Mishneh Torah — Things Forbidden on the Altar הלכות איסורי המזבח, Chapter 5

שְׂאוֹר וּדְבַשׁ אֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאִסּוּרָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״א) "כִּי כָל שְׂאֹר וְכָל דְּבַשׁ לֹא תַקְטִירוּ" וְגוֹ'. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אִם הִקְטִירָן עִם הַקָּרְבָּן אוֹ לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן. וְאֶחָד הַמַּקְטִיר עַצְמָן אוֹ הַמַּקְטִיר תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאִם הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת לְפִי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד:

Even the slightest amount of a leavening agent and sweet entity, the term used by the prooftext and the Rambam, means "honey." Here it is interpreted in a broader sense applying to date honey, bee-honey, and sweet sap from other fruits. is forbidden [as an offering] for the altar, as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "For no leavening agent or honey shall be kindled... [as a fire-offering]." (negative commandment 98) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 117) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable only if he set them afire together with a sacrifice or for the sake of a sacrifice.Whether one sets afire these entities themselves or a mixture of them, he is liable for lashes for each one individually. If he set afire both of them at the same time, he is liable for only one set of lashes, because both of them are mentioned in the same prohibition. explains that the standard printed text of Menachot 58b appears to follow the Ra'avad's understanding, but a more comprehensive understanding of the issue would favor the Rambam's view.

נָפַל מֵהֶם כָּל שֶׁהוּא בַּקְּטֹרֶת נִפְסְלָה. וְאִם הִקְטִיר מִמֶּנָּה בַּהֵיכָל לוֹקֶה. וְאֵין הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת:

If even the slightest amount of these substances fell into the incense offering, it is disqualified. 4:5) states that honey would greatly enhance the aroma of the incense offering. Nevertheless, it is forbidden by Divine decree. If one set [the mixture] afire in the Sanctuary,). he is worthy of lashes. Setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion.

הֶעֱלָה שְׂאוֹר אוֹ דְּבַשׁ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְשֵׁם עֵצִים פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ב) "וְאֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יַעֲלוּ לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ". לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשֵׁם עֵצִים. אֲפִלּוּ הִקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה בִּדְבַשׁ אוֹ בִּשְׂאוֹר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מִן הַקָּרְבָּן לוֹקֶה:

If one brought a leavening agent or a sweetener on the altar alone as kindling fuel, he is exempt, as [ibid:12] states: "They should not be brought to the altar as a pleasant fragrance." [Implied is that] they should not be brought as "a pleasant fragrance," i.e., as a sacrifice, but they may be brought as kindling fuel. Even if one set afire an entity that is not ordained to be set afire together with a leavening agent or with a sweetener, he is liable since it is part of a sacrifice.

כֵּיצַד. הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אוֹ מִבְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אוֹ מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַמְּנָחוֹת אוֹ מִמּוֹתַר הָעֹמֶר אוֹ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף אוֹ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם אוֹ מִלּוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצֹרָע הַמַּעֲלֶה כְּזַיִת מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ בְּחָמֵץ אוֹ בִּדְבַשׁ בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּין לַכֶּבֶשׁ לוֹקֶה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כָּל אֵלּוּ רְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה הוֹאִיל וְהֵן קְרוּיִין קָרְבָּן חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ב) "קָרְבַּן רֵאשִׁית תַּקְרִיבוּ אֹתָם לַה'" וְגוֹ':

What is implied? When one causes [the following entities] to be consumed [by fire on the altar]: the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, 7:1; 9:1, which outlines the portions of the sacrifices that were eaten. the meat of sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity, 10:1. the remains of the meal offering, 12:9. what is left-over from the omer 7:12. or from a sin-offering from fowl, 7:7. the showbread, 12:3. the two loaves [offered on Shavuot], 8:11. the log of oil brought by a leper 4:2-3. - if one were to cause an olive-sized portion of any one of these entities to be consumed on the altar or on its ramp with a leavening agent or a sweetener, and Menachot 57b derive that the altar's ramp is equivalent to the altar in this context. he is liable for lashes. Even though none of these entities are fit to be consumed by fire on the altar, since they are called sacrifices, one is liable for them, as [indicated by the initial clause of the verse cited above]: "You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering to God."

וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהַקְטִיר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּבָר מִכָּל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה. כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ לָאִשִּׁים הֲרֵי שְׁאֵרִיתוֹ בְּבַל תַּקְטִירוּ:

Similarly, it is forbidden explain that although this prohibition is derived from the exegesis of the verse cited above, since it is not explicitly stated in a verse, lashes are not given for its violation. to offer on the altar any entity from all those listed that is not fit to be consumed by fire, e.g., the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, the remains of the meal offering, or the like. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when there is an entity from which a portion is designated to be consumed by fire, it is forbidden to have the remainder [of that entity] consumed by fire.

הַמַּקְטִיר אֵיבְרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לוֹקֶה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִסּוּר הַקְרָבָתָהּ מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר מִן הַטְּהוֹרָה אֱכל וּמִן הַטְּהוֹרָה הַקְרֵב הָא טְמֵאָה לֹא תֹּאכַל וְלֹא תַּקְרִיב. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילַת הַטְּמֵאָה הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כָּךְ לוֹקֶה עַל הַקְרָבָתָהּ. אֲבָל הַמַּקְרִיב אֵיבְרֵי חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א׳:ב׳) "מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן תַּקְרִיבוּ אֶת קָרְבַּנְכֶם" הָא מִן הַחַיָּה לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה:

A person who has the limbs of an impure animal consumed by fire on the altar is liable for lashes despite the fact that the prohibition against offering it is [merely] derived from a positive commandment. [This is derived as follows:] The Torah teaches us to partake of pure animals 2:1. and to offer pure animals as sacrifices. One may conclude that an impure animal should not be eaten and should not be offered. Just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of an impure animal [although it is a prohibition] derived from a positive commandment as explained in the appropriate place, 2:1-2. There the Rambam explains that "with regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: 'These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.' From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut." And he concludes "Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut." Thus although other non-kosher animals are not specifically mentioned in the prohibition, since they are included in the converse of the positive commandment, we conclude that the negative commandment applies to them as well. so too, he is liable for lashes for offering it. explain the Rambam's perspective: these cannot be considered as prohibitions derived from logical inferences, because they are forbidden due to the positive commandment. Logic only expands the scope of the person's liability. When, by contrast, one offers the limbs of a kosher wild beast,, domesticated animals, or fowl, not from chayot, wild beasts. he violates a positive commandment, but he is not liable for lashes. What is the source that teaches that he violates a positive commandment? [Leviticus 1:2] states: "You shall offer your sacrifices from the domesticated animals: from cattle and flocks.", translated here as "flocks," can be used in reference to both sheep and goats. This is the intent here. From this, one can derive that one should not offer wild beasts as sacrifices. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment. 1:8, et al.

הַגּוֹנֵב אוֹ הַגּוֹזֵל וְהִקְרִיב הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה סא-ח) "שֹׂנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה" וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַבֵּל. וְאִם נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים הַקָּרְבָּן כָּשֵׁר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חַטָּאת שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִין אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת מִזְבֵּחַ אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַחַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה אִם נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹכֵל גְּזֵלוֹת וְכֵן הָעוֹלָה:

When one steals or obtains an object through robbery and offers it as a sacrifice, it is invalid 66b which explains that this refers to an instance where a person steals an animal set aside as a sacrifice and offers it as that sacrifice. It reaches that conclusion for it is obvious that if the animal was not consecrated beforehand, its offering is not acceptable, for a person cannot consecrate an object that does not belong to him. and the Holy One, blessed be He, hates it, as [Isaiah 61:8] states: "[I am God Who...] hates a burnt offering [obtained] through robbery." Needless to say, it is not accepted. If the owner despairs of its return, the sacrifice is acceptable. 5:2-3; Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 2:1). Nevertheless, it is possible to say that according to Scriptural Law, the owner's despair is enough to effect the transfer of the property, further requirements are Rabbinic in origin and the Sages did not apply their decrees with regard to a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, with regard to questions of monetary law, a change of possession together with the owner's despair is sufficient to effect the transfer of the property (Hilchot Geneivah, loc. cit.). Similarly, in this instance, consecration of the animal is comparable to a change of possession (Lechem Mishneh, gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:14). [This applies] even suggests amending the text to read: "How much more so does this apply with regard to a burnt-offering?!" I.e., according to the Rambam, the sin offering is considered more severe, while the Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that the burnt offering deserves more weight.)The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam uses "even" in reference to the first clause, even though the priests partake of such a sacrifice, it is unacceptable. if it is a sin-offering and thus the priests partake of its meat.For the sake of the enhancement of the altar's [honor], it was decreed that if it became public knowledge that a sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not bring about atonement even if the owner despaired of its return, so that it will not be said that the altar consumes stolen property. 2:1). The Radbaz answers that from this we see the power of the Sages: that if there is a significant reason - as in this instance - their decrees can nullify the validity of the first sacrifice. Hence, when the person brings the second sacrifice, he is bringing a sacrifice required of him, not an ordinary animal. Similar laws apply with regard to a burnt offering.

הַגּוֹנֵב עוֹלַת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִקְרִיבָהּ סְתָם נִתְכַּפְּרוּ בָּהּ הַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים:

When a person steals an animal consecrated to be offered as a burnt- offering by a colleague and has it offered without any further explanation, the original owner receives atonement.

אֵין מְבִיאִין מְנָחוֹת וּנְסָכִים לֹא מִן הַטֶּבֶל וְלֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ קֹדֶם לָעֹמֶר וְלֹא מִן הַמְדֻמָּע וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מֵעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכָּרֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָהּ. וְאִם הֵבִיא לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לִהְיוֹתָן רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן אֲבָל נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לְהִפָּסֵל וְיִהְיוּ כְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ:

Meal offerings and wine libations may not be brought from tevel, and the tithes were not separated. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19-21. from chadash before the omer was offered,:2-5. or from miduma. and ordinary produce which may be eaten only by a priest. See ibid. 15:13; Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2. This is unacceptable, because the offerings must come from produce which is permitted to every Jew, not only a priest (Pesachim 48a). Needless to say, they may not be brought from orlah 10:9-10. or from mixed species in a vineyard,:6-8). for that would be a mitzvah that comes as a result of a sin which God despises. 8:1 speaks of being unable to fulfill that mitzvah with a stolen lulav. If one brings such [an entity as a sacrifice], it is not sanctified to become fit to be offered as a sacrifice, but it is sanctified to be disqualified as are other consecrated entities that are disqualified.

כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת אֵין מְבִיאִין אוֹתָן מִן הֶחָדָשׁ קֹדֶם שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן (ויקרא ב-יד) (ויקרא כג-יז) "בִּכּוּרִים לַה'". וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר. וּמְבִיאִים נְסָכִים מִן הַמֻּקְצֶה בְּיוֹם טוֹב:

As an initial preference, none of the meal offerings should be brought from chadash before the two breads [are brought on Shavuot], for [Leviticus 23:17] 10:6), the Rambam uses the previous verse in that Biblical passage as a prooftext. refers to them as "the first fruits unto God." If, however, [such a meal offering] was brought, it is acceptable.). Wine libations may be brought from wine that was set aside 1:17. on a festival.

מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִמְלֹחַ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ג) "עַל כָּל קָרְבָּנְךָ תַּקְרִיב מֶלַח". וְאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בְּלֹא מֶלַח חוּץ מִיֵּין הַנְּסָכִים וְהַדָּם וְהָעֵצִים. וְדָבָר זֶה קַבָּלָה וְאֵין לוֹ מִקְרָא לִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו. וּמִצְוָה לִמְלֹחַ הַבָּשָׂר יָפֶה יָפֶה כְּמוֹלֵחַ בָּשָׂר לְצָלִי שֶׁמְּהַפֵּךְ אֶת הָאֵיבָר וּמוֹלֵחַ. וְאִם מָלַח כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲפִלּוּ בְּגַרְגִּיר מֶלַח אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר:

It is a positive commandment to salt all the sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar, (positive commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 119) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "On all of your sacrifices you shall offer salt." 2:1; 6:4, 21-22; 7:1-2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10; 6:3; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16. There are no entities that are offered on the altar without salt except the wine libations, the blood, and the wood. This matter was conveyed by the Oral Tradition, but there is no explicit verse to rely on. 21a explains that this concept can be derived from a verse, apparently, the Rambam does not accept the exegesis mentioned there.It is a mitzvah to salt the meat very thoroughly like one salts meat before roasting it, in which instance one turns over the limbs and salts it. 6:12. If, however, one applies even the slightest amount of salt, even one grain, it is acceptable.

הִקְרִיב בְּלֹא מֶלַח כְּלָל לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ג) "וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיךָ". וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלּוֹקֶה הַקָּרְבָּן כָּשֵׁר וְהֻרְצָה. חוּץ מִן הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁהַמֶּלַח מְעַכֵּב בַּקְּמִיצָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיךָ מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ":

If one offered a sacrifice without any salt at all, he is liable for lashes, (negative commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 118) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.The question is raised: Why is he liable for lashes? Lashes are not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). In this instance, seemingly, the omission of salt does not involve a deed. In reply, it is explained that the offering of the sacrifice without salt is a deed and thus warrants lashes. as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God."Even though he receives lashes, the sacrifice is valid and is accepted [Above] with the exception of the meal offering. For salt is an absolute necessity when taking a fistful of the meal offering, 11:16 where this concept is discussed. Salt is not placed on the entire meal offering, only on that fistful which is offered on the altar. as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God from your meal offering."

הַמֶּלַח שֶׁמּוֹלְחִין בּוֹ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר כְּמוֹ הָעֵצִים. וְאֵין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא מֶלַח אוֹ עֵצִים לְקָרְבָּנוֹ מִבֵּיתוֹ. וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין הַמֶּלַח. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח. וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ. וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח הָיוּ מוֹלְחִין עוֹרוֹת הַקָּדָשִׁים. וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ מוֹלְחִין הָאֵיבָרִים. וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ מוֹלְחִין הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וּמְנָחוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף:

The salt which is used to salt all of the sacrifices should be communal property like the wood. A private individual should not bring salt or wood for his sacrifice from his home. 6:9), he may not demand that this wood be used for his own sacrifice.There are three places where salt is stored for the sacrificial service: in the Chamber of Salt, 5:17 where the chamber is mentioned. on the ramp [ascending to the altar], and on the top of the altar itself. In the Chamber of Salt, the hides of the sacrificial animals would be salted. On the ramp, the limbs would be salted and on the top of the altar, the fistful of meal [taken from the meal offering], the frankincense [from the Showbread], the meal offerings which are burnt, and a fowl brought as a burnt offering are salted.