impure by Scripture decree which has the potential to make other objects impure. See the Rambam's introduction to the Order of Taharot in his Commentary to the Mishnah and also, Hilchot Tumat Meit 5:7 for more details regarding this and the term mentioned in the following note. or a derivative of impurity, literally, "the offspring of impurity," an object that contracts ritual impurity through contract with a primary source of impurity, which in certain instances can impart impurity to other substances. of Scriptural origin. If, however, sacrificial foods contracted impurity that is Rabbinic in origin, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of them; he does, however, receives stripes for rebellious conduct.[Even one who partakes of sacrificial food that contracts impurity of Scriptural origin] is liable for lashes only when he partakes of it after its blood is cast [on the altar]. If, by contrast, he partakes of it before the casting of its blood, he is not liable for lashes because he partook of impure sacrificial food. states that he is, however, liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

כָּל אָדָם שֶׁנִּטְמָא טֻמְאָה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת עַל בִּיאַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַקָּדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּקֹדֶשׁ טָהוֹר בֵּין בְּקֹדֶשׁ טָמֵא. בְּמֵזִיד הֲרֵי זֶה נִתְחַיֵּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כ) "וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה' וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה". וְאִם אָכַל בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּטֻמְאַת הַגּוּף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כא) "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִגַּע בְּכָל טָמֵא בְּטֻמְאַת אָדָם אוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁקֶץ טָמֵא וְאָכַל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה' וְנִכְרְתָה". וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁאָר קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ. וְהֵיכָן הִזְהִיר עַל עָוֹן זֶה בְּיוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ (ויקרא יב ד) "בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע":

Any person who contracted a form of impurity that would make him liable for karet for entering the Temple 3:13-14. As mentioned in the Kessef Mishneh, there are certain states of ritual impurity for which one is not liable for karet for entering the Temple. This prohibition, however, focuses only on those concerning which this penalty can be incurred, because of an association between the words mikdash, "sanctuary," and kodesh, "sacrificial food." who ate an olive-sized portion of sacrificial food - whether the food is pure or impure 13:2) because there are two prohibitions involved: the prohibition against partaking of impure sacrificial meat and the prohibition against a person who is impure partaking of sacrificial meat. Rabbi Yossi maintains that since the meat is impure and unfit to be eaten, we are not concerned whether the person is impure or not. The Sages, by contrast, maintain that since the impure person is forbidden to partake of pure sacrificial food, the prohibition also applies when partakes of impure sacrificial food. The Rambam accepts the Sages' opinion. See also Halachah 16. - intentionally is liable for karet, (negative commandment 129) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 167) consider this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 7:20] states: "A soul that will partake... of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering. 10:1).What is the source that teaches that the verse is speaking about a situation where the person's body is ritually impure? [Leviticus 7:21] states: "When a soul will touch any impurity, whether impurity of a human, an impure animal, or an impure creature and he partook of the meat of the slaughter of the peace-offerings that are for God while his impurity is upon him and [that soul] shall be cut off." The same applies to all other sacrifices of the altar.Where did [the Torah] warn concerning this prohibition? With regard to a woman who gave birth, [Leviticus 12:4] states: "She shall not touch anything that is sanctified."

מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לְטָמֵא שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטְבּל. וְהָאוֹכֵל קֹדֶשׁ אַחַר שֶׁטָּבַל קֹדֶם שֶׁיֶּעֱרַב שִׁמְשׁוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבִיא כַּפָּרָתוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כ) "וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו" עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה כָּל טֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו:

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that [the verse] is a warning to a person who is impure, that he or she should not partake of sacrificial food before he immerses himself [in a mikveh]. If one partakes of sacrificial food after immersion, before sunset of that day and before bringing the sacrifice that brings atonement,, ch. 1, to be permitted to partake of sacrificial food or to enter the Temple, a zav (a male who has secretions similar to those produced by gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman who experiences vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle), a woman who gives birth or miscarries, and a person afflicted by the skin condition of tzara'at must do the following after they are fit to emerge from their ritual impurity: a) immerse in the mikveh, b) wait until nightfall after immersion, and c) bring the appropriate sacrifice. he or she is liable for lashes, but not for karet, for [Leviticus 7:20] states "while his impurity is upon him." [Implied is that] the full measure of impurity must be upon him., a certain dimension of his or her ritual impurity has been removed. Hence, although he or she is liable for lashes for this transgression, there is no liability for karet.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even in such a situation, one is liable for karet. As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:9, the Kessef Mishneh cites Talmudic passages which could be used as support for both positions.

הָיָה טָמֵא בְּטֻמְאוֹת שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת. אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

If a person was impure because of impurity resulting from a Rabbinic ordinance, he is not liable for lashes [if he partakes of sacrificial food]. Needless to say, he is not liable for karet. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת עַל קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר שֶׁקָּרְבוּ מַתִּירָיו. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל אֶת הַבָּשָׂר קֹדֶם זְרִיקַת הַדָּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר אוֹ מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא עַד שֶׁיֻּקְרְבוּ מַתִּירָיו כְּהִלְכָתָן. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּדַשׁ בִּכְלִי חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה. אֲפִלּוּ נִטְמָא הַבָּשָׂר קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא הָאוֹכֵל הוֹאִיל וְקָרְבוּ הַמַּתִּירִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכַל חַיָּב כָּרֵת. וְכֵן אִם אָכַל מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת וְהוּא טָמֵא אַחַר שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָם הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב כָּרֵת:

One is not liable for karet for partaking of sacrificial food that is made permitted by a particular act unless one partakes of it after that act is performed. If, however, he partakes of the meat [of a sacrifice] before its blood is cast on the altar, he is not liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial meat while impure., the person would be liable for lashes for partaking of sacrificial food before its blood was cast on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 11:1,4.This is the general principle: Whenever sacrificial food is permitted because [of the performance of] a particular act, one is not liable for the violation of any of the prohibitions against partaking of piggul, notar, or impure sacrificial food unless the act which permits partaking of the food was performed according to law. Whenever there is not a given act that makes sacrificial food permitted, once it is sanctified in a consecrated vessel, one is liable for partaking of it if it becomes impure. Even if [sacrificial] meat becomes impure before the person partaking of it becomes impure, if the act [that would have] permitted the meat to be eaten was performed and the person partook of the sacrificial food, he is liable for karet. Similarly, if a person who is impure partakes of the meat of the sin-offerings that are burnt, after their blood is cast [on the altar], he is liable for karet.

כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר לְךָ שֶׁאַף דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. כֵּיצַד. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם מַתִּירִין אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְכֵן הַמַּתִּירִין עַצְמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. חוּץ מִן הַדָּם שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אֶחָד בִּלְבַד:

It was already explained for you, and that which contracted ritual impurity. that even entities for which one is not liable for piggul, one may be liable for notar or because the object contracted ritual impurity?What is implied? There is no liability for piggul for sacrificial entities that do not have an activity that permits them [to be eaten], but one may be held liable [for partaking of them if they] became notar or impure in such circumstances.Similarly, even though there cannot be liability for piggul for the very entities that cause the sacrificial meat to be permitted, as we explained, one can be liable [for partaking of such entities if the sacrificial meat] became notar or impure with the exception of the blood. For one is liable for only one transgression for partaking of it. 4:5.

טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֵימוּרִין חַיָּב כָּרֵת:

When a person who is impure partakes of the fats and organs to be offered on the altar, he is liable for karet.

אָכַל פֶּסַח שֶׁלֹּא נִצְלָה. וְלַחְמֵי תּוֹדָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָן. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב כָּרֵת מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאַת הַגּוּף. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְמַה שֶּׁהֵן. אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּב אָדָם עַל אֲכִילָה אַחַת מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וּמִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר. שֶׁהַפִּגּוּל הוּא הַקָּרְבָּן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן וְאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן וְלֹא נִרְצָה כְּלָל. וְהַנּוֹתָר הוּא הַנִּשְׁאָר מִקָּרְבָּן שֶׁקָּרֵב כְּמִצְוָתוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן אֲכִילָתוֹ:

[If an impure person] partook. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different version of the text. of a Paschal sacrifice that was not roasted, or breads of the thanksgiving-offering of which the breads [to be given to the priest] were not taken, he is liable for karet because of the impurity of [his] body even though they are not fit for their [purpose at this stage].It is impossible for a person to be liable for the transgressions of piggul and notar with regard to consumption of the same sacrifice. 14a. [The rationale is that] piggul is a sacrifice that was disqualified because of an unacceptable thought concerning time. It does not fulfill the obligations of a sacrifice and is not acceptable at all. Notar, by contrast, refers to the remnants of a sacrifice that was offered as required which remained after the time [prescribed] for its consumption.

הַפִּגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר וְהַטָּמֵא שֶׁבְּלָלָן זֶה בָּזֶה וַאֲכָלָן חַיָּב. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרִבָּה מִין עַל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָאִסּוּרִין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה:

When one combined [different types of sacrificial food that were] piggul, notar, and impure and partook of them, he is liable. Even though there was more of one type of prohibited substance than another, it does not nullify it, because [these] prohibited substances do not nullify each other. 16:18, that orlah nullifies the presence of terumah. See also the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 98.It can be explained that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about an instance where there is sufficient amount of kosher food to nullify the prohibited substance according to Scriptural Law (for only a majority is required). Hence, for the additional amount required by Rabbinic Law, a forbidden substance is also sufficient. In this instance, however, the substances are not nullified according to Scriptural Law. Hence, one forbidden substance cannot nullify another.

וּפִגּוּל אוֹ נוֹתָר אוֹ טָמֵא שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִשֶּׁמָּשְׁלָה הָאוּר בְּרֻבָּן פָּקַע אִסּוּרָן מֵהֶן. וְהָאֵמוּרִין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם הַבָּשָׂר לִכְזַיִת בֵּין בְּעוֹלָה בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים לְחַיֵּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל אוֹ נוֹתָר אוֹ טָמֵא:

When [sacrificial meat] that was piggul, notar, or impure was brought up to the altar, once the fire takes hold of the majority of it, their prohibitions take flight.The fat and the organs can be combined with the meat, both with regard to a burnt offering or to other sacrifices with regard to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure.

זֶבַח שֶׁנִּתְפַּגֵּל. אוֹ שֶׁנּוֹתַר לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ וְאָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ. מִן הָעוֹר. אוֹ מִן הַמָּרָק. אוֹ מִן הַתַּבְלִין. אוֹ מִן הָאָלָל. אוֹ מִן הַמֻּרְאָה. מִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם. מִן הַצִּפָּרְנַיִם מִן הַחַרְטֹם וּמִן הַנּוֹצָה וּמִבֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת. וְכֵן טְמֵא הַגּוּף שֶׁאָכַל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִקָּרְבָּן כָּשֵׁר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת. אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

When a sacrifice becomes piggul or notar after the time for its consumption passes and a person partakes of it, from its skin, from the sauce or spices [in which it is cooked], the allal, the murah,). from 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 nails, the beak [of a fowl], its feathers, 1:2), the Rambam explains that this term refers to the growth that remains after the large feathers are removed. or its eggs, he is not liable for karet. Similarly, if an impure person partakes of these substances from an acceptable sacrifice, he is not liable for karet. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.

אָכַל מִן הַשָּׁלִיל. אוֹ מִן הַשִּׁלְיָא. חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא כְּאוֹכֵל מִשְּׁאָר בְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח:

If one partook of a fetus or a placenta, he is liable for [violating the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure like one who partake of any other [portion of] the meat of a sacrifice.. If, however, one's intent is to partake of the fetus or the placenta, the sacrifice does not become piggul.

קָדְשֵׁי עַכּוּ"ם אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְכֵן דַּם הַקָּדָשִׁים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכֵן הַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטֹרֶת וְהָעֵצִים אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת לֹא מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאַת הַגּוּף:

[The prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or [sacrificial meat] that has become impure do not apply with regard to sacrifices brought by gentiles. 3:2, burnt-offerings brought by a non-Jew may be offered on the altar. According to the Rambam, even though such sacrifices are acceptable, the prohibitions mentioned, although they apply to sacrifices brought by Jews, do not apply to these offerings.The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling appears to reflect the understanding of Rabbi Shimon in Zevachim 4:3. However, most authorities - including the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah - follow the view of Rabbi Yossi who differs. It can, nevertheless, be explained that Rabbi Shimon's opinion concerns only sacrifices offered outside the Temple. The preceding clause of the mishnah concerning piggul and the like is accepted by all opinions (Kessef Mishneh).In truth, the Rambam's opinion concerning this issue is somewhat problematic. He accepts Rabbi Yossi’s view in his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:16. Nevertheless, his ruling in Hilchot Me'ilah 5:15, like the one here, appears to follow Rabbi Shimon's view. Nor do they apply to sacrificial blood, as explained. Similarly, one is not liable for karet offers a resolution to the difficulty explaining that the Rambam is postulating that the transgressor is liable for lashes and not for karet. The exemption for karet is accepted by all opinions. Rabbi Shimon exempts the transgressor from lashes as well, but the initial opinion of the mishnah - which is accepted by the Rambam - holds him liable on that account. for [the prohibitions of] piggul, notar, or partaking of [sacrificial entities] while impure), the Rambam equates a person partaking of them while he is impure with one partaking of them while they are impure. The Kessef Mishneh debates the Rambam's intent here. for partaking of frankincense, the incense offering, or the wood [of the altar].)].