Halacha
הלכה א
אֵין הַמַּעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ. אֲבָל אִם הֶעֱלָה עַל הַסֶּלַע אוֹ עַל הָאֶבֶן פָּטוּר. שֶׁאֵין קָרוּי קָרְבָּן אֶלָּא עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בַּחוּץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ח כ) "וַיִּבֶן נֹחַ מִזְבֵּחַ". וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה לַשֵּׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ לַה'" עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּן לַשֵּׁם:
כסף משנה
1.
A person who offers a sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard] is not liable unless he brings [the sacrificial animal] to the top of the altar that he constructed outside [the Temple]. If, however, he offered it on a stone or a rock, he is exempt, for the term sacrifice applies only when [an animal is offered] on an altar, even if it is outside [the Temple], as [indicated by Genesis 8:20]: "And Noah built an altar." He is not liable unless he offers the sacrifice to God, as [Leviticus 17:9] states: "...to offer it to God," i.e., unless his intent is for God.1I.e., if he offers it for the sake of a person without designating him as a deity, but merely as a token of appreciation, he is not liable.הלכה ב
אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַעֲלָאַת דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לָאִשִּׁים וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּגוֹן הָעוֹלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ח) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עלָה אוֹ זָבַח" מָה עוֹלָה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לָאִשִּׁים אַף כָּל שֶׁרָאוּי לָאִשִּׁים הוּא שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל הַעֲלָאָתוֹ בַּחוּץ:
כסף משנה
2.
One is liable only for offering an entity that is fit for the fire2In contrast to an entity which is eaten, as stated in Halachah 4. and for the altar,3Excluding sacrifices that are not offered on the altar, as mentioned in Halachah 7. for example, a burnt offering, as [ibid.:8] states: "who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice." [One may infer:] Just as a burnt-offering is fit to be offered on the fires, so too, everything that is fit to be offered on the fire is what one is liable for offering outside [the Temple Courtyard].הלכה ג
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ הַזּוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם אוֹ הַמַּקְטִיר אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה אוֹ אֵימוּרִין אוֹ קֹמֶץ אוֹ לְבוֹנָה אוֹ קְטֹרֶת אוֹ מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים אוֹ מִנְחַת נְסָכִים אוֹ הַמְנַסֵּךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין יַיִן אוֹ מַיִם בַּחוּץ חַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ" כָּל הַמִּתְקַבֵּל בִּפְנִים חַיָּבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ:
כסף משנה
3.
On this basis, [our Sages] said that individuals [who perform the following services] outside [the Temple Courtyard] are liable: One who throws the blood, offers on the pyre the limbs of a burnt-offering, the parts of an animal offered on the altar,4This applies with regard to all sacrifices, even sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity. Since these parts are offered on the altar in the Temple, one is liable for offering them outside the Temple (Radbaz). a handful [of meal], or frankincense,5Both the handful of meal taken from the meal-offering and the frankincense from that offering are offered on the altar in their entirety (Chapter 13, Halachah 12). or incense,6This is offered on the inner altar twice daily (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 2:11). the meal-offering of a priest,7Which is offered on the altar in its entirety (Chapter 12, Halachah 9). or the meal-offering within the accompanying offerings8See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. or one who pours a libation of three lugim9For a wine libation is never less than three lugim. See the following halachah. of wine or of water.10The Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh maintain that one is liable for pouring water on an altar only during the holiday of Sukkos, for only then is water offered on the altar in the Temple. The Radbaz does clarify that this is not necessarily apparent from the Rambam's wording. Indeed, on the contrary, from the following halachah, one could infer the opposite. [This is derived from ibid.:9:] "He did not bring it [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting] to offer it." [Implied is that] any [sacrifice] that would be accepted within [the Temple Courtyard] causes one to be liable for [offering] it outside.הלכה ד
אֲבָל הַזּוֹרֵק שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם בַּחוּץ אֲפִלּוּ שְׁיָרֵי דָּמִים הַפְּנִימִים פָּטוּר. שֶׁזְּרִיקַת שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵם וְאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין. וְכֵן הַמְנַסֵּךְ יַיִן אוֹ מַיִם פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר בֵּין בֶּחָג בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. הוֹאִיל וְחָסֵר הַשִּׁעוּר הֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְהִתְקַבֵּל בִּפְנִים. וְכֵן הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת מִבְּשַׂר אָשָׁם מִבְּשַׂר שְׁלָמִים בֵּין שֶׁל יָחִיד בֵּין שֶׁל צִבּוּר מִשְּׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת מִשְּׁתֵי הַלֶּחֶם מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה לֹא לָאִשִּׁים:
כסף משנה
4.
If, however, one throws the remainder of the blood [of a sacrificial animal] - even the remainder of the blood [from a sin-offering whose blood was offered] inside [the Sanctuary],11This refers to the sin-offerings that were burnt. See Chapter 5, Halachah 11. he is exempt. [The rationale is that] throwing the blood on the altar is the remaining aspect of the mitzvah and is not an absolute necessity.12I.e., the fundamental aspect of pouring the blood is the sprinkling of the blood on the altar - or in the Temple Building - each sacrifice according to its laws. Pouring out the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not of fundamental importance and the sacrifices are acceptable even if it is not performed. Hence, it is not considered as an act of significance for which one is liable.Similarly, one who pours a libation of less than three lugim of wine or water outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt, whether during Sukkot13When the water libation is offered. See the notes to the previous halachah. or throughout the year. Since the required measure is lacking,14For three lugim is the smallest wine libation offered (see Chapter 17, Halachot 12, 15). Similarly, the water libation offered on Sukkot is three lugim (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:7). they are not fit to be accepted within [the Temple]. Similarly, one who offers from the meat of a sin-offering, that of a guilt-offering, or that of a peace-offering whether of an individual or of the community or from the remainder of the meal-offerings, the two breads [offered on Shavuot], or the showbread outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt. [The rationale is that] all of these are fit to be eaten, not for the fires [of the altar].
הלכה ה
הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה כֻּלָּהּ בַּחוּץ חַיָּב מִפְּנֵי הָאֵימוּרִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִישָׁן אֵין בְּשַׂר הַזֶּבַח חוֹצֵץ. וּכְאִלּוּ הִקְטִיר הָאֵימוּרִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. אֲבָל הַמַּעֲלֶה מִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה פָּטוּר. שֶׁאֵין הַקֹּמֶץ בָּרוּר וּמֻבְדָּל. קְמָצָהּ וְחָזַר קֻמְצָהּ לְתוֹכָהּ וְהִקְרִיב כֻּלָּהּ בַּחוּץ חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
5.
One who offers an entire animal outside [the Temple Courtyard] is liable, because of the portions offered on the altar. Even though they have not been separated, the meat of the sacrifice is not considered as an intervening substance15In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 13:5), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that we follow the principles that two entities that are the same substance are never considered as intervening substances. and it is as if he offered those portions on the pyre alone. In contrast, if one offers a meal-offering from which a handful [of meal] has not been separated, he is exempt. [Even though he would have been liable for the handful], the handful is not a distinct and discrete entity. If he separated [the handful] and then it was mixed back into it and he then offered the entire [measure] outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable.הלכה ו
הַיּוֹצֵק וְהַבּוֹלֵל וְהַפּוֹתֵת וְהַמּוֹלֵחַ וְהַמֵּנִיף וְהַמַּגִּישׁ וְהַמְסַדֵּר אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְהַמֵּטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת וְהַקּוֹמֵץ וְהַמְקַבֵּל דָּמִים בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ח) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עלָה אוֹ זָבַח". מַה הַעֲלָאָה שֶׁהִיא גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה אַף כָּל שֶׁהוּא גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה חַיָּבִין עָלָיו:
כסף משנה
6.
One who pours oil [over a meal-offering], mixes the meal and oil, breaks up the wafers, salts them, waves them, approaches an altar with them, arranges a table for showbread, cleans the lamps of a candelabra, separates a handful [of meal], or receives the blood [of a sacrificial animal] outside [the Temple Courtyard] is exempt. [The rationale is that] all of these are not activities that complete the offering [of the sacrifice] and [the prooftext] says: "Who will offer a burnt-offering or a sacrifice." [One may infer:] Just as offering [these sacrifices] is the final stage of the service [involved with them], so too, one is liable only for activities that are the final stage of sacrificial service.הלכה ז
פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁשְּׂרָפָהּ חוּץ מִמְּקוֹם שְׂרֵפָתָהּ. וְכֵן שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ אַחַר שֶׁהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו פָּטוּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ" כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו. אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהָיָה פִּסּוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ אִם הֶעֱלָה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּב. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן הַלָּן וְהַיּוֹצֵא וְהַטָּמֵא וְשֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת הָעוֹבֵד שֶׁכֻּלָּן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. אִם עָבַר וְהֶעֱלָה מֵהֶם בַּחוּץ חַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ לַה'" כָּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה לַה' חַיָּבִין עָלָיו וְאֵלּוּ נַעֲשׂוּ לַשֵּׁם:
כסף משנה
7.
When one burns a red heifer outside the place where it is required to be burnt16The red heifer should be slaughtered on the Mount of Olives, as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:1-2. or if one offers, outside [the Temple Courtyard], the goat that is sent [to Azazel]17As stated in Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7, the goat sent to Azazel was pushed off a mountain cliff in the desert outside of Jerusalem. after the confession was recited over it,18See Chapter 18, Halachah 11. he is exempt. [The rationale is that the prooftext] says: "He did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." [One may infer:] One is not liable for any sacrifice which is not fit to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.19I.e., the Temple. This excludes offerings like the above which, though they are consecrated, are not offered in the Temple.In contrast, one is liable for offering [outside the Temple Courtyard] sacrificial animals that were disqualified, if they were disqualified in the Temple. What is implied? [Sacrificial meat or blood] that remained overnight [without being offered], they were taken out [of the Temple Courtyard], they became impure, or they were disqualified because of the intent of the person sacrificing them, all are required to be burnt20Radbaz notes that Zevachim 109a mentions sacrifices disqualified for other reasons. He explains that the Rambam does not mention them here, because here he is speaking in general terms. They are detailed in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim where he discusses the particulars pertaining to these laws. as will be explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukkdashim.21See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19, which mentions the obligation to burn sacrifices that were disqualified for all these reasons. If a person transgressed and offered [such entities] as sacrifices outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable. [This is derived from the prooftext]: "...to offer it to God." One is liable for any [entity] that is are fit to be offered to God and these are fit to be offered to God.22As explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 3, if sacrificial meat or blood was brought to the top of the altar after being disqualified for these reasons, it should be offered on the altar's pyre.
הלכה ח
כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל הַעֲלָאָתוֹ בַּחוּץ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֱלָה מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ חַיָּב. בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱלָה בִּפְנִים תְּחִלָּה וְשִׁיֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת וְהֶעֱלָהוּ בַּחוּץ. בֵּין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַכּל בִּפְנִים וְלָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת וְהֶעֱלָהוּ בַּחוּץ. אֲבָל אִם חִסֵּר אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר הַקָּרֵב כָּל שֶׁהוּא בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה שְׁאֵרִיתוֹ בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר:
כסף משנה
8.
Whenever there is a substance for which one is liable for offering it outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for offering an olive-sized portion of it outside.23Any lesser amount is not considered significant. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:10. [This applies] whether he offered [a portion of the entity] inside [the Temple Courtyard] first, left over an olive-sized portion and then offered it outside or left the entire entity inside and took an olive-sized portion and offered it outside. If, however, [the size of] the sacrificial entity was decreased in the slightest way24I.e., a portion of it was lost or burnt. inside the Temple Courtyard and then the remainder was offered outside, he is exempt.הלכה ט
כֵּיצַד. הַקֹּמֶץ אוֹ הַלְּבוֹנָה וְהָאֵימוּרִין וְהָעוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה הַנִּשְׂרֶפֶת וְהַנְּסָכִין שֶׁחָסְרוּ מִקְצָתָם בִּפְנִים וְהִקְרִיב שְׁאֵרִיתָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתוֹ" עַל הַשָּׁלֵם הוּא חַיָּב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶחָסֵר. הוֹצִיאוֹ שָׁלֵם וְחָסַר בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
9.
What is implied? If a portion of the handful [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, the portions of a sacrifice offered on the altar, a burnt-offering, a meal offering that is burnt,25This refers to a meal offering brought by a male priest, the meal offering of the High Priest, and the meal component of the accompanying offerings (Zevachim 13:4). and the wine libations was decreased within [the Temple Courtyard] and the remainder was offered outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is exempt. [This is derived from the prooftext which states:] "to offer it." [Implied is that] he is liable for a complete entity, but he is not liable if it is lacking.26For the prooftext states "it," and this implies that the entity must be complete. If one removed [the sacrificial entity] from the Temple Courtyard while it was complete, its [size] was decreased outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then he offered it [there], there is an unresolved question [whether he is liable]. Therefore [a transgressor] is not given lashes.הלכה י
הֶעֱלָה אֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וְהָיָה הָעֶצֶם מַשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְזַיִת חַיָּב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְחֻבָּר. הָיָה מֶלַח מַשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְזַיִת הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְעוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת:
כסף משנה
10.
If, [outside the Temple Courtyard,] one offered a limb that did not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, but the bone itself caused it to reach the olive-sized measure, he is liable, because the meat is connected to the bone. If salt caused [the sacrificial entity] to reach the olive-sized measure, there is an unresolved question [whether he is liable].27Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:10. Therefore [a transgressor] is not given lashes. A burnt-offering and the portions of the innards of a burnt-offering28We have translated the text according to its straightforward meaning. Nevertheless, the Radbaz states that this ruling applies, not only to a burnt-offering and its own innards, but even one that is combined with the innards of another sacrifice. Thus he maintains that one is liable for combining the meat of a burnt-offering, not only with the innards of a burnt-offering, but also with the innards of a peace-offering. that are offered on the altar, can be combined to complete an olive-sized portion [to cause one to be liable].29For they are part of the same type of offering and are both offered on the altar in their entirety.הלכה יא
הֶעֱלָה וְחָזַר וְהֶעֱלָה חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר. זָרַק הַדָּם וְהֶעֱלָה הָאֵיבָרִים חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. שֶׁהֲרֵי חָלַק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין מַעֲלֶה לְעוֹשֶׂה. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ח) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עלָה" וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ט) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתוֹ". הֶעֱלָה אֵיבָר חָסֵר פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ עַל הַשָּׁלֵם הוּא חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
11.
If one offered [a portion of a sacrifice outside the Temple Courtyard] and then offered another portion of it, he is liable for every individual limb.30Provided he was notified of the transgression between the offering of each particular limb (Radbaz, based on Hilchot Shegagot 6:2). If he sprinkled its blood [outside the Temple Courtyard] and then offered its limbs, he is liable twice. For the Torah made a distinction between [offering blood and offering limbs as indicated by the two prooftexts] "Who will offer a burnt-offering" and "to offer it."31The fact that the Torah uses two prooftexts implies that two different prohibitions are involved. The prooftext "to offer it" refers to both the prohibitions against slaughter and against sprinkling the blood and the prooftext "who will offer it" refers to the prohibition against offering the limbs on the altar (Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh, thus resolving the questions raised by the Ra'avad).If one offered a limb that was lacking [in substance], he is exempt,32The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, noting that the previous halachah stated that a person is liable if the combination of a portion of a limb and the portions of the innards offered on the altar equal an olive-sized portion. This indicates that a limb need not be whole. The Kessef Mishneh and others, however, justify the Rambam's ruling. as [one can infer from the prooftext] "to offer it." [This indicates] that one is liable [only] for a complete [limb].
הלכה יב
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ פְּטוּרִים. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאָחֲזוּ בְּאֵיבָר וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ בַּחוּץ חַיָּבִין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ח) "אִישׁ אִישׁ" (ויקרא יז ח) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עלָה" אֲפִלּוּ אִישׁ וְאִישׁ שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ חַיָּבִין:
כסף משנה
12.
When two people slaughter [a sacrificial animal outside the Temple Courtyard], they are exempt.33This law has already been stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 16. Indeed, there are some who considered its inclusion here as a scribal error. If two people hold a limb [from a sacrificial animal] and offer it outside the Temple Courtyard], they are liable. [The rationale is that the prooftext states] "Every man34The original Hebrew repeats the word ish meaning man, implying that even two men can be held liable for the same activity. who will offer a burnt-offering." Implied is that even two people who offer [a sacrifice] are liable.הלכה יג
הַזּוֹרֵק מִקְצָת מַתָּנוֹת בַּחוּץ חַיָּב. הַמְקַבֵּל דַּם חַטָּאת בְּכוֹס אֶחָד נָתַן מִמֶּנּוּ בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים חַיָּב עַל הֲנָיָתָן בַּחוּץ. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלּוֹ רָאוּי לִקָּרֵב בִּפְנִים. וְאִם נָתַן מִמֶּנּוּ בִּפְנִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁיָרִים. אֲבָל אִם קִבֵּל בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן שְׁנֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ. אוֹ אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְאֶחָד בִּפְנִים. אוֹ אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
13.
If a person makes several of the required sprinklings [of blood] outside [their appropriate place], he is liable.35Even though he did not complete the required service associated with the sacrifice, as long as he sprinkled the blood on an altar once, he is liable. A person who receives the blood of a sin-offering36The Rambam is quoting the wording of the mishnah (Zevachim13:6). Nevertheless, according to his understanding, this law applies to the blood of other sacrifices as well. in one cup and applies it to an altar outside [the Temple Courtyard] and then applies it to the altar inside [the Temple Courtyard],37He is liable even if he does not apply the blood to the altar inside. The Rambam mentions the application of the blood inside only to emphasize that offering the blood properly does not remove the liability that was already established. he is liable for the portion applied outside [the Temple Courtyard]. [The rationale is that] the entire amount was fit to be offered inside.38Hence if he offers any of it outside first, he is liable. The fact that he does not offer the entire amount outside is not significant. As long as a portion is offered outside, he is liable.If he applied it to [the altar] inside and then applied it outside, he is exempt, for [the blood he used] was merely remnants.39I.e., the offering was completed through the application of the blood to the altar inside. Although the remainder of the blood should also have been dashed on the altar, that is not an absolute requirement. Hence one is not liable for offering such blood outside the Temple Courtyard. If, however, he received the blood in two cups, he is liable whether he applied both of them outside [the Temple Courtyard], [the first] outside and the other inside, or [the first] inside and the other outside.40The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam regarding the latter point, explaining that Zevachim 112a states that one is exempt in the latter instance. Since the blood was first offered inside, the sacrifice is acceptable and the fact that later blood was also offered outside is not of consequence. The Radbaz explains that, according to the Rambam, that rationale applies when the blood was offered inside according to all of its specifications. In this instance, however, the Rambam is speaking about a situation where the applications of the blood to the Temple altar were not completed. Hence, the blood in the second cup is still significant.
הלכה יד
הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה שֶׁל מִנְחָה שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ אוֹ הִקְרִיב הָאֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּחוּץ חַיָּב. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ אוֹ אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְהַשֵּׁנִי בַּחוּץ חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
14.
When one offered a handful [of meal] or the frankincense from the meal offering41See Chapter 13, Halachot 12-13, which describe the offering of the meal-offering. outside [the Temple Courtyard], or offered one inside and the other outside, he is liable. Similarly, with regard to the two bowls of frankincense from the showbread,42See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2 for a description of the offering of the showbread. if one offered [the first] outside the [Temple Courtyard]43Even though the offering is not complete until both bowls of frankincense are offered (ibid.:3), one is liable for offering even one of them outside. or [the first] inside and the second outside, he is liable.הלכה טו
מִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט קָדָשִׁים בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְהֶעֱלָם חוּץ לַעֲזָרָה חַיָּב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִקָּרֵב בִּפְנִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי מֻתָּר לְהַקְרִיב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קָדְשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא:
כסף משנה
15.
If a person slaughtered consecrated animals in the present era and offered them outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable, because [the sacrifices] are fit to be offered inside. For it is permitted to offer sacrifices even though the Temple is not built, because [when the Temple was] consecrated originally, it was consecrated for the immediate time and for all future time.44See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15-16 for an explanation of these concepts. See also ibid. 2:4 which states that as long as the altar is built in its appropriate place sacrifices may be offered even though the Temple is destroyed. Based on Zevachim 59a, the Radbaz states that even if the altar is not built, sacrifices can be offered on its site. Indeed, he writes that it is only because the gentiles do not allow us that we do not offer communal sacrifices in the present age. (Communal sacrifices may be offered while ritually impure.)Based on this rationale, after the conquest of Jerusalem in 5727 (1967), the Lubavitcher Rebbe advised his chassidim to leave the holy city on the day before Pesach. The rationale is that the Paschal sacrifice may also be brought while ritually impure. Now anyone who is close to Jerusalem on the day before Pesach and does not bring a Paschal sacrifice is liable for karet. Although many factors are involved and the Rebbe did not advise his followers to actually bring a sacrifice, he felt it necessary that precautions be taken so that they would not be held liable for not bringing the offering. This situation persisted for several years until the Rebbe felt that the Jewish control of the Temple Mount was weakened to the point that it would be impossible to bring an offering.
הלכה טז
הַשּׁוֹחֵט קָדְשֵׁי נָכְרִים בַּחוּץ חַיָּב. וְכֵן הַמַּעֲלֶה אוֹתָן בַּחוּץ. וְהַנָּכְרִים מֻתָּרִין לְהַקְרִיב עוֹלוֹת לַשֵּׁם בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּ בְּבָמָה שֶׁיִּבְנוּ. וְאָסוּר לְסַיְּעָן וְלַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָן שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱסַר עָלֵינוּ לְהַקְרִיב בַּחוּץ. וּמֻתָּר לְהוֹרוֹת לָהֶם וּלְלַמְּדָם הֵיאַךְ יַקְרִיבוּ לְשֵׁם הָאֵל בָּרוּךְ הוּא:
כסף משנה
16.
[A Jew] who slaughters sacrificial animals belonging to a gentile outside [the Temple Courtyard] is liable.45For slaughtering these animals outside the Temple Courtyard. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this is speaking about a situation where the gentile desires to offer the sacrifice to God. Similarly, one who offers them outside [the Temple Courtyard is liable].Gentiles are permitted to offer burnt offerings to God in all places,46Zevachim 116b notes that the passage prohibiting the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the Temple Courtyard begins: "Speak to the children of Israel," implying that the prohibition applies only to them. provided they sacrifice them on a raised structure that they build.47This license applies in the present era as well. It is forbidden to help them [offer these sacrifices] or act as agents for them, for we are forbidden to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]. It is permitted to instruct them and teach them how to sacrifice to the Almighty, blessed be He.