Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בְּמַחִשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. בֵּין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד בֵּין בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר. כְּשֵׁרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת וְהַפֶּסַח שֶׁאִם נַעֲשׂוּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פְּסוּלִין. וְאֶחָד הַמְשַׁנֶּה שֵׁם הַזֶּבַח בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת קַבָּלָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָה אוֹ בִּזְרִיקָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. כֵּיצַד לֹא עָלוּ לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לֹא מִשּׁוּם עוֹלָה שֶׁהֵם חַיָּבִין בָּהּ וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁלָמִים. אֶלָּא חַיָּבִין לְהָבִיא זֶבַח אַחֵר. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט עוֹלַת רְאוּבֵן לְשֵׁם שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא עָלְתָה לֹא לִרְאוּבֵן וְלֹא לְשִׁמְעוֹן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁעָקַר שֵׁם הַזֶּבַח בְּזָדוֹן. אֲבָל אִם טָעָה וְדִמָּה שֶׁזּוֹ הָעוֹלָה שְׁלָמִים הִיא וְעָשָׂה כָּל עֲבוֹדוֹתֶיהָ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. וְכֵן הַחַטָּאת וְהַפֶּסַח שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּטָעוּת כְּשֵׁרִים. שֶׁעֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת אֵינָהּ עֲקִירָה. וְכֵן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ אוֹ שֶׁמִּצָּה דָּמָהּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף פְּסוּלָה:
כסף משנה
1.
Any of the sacrifices - whether individual sacrifices or communal sacrifices1The mention of communal sacrifices represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1, which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that a communal sacrifice slaughtered for a different intent fulfills the community's obligation. Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura also follows this view. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text). Note also Rabbi Akiva Eiger's gloss who questions the initial version of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. - that were sacrificed for a different purpose than that for which they were originally designated are acceptable,2Hence, even if one slaughtered an animal designated as a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, one should continue performing all the subsequent tasks for the sake of a burnt-offering [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. See Halachah 3. but they did not satisfy the obligation incumbent on their owner with the exception of a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice.3See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others. If they are offered for a different purpose, they are unacceptable. [This applies whether] one changes the purpose of the sacrifice at the time of slaughter, at the time he receives its blood, at the time he brings it to the altar, or when he casts it upon it, as we explained.4Chapter 13, Halachah 4.What is meant by saying that [the owner] does not fulfill his obligation through such [a sacrifice]? For example, one slaughtered [an animal designated as] a burnt-offering as a peace-offering. It does not fulfill the obligation of the owner, neither for the burnt-offering for which he is obligated or for a sin-offering. Instead, he is obligated to bring another sacrifice. Similarly, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering brought by Reuven for the sake of Shimon, it does not fulfill the obligation either of Reuven or of Shimon.5See Halachah 3 which explains the derivation of this concept. The Mishneh LiMelech questions the Rambam's equation of sacrifices offered for a different purpose than they were originally designated and those offered for the sake of a different person. There is, he explains, a fundamental difference between them. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of another person, the owner is still considered to have fulfilled his obligation. It is only when the blood is cast on the altar for the sake of another person that he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be interpreted as referring to an instance when one slaughtered the animal with the intent to cast its blood on the altar for the sake of another person.
When does the above apply? When one changed the purpose of the sacrifice intentionally. If, however, one erred and had the impression that the [animal designated as] a burnt-offering was [designated as] a peace-offering and carried out all of its services for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. Similarly, when one offered a sin-offering or a Paschal sacrifice for a different purpose in error, they are acceptable. For supplanting [a purpose] mistakenly is of no consequence.6This also represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), which is preserved in the standard printing of that text), he writes that if an intent is supplanted in error, it is considered to be supplanted. In his later years, however, the Rambam emended his text to agree with this ruling (see Rav Kapach's text).
Similarly, if one performs melikah on a fowl [designated as] a burnt-offering or squeezed out its blood for a different purpose, it is acceptable,7This applies even if its blood was presented on the lower portion of the altar as is the blood of a sin-offering. but does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. And a sin-offering of fowl [brought for a different purpose] is unacceptable.
הלכה ב
וְכֵן כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם כְּשֵׁרוֹת וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁאִם חִשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פְּסוּלוֹת. שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בְּמִנְחָה כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּמַץ מִנְחַת נְדָבָה לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא. אוֹ מַרְחֶשֶׁת לְשֵׁם מַחֲבַת. אוֹ מַחֲבַת לְשֵׁם מַרְחֶשֶׁת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
2.
Similarly, all of the meal-offerings that were offered for a different intent than that originally conceived are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation with the exception of a meal-offering of a sinner8I.e., the meal-offering brought by a transgressor obligated to bring an adjustable guilt-offering who is very poor. See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 10. and a meal offering of a sotah.9A woman suspected of adultery. This meal-offering is comparable to that of a sinner. If while performing one of the four services10Mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 6. one had an intent for a different purpose, [the meal-offering] is unacceptable.11See Halachah 3 which explains why these offerings are singled out in contrast to all others.What is implied? One separated a handful from a freewill meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering of a sinner, from an offering intended to be prepared in a deep frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a flat frying-pan, or from an offering intended to be prepared in a flat frying-pan for the sake of one to be prepared in a deep frying-pan.12See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 13, for a description of the differences between these offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
הלכה ג
אָסוּר לְחַשֵּׁב בְּקָדָשִׁים מַחֲשָׁבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ נְכוֹנָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. לְפִיכָךְ זֶבַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. אוֹ מִנְחָה שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה. חַיָּב לְהַשְׁלִים שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת לִשְׁמָן. אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם חַיָּב לִזְרֹק בְּמַחְשָׁבָה נְכוֹנָה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה דִּין הַחַטָּאת וְהַפֶּסַח מִכָּל הַזְּבָחִים. וְדִין מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מִכָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעִיֵּן עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּחַטָּאת (ויקרא ד לג) "וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת". שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. וְכֵן שְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹתֶיהָ לִשְׁמָהּ. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד לה) "עַל חַטָּאתוֹ" שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ הַחֵטְא. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד לה) "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לְשֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ. וְנֶאֱמַר בְּפֶסַח (דברים טז א) "וְעָשִׂיתָ פֶּסַח לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" שֶׁתִּהְיֶה כָּל עֲשִׂיָּתוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. וְנֶאֱמַר (שמות יב כז) "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא לַה'" שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זְבִיחָתוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. הָא אִם שִׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ אוֹ שֵׁם בְּעָלָיו פָּסוּל. וּבְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הוּא אוֹמֵר מִנְחָה הִיא. וּבְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ה טו) "כִּי מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת הִיא". שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לִשְׁמָן:
כסף משנה
3.
It is forbidden to have an incorrect intent [when performing sacrificial service with] consecrated animals, as will be explained.13Chapter 18, Halachah 1. Therefore if one slaughtered a sacrificial animal for a different purpose or took a handful from a meal-offering for a different purpose, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is obligated to complete the remainder of the services for the proper purpose. Even if one slaughtered [the animal], received its blood, and brought it to the altar for an improper purpose, one is obligated to cast it on the altar for the proper purpose.14The rationale is that since the sacrifice is acceptable, its functions must be performed for the proper intent.Why are the laws governing a sin-offering and the Paschal sacrifice different from those governing all other sacrifices and the laws governing a meal-offering of a sinner and that of a sotah different from those governing all other meal-offerings? Because the Torah singled them out. With regard to a sin-offering, [Leviticus 4:33] states: "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering," i.e., that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. Similarly, all of its other services [must be performed] for the proper intent, as [implied by ibid.:28]: "for his sin," i.e., that its service must be performed for the sake of [atoning for] that sin. And [ibid.:26] states: "And he will atone for him," i.e., [the service must be performed] for the sake of its owner.15Zevachim 7a interprets the phrase cited as implying: for him and not for his colleague. See Halachah 8.
And with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, [Deuteronomy 16:1] states: "And you shall offer a Paschal sacrifice to God, your Lord," implying that all of the acts must be performed for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,' implying that it must be slaughtered for the sake of the Paschal sacrifice. Thus if one altered the purpose for which it was sacrificed or [offered for] a different owner,16In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 1:1), the Rambam states that the first verse teaches that the offering must be brought as a Paschal sacrifice and the second, that it must be brought for the sake of its owner. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions only the second verse and states that a Paschal sacrifice that is not offered for the proper purpose is unacceptable. See also Halachah 11. it is not acceptable.
And with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner, [Leviticus 5:12] states: "It is a sin-offering."17Our text reflects an amended version. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah contains a different prooftext. And with regard to the meal-offering of a sotah, [Numbers 5:15] states: "It is a meal-offering [resulting from] envy." [The implication is that] all of the actions associated with them must be performed for that purpose.
הלכה ד
חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם זֶבַח אַחֵר כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה אוֹ לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם אוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים. פְּסוּלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אִם שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חֻלִּין. הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים:
כסף משנה
4.
When a sin-offering is offered for the sake of another sacrifice, e.g., it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering, a guilt-offering, or a peace-offering, it is unacceptable, as we explained. If, however, it was slaughtered as an ordinary animal, it is acceptable, but the owner does not fulfill his obligation.הלכה ה
מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁהַקָּדָשִׁים מְחַלְּלִין קָדָשִׁים וְאֵין הַחֻלִּין מְחַלְּלִין קָדָשִׁים:
כסף משנה
5.
According to the Oral Tradition,18Zevachim 46b derives this principle through Biblical exegesis. it was derived that [an intent for] sacrificial purposes can disqualify sacrificial animals, but an intent for ordinary purposes does not.הלכה ו
שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חֵטְא אַחֵר כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּאָה עַל אֲכִילַת חֵלֶב וּשְׁחָטָהּ עַל אֲכִילַת דָּם פְּסוּלָה:
כסף משנה
6.
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for another sin, e.g., it was brought [to atone] for partaking of fat and one slaughtered it [to atone] for partaking of blood, it is unacceptable.19I.e., even though it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, since it was not slaughtered for the sake of the sin for which the animal was originally designated, it is unacceptable.הלכה ז
שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם אָדָם אַחֵר שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת. אֲפִלּוּ חַטָּאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְבוּעָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה:
כסף משנה
7.
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering to atone] for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a sin-offering, even an adjustable guilt-offering,20Since this is a different type of sacrifice, one might think that the situation is comparable to that stated in the following halachah, slaughtering a sin-offering for the sake of a person obligated to bring a burnt-offering. Nevertheless, since both offerings atone for sins punishable by karet, they are considered as comparable. Hence the sacrifice is disqualified (Rashi, Zevachim 9b). it is unacceptable.הלכה ח
אֲבָל אִם שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב עוֹלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. (ויקרא ד לא) (ויקרא ד לה) "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת כְּמוֹתוֹ:
כסף משנה
8.
If, however, one slaughtered it for the sake of another person who was obligated to bring a burnt-offering,21To atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment. it is acceptable, but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.[The concept mentioned previously22I.e., the law stated in Halachah 7. From this concept, it is also possible to derive the law stated in this halachah, for the implication is that when one offers a sin-offering for the sake of another person who is obligated to bring a sin-offering, it is disqualified, but not when one offers it for the sake of another person who is not so obligated (Zevachim 7a). derived from Leviticus 4:26:] "And he will atone for him," [i.e., "for him,"] and not for his colleague who is obligated to bring a sin-offering like he is.
הלכה ט
שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם מֵת כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים שֶׁאֵין כַּפָּרָה לַמֵּתִים. שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב קָרְבָּן כְּלָל לֹא חַטָּאת וְלֹא עוֹלָה וְלֹא שְׁאָר קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁמָּא מְחֻיָּב הוּא וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ:
כסף משנה
9.
If one slaughtered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] for the sake of a deceased person, it is acceptable, but it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner, because there is no atonement for the dead [through sacrifices].23Hence the deceased person is not considered as obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore, this is not considered as an instance where one offered a sacrifice for the sake of another person obligated to bring a sacrifice.If one slaughtered it for the sake of a person who is not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, not a sin-offering, nor a burnt-offering, nor any other sacrifice, it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] perhaps he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice],24A burnt-offering to atone for the failure to observe a positive commandment. but does not know.25Hence he is considered to be obligated to bring a sacrifice.
Zevachim 71-7b explains that there is a difference between such a situation and a person who knows he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering (in which instance, the sin-offering is not disqualified, as stated in the previous halachah). When the person knows he must bring a burnt-offering, his atonement is associated with that offering only. When, however, he does not know that he must bring a burnt-offering, he will not seek atonement. Hence, the sin-offering he brings will bring him a certain measure of atonement for the positive commandments he did not perform. For as stated in Halachah 14, everyone has certain positive commandments that he has failed to fulfill.
הלכה י
שְׁחָטָהּ לִשְׁמָהּ וְחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁחִיטָה לִזְרֹק דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. לְפִי שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה. וְזֹאת הַמַּחְשָׁבָה שֶׁחִשֵּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּאִלּוּ חִשְּׁבָהּ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה וּלְפִיכָךְ פְּסוּלָה:
כסף משנה
10.
If one slaughtered [a sacrificial animal] with the desired intent, but at the time of slaughter had the intent to cast its blood on the altar for a different purpose, it is disqualified, for the intent one has for one service during the performance of another service [is significant].26The Mishneh LiMelech restricts the scope of the Rambam's statements, maintaining that if at the time of slaughter or the performance of one of the other three services mentioned in Halachah 2, one has a disqualifying intent concerning receiving the blood or bringing it to the altar, the sacrifice is still acceptable. Thus the intent one had during the time of slaughter is considered as if it was in [the priest's] mind at the time he cast [the blood on the altar]. Therefore [the sacrifice] is disqualified.הלכה יא
הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם. בֵּין שֶׁשִּׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם זֶבַח אַחֵר בֵּין שֶׁשִּׁנָּהוּ לְשֵׁם חֻלִּין פָּסוּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב כז) "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא לַה'". בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁהוּא יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטוֹ בְּשַׁחֲרִית בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם פָּסוּל. אֲבָל אִם שְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּעָלִים בִּזְמַנּוֹ וּפָסוּל:
כסף משנה
11.
A Paschal sacrifice that was slaughtered for a different intent - whether for the sake of another sacrifice or whether as an ordinary animal27The commentaries question the Rambam's ruling, because even a sin-offering is acceptable when slaughtered as an ordinary animal. The Kessef Mishneh states that the phrase "unto God" in the prooftext excludes slaughtering the animal for ordinary purposes. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 5:2), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud which states that the phrase "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice' excludes all other intents. - it is unacceptable, as it is written: "And you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice unto God,'28See Halachot 1 and 3.When does the above apply? When it was slaughtered on its appropriate time, the day of the fourteenth of Nisan. Moreover, even if it was slaughtered in the morning of that day29The Paschal sacrifice may not be sacrificed until the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. Nevertheless, since it is offered on that day, the morning is considered "the time of its sacrifice" with regard to the disqualification of an offering. for a different intent, it is unacceptable.30There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Zevachim 1:3. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam maintaining that the more lenient opinion should be accepted. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam accepted the more stringent view because it is debated in the Talmud. If, however, one slaughtered it with a different intent at a time not appropriate for its [sacrifice], it is acceptable.31For if it was slaughtered at such a time, it is considered as a peace-offering and a peace-offering that was slaughtered with a different intent is acceptable.
In the clause which follows, the sacrifice is unacceptable, because there is no one to partake of it and a Paschal sacrifice is brought only to be eaten (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 2).
[If it was slaughtered] for the sake of others and not for its owner, it is considered as if it did not have an owner on the day [when it should be sacrificed] and it is unacceptable.
הלכה יב
פֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר קֹדֶם חֲצוֹת פָּסוּל לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַנּוֹ. עָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ וְשָׁחַט בִּזְמַנּוֹ לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁאָר זְבָחִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה:
כסף משנה
12.
When a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered with the proper intent on the fourteenth of Nisan before noon, it is unacceptable, because this is not the time of the sacrifice. If it was older than one year32At this age, it is no longer fit to be offered as a Paschal sacrifice. and it was slaughtered at the appropriate time for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice and similarly, if one of the other sacrifices were slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal sacrifice, even if it was slaughtered after noon, they are acceptable, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation.הלכה יג
תּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וּשְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה לֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים. לְפִי שֶׁהַתּוֹדָה נִקְרֵאת שְׁלָמִים וּשְׁלָמִים לֹא נִקְרְאוּ תּוֹדָה:
כסף משנה
13.
When a thanksgiving-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a peace-offering, the owner's obligation is fulfilled. When a peace-offering is slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering, the owner's obligation is not fulfilled. [The rationale is that] a thanksgiving-offering is called a peace-offering,33See Leviticus 7:15 which speaks of "the thanksgiving-peace sacrifice." but a peace-offering is not called a thanksgiving-offering.הלכה יד
עוֹלָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב קָרְבָּן כְּלָל לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לִשְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב כְּלוּם בְּעִנְיָנוֹ. אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה חַיָּב כַּפָּרָה לַשָּׁמַיִם שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר מֵעוֹלָם עַל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה:
כסף משנה
14.
When a burnt-offering was slaughtered for the sake of another person who was not obligated to bring a sacrifice at all, the owner does not fulfill his obligation,34For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. for it was not slaughtered for his sake. Although the person for whom it was sacrificed is not liable for any sacrifice in his own mind, it is impossible that he is not obligated [to seek] atonement from heaven, for there is no Jewish person who has never violated a positive commandment.35And atonement for these unknown faults will be secured by this sacrifice.הלכה טו
עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלֶיהָ עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. שֶׁאֵין בְּעָלִים לְאַחַר מִיתָה:
כסף משנה
15.
When a burnt-offering that was brought after the death [of the person who set it aside] was offered for the sake [of that person who set it aside and] not for the sake of its owner,36The heir. the owner37For it is considered to have atoned for the person for whose sake it was sacrificed, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. is considered to have fulfilled his obligation, for there is no conception of ownership after death.הלכה טז
שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם אֵילִים לֹא עָלוּ לַצִּבּוּר לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. וְאִם דִּמָּה שֶׁהֵן אֵילִים וּשְׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם אֵילִים עָלוּ לָהֶן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא עֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת:
כסף משנה
16.
When the two sheep to be brought on Shavuot were slaughtered with the intent that they were rams,38As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings. the community is not considered to have fulfilled its obligation.39And two other sheep must be brought. If [the priests] thought they were rams and slaughtered them with the intent that they were rams, they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation, for the intent was uprooted in error.40As stated in Halachah 1.הלכה יז
אֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מִדָּמוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהוֹנוֹת. טָעוּן נְסָכִים. שֶׁאִם יִקָּרֵב בְּלֹא נְסָכִים נִמְצָא כְּמַקְרִיב נְדָבָה וְאֵין הָאָשָׁם בָּא נְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
17.
When a guilt-offering of a person [to be purified from] tzara'at41A skin malady similar to, but not identical to leprosy that renders one ritually impure. was slaughtered for the sake of another type of sacrifice or its blood was not placed on the thumb and large toe of the person seeking atonement,42See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2. accompanying offerings43See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2. are required.44Even though the person has not fulfilled his obligation and must bring another sacrifice, he is required to bring the accompanying offerings, for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. For if it was offered without accompanying offerings, it would be as if one offered a freewill offering. And a guilt-offering is never brought as a freewill offering.הלכה יח
כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ. לֹא יָבִיא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁלּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֶלָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד כִּשְׁאָר הַנְּדָבוֹת. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָלָה לְשֵׁם חוֹבָתוֹ. וְכֵן תָּמִיד שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ לֹא יַעֲלֶה עִמּוֹ שְׁנֵי גִּזְרֵי עֵצִים כִּשְׁאָר הַתְּמִידִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָלָה לְחוֹבַת הַתָּמִיד אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל הַנְּדָבוֹת:
כסף משנה
18.
When the sheep that is brought together with the omer offering45See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3. was slaughtered for a different intent, one should not bring two esronim for its accompanying offering.46As would be required were it offered for the specified intent (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:5). Instead, he should bring one isaron, as is brought for other freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it did not satisfy the obligation.47In contrast to the guilt-offering mentioned in the previous halachah, it is customary to bring burnt-offerings as freewill offerings. Hence, the accompanying offerings should be brought accordingly.Similarly, when [a lamb intended as] a continuous offering was slaughtered for a different intent, the two logs of wood48See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:2-3. should not be brought up with it, as is done for the other continuous offerings. [The rationale is that] it does not fulfill the obligation of the continuous offering, but instead, is like other freewill offerings.
הלכה יט
שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן בֵּין לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן. הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַצִּבּוּר לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת לֹא יִזְרֹק. וְאִם זָרַק הֻרְצָה לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב:
כסף משנה
19.
When the sheep offered on Shavout49As stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1, together with the two loaves brought on Shavuot are offered several burnt offerings, among them two rams, and two sheep as communal peace-offerings. were slaughtered for a different intent or were slaughtered before their appropriate time or after their appropriate time, the blood should be cast upon the altar and the meat eaten50The commentaries note that it is forbidden to offer the eimorim on the festival and question whether the intent is that the meat may be eaten on the festival or whether it is necessary to wait until the evening. even though the obligation of the community was not fulfilled. If it was the Sabbath, the blood should not be cast [on the altar].51For only obligatory sacrifices are offered on the Sabbath. If it was cast [upon the altar], it is considered acceptable insomuch as the eimorim should be offered in the evening.הלכה כ
וְכֵן שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וְכֵן אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן נֶאֱכָלִים:
כסף משנה