Halacha
הלכה א
וְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְחַטָּאת שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יָמוּתוּ. נִמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה הַחַטָּאת הַשְּׁנִיָּה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דָּמָהּ. הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אִם תָּמוּת אִם תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם. לְפִיכָךְ תָּמוּת. וְכֵיצַד הֵן מֵתוֹת. לֹא שֶׁיַּהַרְגֵם בִּכְלִי אוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אֶלָּא יַכְנִיסֵם לְבַיִת וְנוֹעֵל עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. וּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ כֻּלָּם מִפִּי משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ נִשְׁמְעוּ. אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּחַטַּאת יָחִיד בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל חַטַּאת צִבּוּר שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַר כַּפָּרָה בֵּין רְאוּיָה בֵּין אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּחַטַּאת צִבּוּר וָלָד אוֹ תְּמוּרָה אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ. שֶׁכָּל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר זְכָרִים וְאֵין הַצִּבּוּר עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר וְאֵין כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵתִים:
כסף משנה
1.
[All of the following:]a) the offspring of [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
b) an animal exchanged for [an animal designated as] a sin-offering,
c)[an animal designated as] a sin-offering whose owner dies, and
d) such animal that was lost and then found only after the owner secured atonement,1Through offering a different animal as a sin-offering. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam mentions several conditions when an animal is consigned to death in such a situation. They are listed in Halachot 9-13. should be consigned to die.
[In the latter instance, if the first animal designated as a sin-offering] was found after the second that was set aside was slaughtered, but before its blood was presented on the altar, there is an unresolved doubt2The doubt arises because the person does not secure atonement until the blood is presented. if it should be consigned to death or left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.3When an animal has been consecrated, but is unfit to be sacrificed for various reasons, it must be redeemed before being used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it may not be redeemed until it becomes disqualified as a sacrifice through contracting a physical blemish. Therefore it is left to pasture until it contracts such a blemish. During that time, it is still consecrated and it is forbidden to benefit from it. Therefore4For if it is to be consigned to death, it would be forbidden to benefit from it. Since there is a possibility that it is forbidden in this manner, it is not redeemed. it should be consigned to death.
What is meant by being consigned to death? Not that one should kill them with a utensil or by hand. Instead, they should be brought into a room, locked inside, [and left] until they die. All of these matters were conveyed by Moses our teacher.
All of the above applies only to a sin-offering designated by an individual. [An animal designated as] a communal sin-offering, by contrast, which was lost and then discovered after atonement was secured - whether it is fit [to be offered as a sacrifice] or unfit5It became blemished or its age increased beyond that which is appropriate.- should be left to pasture until it contracts a blemish and then sold.6See footnote 3. The proceeds should be used for freewill offerings.7I.e., the money is used to buy animals that are offered as burnt-offerings at a time when the altar is free [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4)].
With regard to communal sin-offerings, it is impossible to speak of offspring, exchanges, or the owners dying, because all of the communal offerings are male.8Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15. Since they are male, there are no offspring. The community cannot exchange one sacrificial animal for another as will be explained.9Hilchot Temurah 1:1. And the entire Jewish people will not die.10In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 2:2), the Rambam cites Bava Batra 115b which states that an entire tribe will not die and states that how much more so does this apply to the entire Jewish people.
הלכה ב
פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת הַצִּבּוּר מֵתָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקְרְבוּ עַצְמָן נְדָבָה שֶׁהֲרֵי זְכָרִים הֵם. גְּזֵרָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה:
כסף משנה
2.
When the bull11Sacrificed by the High Priest as atonement for his household and for the entire priestly family. Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 4:1 and/or the goat12The pair of the goat sent to Azazel. This goat is offered as a sin-offering, for the entire Jewish people (ibid.). of Yom Kippur were lost, other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found], they should be left to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish. [Then] they should be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings.13The wording used by the Rambam literally means "the proceeds should fall to a freewill offering." In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 3:3, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains the meaning of that phrase. There were thirteen chests shaped like shofarot in the Temple. Six of them were for money to be used for freewill offerings (see Hilchot Shekalim 2:2). The money from such a sale would be deposited in one of these chests. [The rationale is that] a communal sin-offering is never consigned to death. [This same law applies when] the goats sacrificed as [atonement for the worship of] false divinities14See Hilchot Shegagot 12:1. are lost other [animals] were set aside instead of them [and sacrificed, and then the original animals were found].Why are [the animals that were lost and then discovered] themselves not offered as freewill offerings, for they are male? This is a decree, forbidding [offering them] after atonement was achieved, [lest they be offered as freewill offerings] before atonement [was achieved].15For as stated in the following halachah, it is preferable that the animals originally set aside as sin-offerings be offered for that purpose instead of their replacements.
הלכה ג
הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶם עוֹמְדוֹת. מָשַׁךְ אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵיהֶן וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בָּהּ הָאַחֶרֶת תָּמוּת. בָּא לְהִמָּלֵךְ אוֹמְרִין לוֹ שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר בָּזוֹ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. הָיְתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן תְּמִימָה וְאַחַת בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תְּמִימָה תִּקָּרֵב וּבַעֲלַת מוּם תִּפָּדֶה. נִשְׁחֲטָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דַּם הַתְּמִימָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין יִמָּכְרוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְיָבִיא מִדְּמֵיהֶם חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפּל לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
3.
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it, then the first one was found, and they both stood [before him]. If he took one of them and attained atonement through its [sacrifice], the other should be consigned to death.16Since he took one without questioning what should be done with the second, it is obvious that he consciously rejected the second one and is not concerned with its future. Hence it should be consigned to death (Rashi, Temurah 23a).This ruling reflects a reversal in the Rambam's thinking. Originally [i.e., in the first version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:3)], he accepted the opinion of Rav Abba who made his statements in the name of Rav. According to that view, if he sacrificed the animal that was set aside originally, the second animal that was set aside need not be consigned to death. He later changed his mind (see Rav Kapach's version of the Commentary to the Mishnah; see also the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov to Temurah, loc. cit.) and amended his text to read as above. If he asks the advice [of the court],17And thus shows that he is concerned about the fate of the other animal. Accordingly, it is not consigned to death. he is told to gain atonement through the one set aside first. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.18See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.
If one of them was unblemished and the other had a disqualifying physical blemish, the unblemished one should be sacrificed and the blemished one should be redeemed.19And the proceeds used for freewill offerings as above. If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar],20The act that brings about atonement. it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one].21This follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar ben Shimon (Temurah 24a) who maintains that once the owner receives atonement, it becomes forbidden to benefit from the second animal even if the second animal was already slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is unlikely the Rambam accepted this view when it is opposed by the majority of the Sages. Hence he suggests amending the text to read: "If, [after it was redeemed,] the blemished one was slaughtered before the blood of the unblemished one was cast [upon the altar], it is permitted. [If it was slaughtered] after [the blood of the first] was cast upon the altar, it is forbidden to benefit from [the blemished one]." If they were both blemished, they should both be sold, a sin-offering should be purchased from the proceeds, and the remainder used for freewill offerings.22See Chapter 5, Halachah 3.
הלכה ד
הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת וְנִמְצְאוּ הָאוֹבְדוֹת וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. שְׁנִיָּה מֵתָה וּשְׁלִישִׁית רוֹעָה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית שְׁנִיָּה מֵתָה וְרִאשׁוֹנָה רוֹעָה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית שְׁתֵּיהֶם מֵתוֹת:
כסף משנה
4.
[The following rules apply when a person] designated [an animal as] a sin-offering and it was lost, he designated another one instead of it and it was [also] lost, and he designated a third. Afterwards, the lost ones were found, and all three stood [before him]. If he received atonement through the first animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the third left to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish].23Since the third animal does not have a direct connection with the first, the fact that the owner received atonement through the sacrifice of the first does not cause the third to be consigned to death. If he received atonement through the third animal [that was set aside], the second should be consigned to death and the first left to pasture.24For the same reason as stated in the previous note. If he received atonement through the second animal [that was set aside], the first and the third should be consigned to death.25For both of these share a direct connection with the second.הלכה ה
הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֵי זוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
5.
When a person sets aside two [animals for] a sin-offering for surety,26So that if one is lost or becomes unacceptable, he will be able to offer the other one. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this is speaking about a situation when the person says: "One of these two should be consecrated as a sin-offering." he may gain atonement through which one he desires, the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.הלכה ו
הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת מְעֻבֶּרֶת וְיָלְדָה. הֲרֵי הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ כִּשְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁנִּתְפָּרְשׁוּ לְאַחֲרָיוּת:
כסף משנה
6.
When a person sets aside [an animal that] is pregnant as a sin-offering and it gives birth, it and its offspring are considered as two animals set aside for a sin-offering and as surety for it.27And he can offer either as a sacrifice.הלכה ז
הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ. תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם יָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת:
כסף משנה
7.
If one set aside a sin-offering and then its year passed,28A lamb is not fit to be brought as a sin-offering if it is more than one year old. it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place. Similarly, if [an animal] was set aside as a sin-offering and it contracted a disqualifying blemish, [it should be sold and] the proceeds used to bring another animal in its place.הלכה ח
כָּל חַטָּאת שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת קֹדֶם כַּפָּרָה. (אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת אַחַר שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ) אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. נִמְצֵאת אַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ עָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תָּמוּת:
כסף משנה
8.
Whenever [an animal designated as] a sin-offering was lost and then discovered before [the owner] achieved atonement,29Through the offering of another sacrifice. - even though when it was discovered it was blemished or its year had passed30And thus when it was discovered, it was no longer fit to be offered as a sacrifice. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this clause is a printing error, because according to the Rambam's logic, the term "even though" is inappropriate. - it is not consigned to death.31According to the Rambam (see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1-2), the determining factor is whether the animal was discovered before atonement is achieved or not. Only when it is lost at the time of atonement is it consigned to death. Instead, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.If it was found after [the owner] achieved atonement, even if it was discovered when it was blemished or its year had passed,32In which instance, there is room to say that it should not be consigned to death, because perhaps it was already disqualified as a sacrifice at the time the other animal was offered. Even in such a situation, however, it is consigned to death. since it was lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is consigned to death.
הלכה ט
הָיְתָה גְּנוּבָה אוֹ גְּזוּלָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזְרָה. אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה. לֹא שָׁמְעוּ מִמּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ אֶלָּא אֲבוּדָה. הָיְתָה עִקַּר אֲבֵדָתָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה:
כסף משנה
9.
If [the animal] was stolen or robbed at the time atonement was achieved and afterwards returned, it is not consigned to death. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished], for all we heard from Moses our teacher was that [an animal] that was lost [should be consigned to death].33As mentioned in Halachah 1, the laws applying to the consignment of an animal designated as a sin-offering to death are part of the Oral Tradition conveyed to Moses at Sinai. And all that was mentioned in that tradition was an animal that was lost.If it first34Temurah 22b explains that this is the meaning of ikar in this instance. was lost at night, even though it remained lost at the time atonement was achieved, it is not consigned to death.35Because at the time it was lost, it was not fit to be sacrificed, since sacrifices are not offered at night. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].
הלכה י
אָבְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא מִן הָרוֹעֶה. אוֹ שֶׁאָבְדָה מִן הָרוֹעֶה וְאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה מִבְּעָלֶיהָ. אֵינָהּ מֵתָה אֶלָּא רוֹעָה:
כסף משנה
10.
If [the owner] considered [an animal designated as a sin-offering] lost, but the shepherd did not or the shepherd considered it lost, but the owner did not, it is not consigned to death [if it is discovered after another animal was offered in place of it].36As long as one - the owner or the shepherd - knows of the animal's existence, it cannot truly be considered as lost. Instead, it is allowed to pasture [until it becomes blemished].הלכה יא
וְכָל אֵלּוּ שֶׁרוֹעוֹת רוֹעוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
11.
All of those [animals mentioned in the above laws] that are allowed to pasture, may pasture until they contract a blemish. [Then they are sold and] the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering.הלכה יב
הָיְתָה אֲבוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּמִן הָרוֹעֶה וְאַחֵר מַכִּירָה. אֲפִלּוּ בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק לְפִיכָךְ תָּמוּת:
כסף משנה
12.
If [the animal] was considered lost by both [the owner] and the shepherd, but another person - even in a far corner of the world - knows of its existence, there is an unresolved doubt whether it should be consigned to death.37Temurah 22b leaves this question unresolved. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:1), the Rambam writes that as long as one person knows of the animal's existence, it is not consigned to death. Therefore it should be consigned to death.38As stated in Halachah 1.הלכה יג
הָיְתָה נֶחְבֵּאת אֲחוֹרֵי הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ בְּסֵתֶר הַמַּדְרֵגָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבוּדָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. הָיְתָה בַּשָּׂדֶה אוֹ בַּאֲגַם הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק אֲבוּדָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ שָׁם אָדָם רוֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. לְפִיכָךְ תָּמוּת מִסָּפֵק:
כסף משנה
13.
[If the animal designated as a sin-offering] was hiding behind a door or behind a stairwell, it is considered as lost, for no one will see it at the time atonement is gained. If it is in a field or in a swamp, there is a doubt whether it is lost, for perhaps there is a person who saw it at the time atonement is achieved. Therefore it is consigned to death because of the doubt.הלכה יד
הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חַטָּאתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם. מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף. אוֹ בְּחַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת סְמִיכָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אָשָׁם וַדַּאי שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו. וְשֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו. יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת תָּמוּת בְּאָשָׁם יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
14.
When a person sends [an animal designated as] a sin-offering from a distant country, we sacrifice it under the assumption that he is alive.When does the above apply? With regard to a sin-offering of a fowl or a sin-offering of an animal for a woman who does not perform semichah, as we explained.39Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5. A sin-offering for a man, by contrast, should not be brought unless he is present to perform semichah upon it. Although, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable if semichah is not performed, as an initial preference, one should not offer it unless that rite could be performed. [Different rules apply with regard to an animal set aside as] an unconditional guilt-offering.40The situations under which a person is required to bring such a sacrifice are described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:6. [If] its owner died or received atonement,41Through the sacrifice of another animal. it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering. Whenever it is deemed that [an animal designated as] a sin-offering should be consigned to death, [one designated as] a guilt-offering should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
הלכה טו
כָּל אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתַּק לִרְעִיָּה. אִם הִקְרִיבוֹ עוֹלָה כָּשֵׁר. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקָּרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ עוֹלָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה. גְּזֵרָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה:
כסף משנה
15.
[If] any [animal set aside as] a guilt-offering that is consigned to pasture [until it contracts a disqualifying blemish] is sacrificed as a burnt offering itself,42I.e., if instead of being left to pasture, the animal was itself offered as a burnt-offering. it is acceptable. Why is it not the initial preference to offer it as a burnt-offering? [This is] a decree, [using such an animal for a burnt-offering] after [its owner] gained atonement [is forbidden] lest [such an animal be used for a burnt-offering] before [the owner] gained atonement.43For if it was discovered before the owner gained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, the initial preference would be to sacrifice it.הלכה טז
הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לַאֲשָׁמוֹ תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אָשָׁם. אִם הִקְרִיב אֲשָׁמוֹ יִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה. וְכֵן וְלָדָהּ:
כסף משנה
16.
When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering in which he [is obligated], it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.44All guilt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10). Hence the animal cannot be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a guilt-offering.45For it was consecrated for that purpose. If his guilt-offering was offered, the proceeds from the sale should be used to purchase a freewill offering. This also applies to her offspring.46If the female set aside as a guilt-offering became pregnant, its offspring (even if male) should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and then sold and the proceeds used to purchase a freewill offering. The rationale is that the consecrated status of the offspring stems from the mother. Since the mother was not fit to be offered as a guilt-offering, the offspring also should not be used for that purpose.הלכה יז
הִפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְעוֹלָתוֹ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
17.
When a person sets aside a female [animal] for a burnt-offering47All animals offered as burnt-offerings are male (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:8). Hence the animal could never be used for the purpose for which it was consecrated. in which he [is obligated] and she gives birth to a male, [the offspring] should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a burnt-offering.48The offspring itself should not be offered for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah.הלכה יח
אֲבָל הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ זָכָר לְחַטָּאת וְנָשִׂיא שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שְׂעִירָה לְחַטָּאת. וְכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פָּרָה לְחַטָּאת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵין מִתְקַדְּשִׁין לֹא קְדֻשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְלֹא קְדֻשַּׁת דָּמִים. לְפִיכָךְ יִמָּכְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמוּם:
כסף משנה
18.
If, however, an ordinary person49In contrast to a king or a High Priest. set aside a male [animal] for a sin-offering,50All the sin-offerings brought by an ordinary person are female (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15). a king51This is the interpretation of the term nasi used by the Rambam (see Hilchot Shegagot 15:6). set aside a she-goat as a sin-offering,52Instead of a he-goat as required. or an anointed priest set aside a cow,53Instead of a bull as required. these are not consecrated [at all], their physical person is not consecrated,54So that they would be sacrificed for the stated purpose. nor is their worth consecrated.55In which instance, they would have to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice. Therefore they may be sold [even] when unblemished.56The rationale is that, as stated in Hilchot Temurah 1:21, when an error was made in consecrating an animal as a sin-offering, it is not consecrated at all. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on Temurah 19b-20a, but states that there is a way to resolve the Rambam's perspective. The Kessef Mishneh recognizes the difficulty in the Rambam's ruling and also offers a possible resolution.הלכה יט
הֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא אוֹ שֶׁחָטָא וַדַּאי. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם דָוֶה עַל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו וְהוֹאִיל וְעַל סָפֵק הִפְרִישׁוֹ גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְהַקְדִּישׁ. הִפְרִישׁ אֲפִלּוּ עַל פִּי עֵדִים וְהוּזַמּוּ יִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ. הַדָּם יִשָּׁפֵךְ וְהַבָּשָׂר יִשָּׂרֵף כִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. נוֹדַע לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם. הַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל לַכֹּהֲנִים כְּכָל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת:
כסף משנה
19.
[The following laws apply when a person] brought a conditional guilt-offering57Which must be brought when he is in doubt of whether he inadvertently committed a sin that would make him liable for a sin-offering, and then discovered that he did not sin58In which instance he would not have to bring a sacrifice at all. or that he definitely sinned.59In which instance, he would have to bring a sin-offering instead. [Should he become aware of this] before the animal was slaughtered, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. [Then it should be sold and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.60I.e., since it was consecrated, it should be used for the purchase of a sacrifice. It cannot, however, be sacrificed as a guilt-offering, because the person is not obligated to bring such a sacrifice. [The rationale61I.e., since it was consecrated conditionally - i.e., because he might have sinned - when he discovers that he did not, there is room to say that the consecration is not binding. Indeed, Keritot 23b mentions an opinion to that effect. The Rambam does not, however, accept this view for the reasons stated. is that] a person's heart feels contrite because of his sins. Since he designated [the animal as a sacrifice] because of a doubt, [we assume that] he resolved to consecrate it [regardless]. If he designated [an animal as a conditional guilt-offering] even because of witnesses62I.e., he had no suspicions that he sinned, but witnesses told him that he performed an action that could have involved a transgression, e.g., he ate a piece of meat that could possible have contained an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat. and the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah,63Hazamah refers to a situation in which other witnesses disqualify the witnesses who testified previously by stating that it was impossible for their testimony to be true, for the witnesses were together with them in a different place at the time the transgression mentioned in their testimony was performed (Hilchot Edut 18:2).Here, also, there is room to say that the person consecrated the animal in error. Nevertheless, the rationale given previously applies in this instance as well. [the above ruling applies and] the proceeds used for a freewill offering.
If this was discovered after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be poured out64In the drainage channel. and the meat burnt as prescribed with regard to other sacrifices that were disqualified.65See Chapter 19, Halachah 1. If this was discovered after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be eaten by the priests like that of other guilt-offerings.66For the sacrifice was offered as prescribed, and from the outset, it was offered conditionally.
הלכה כ
אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵּן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר כִּשְׁאָר הַחֻלִּין וְאֵין בּוֹ קְדֻשָּׁה כְּלָל. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם. הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה כִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:
כסף משנה
20.
[This law] does not apply with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering. [In that instance,] if the person became aware that he did not sin before [the animal designated as a sacrifice was slaughtered], it should be allowed to go out and pasture among the flock like an ordinary animal.67Since it was consecrated in error, the consecration is not binding at all. There is no holiness associated with it at all. If [he became aware of his innocence] after [the animal] was slaughtered, it should be buried.68I.e., it is governed by the laws pertaining to an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. If [he became aware] after the blood was cast [on the altar], the meat should be taken to the place where [invalid sacrifices] are burnt like other sacrifices that were disqualified.69See Chapter 19, Halachah 1.הלכה כא
מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְהִפְרִישׁ שְׁנַיִם לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֶחָד וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּאָשָׁם וַדַּאי שֶׁהוּא כֵּן:
כסף משנה
21.
When a person became liable to offer a conditional guilt-offering and he set aside two [animals] as surety,70I.e., if one will be lost, the other should be sacrificed in place of it. he should gain atonement through one of them and the second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.71As stated in Halachah 5, with regard to a sin-offering. [Then] it should be sold and the proceeds used for a freewill offering.72Since he set aside an extra animal because he wanted to be certain that he would be able to offer a sacrifice as atonement for his sins, we assume that he desired to consecrate it under all circumstances. Needless to say,73The commentaries have questioned why the Rambam feels that an unconditional guilt-offering is a more obvious matter than a conditional guilt-offering. this law applies with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.הלכה כב
כָּל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בָּאִין בְּנֵי שְׁתַּיִם וּבָאִים בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע וַאֲשַׁם נָזִיר שֶׁהֵם בְּנֵי שָׁנָה וְאֵין לִדְמֵיהֶם קִצְבָה. אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בָּא מִן הַקְּטַנִּים אוֹ מִן הַגְּדוֹלִים. וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים:
כסף משנה
22.
All of the guilt-offerings mentioned in the Torah should be brought when they are in their second year of life74More precisely when they are at least thirteen months old. and their price should be [two] silver shekalim75As stated explicitly in Leviticus 5:15 with regard to the guilt offering that atones for the misappropriation of consecrated property. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains the process of exegesis through which this requirement is extended to apply to the guilt-offerings that atone for robbery and for relations with a maid-servant that was designated for another man. with the exception of the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted by tzara'at76A skin affliction similar, but not analogous to leprosy. The obligation to bring a guilt-offering when one emerges from this impurity is stated in Leviticus 14:10-12. and the guilt offering brought by a nazirite77When the nazirite becomes impure and shaves his head before beginning his nazirite vow again, he brings several sacrifices including a guilt-offering as stated in Numbers 6:12. which should be brought in their first year of life78As specifically stated in the Torah. and their cost has no limit.A conditional guilt-offering comes from both young lambs and elder ones.79This rendering of the text is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and in many reliable manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. It is also cited by the Kessef Mishneh. Others maintain that the proper version is found in the early printings of the Mishneh Torah which reads "It is explicit that an unconditional guilt-offering is brought only from elder ones." This version is supported by the Rambam's statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Also, Leviticus 5:18 specifically states that a ram should be brought for this sacrifice. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that it be brought only from [two] silver shekalim.
הלכה כג
הוּזְלוּ אֵילִים וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא אַיִל בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא יִשְׁהֵא עַד שֶׁיּוּקְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה עַל דָּמָיו וְנָתְנָה לוֹ קִצְבָה:
כסף משנה
23.
If the price of rams decrease and a ram cannot be found for two silver selaim, the person has no means of correcting [his circumstance].80He is obligated to bring a guilt-offering and, as the Rambam proceeds to state, he may not bring such an offering for less. He must wait until their price inflates and then bring one for two selaim, for the Torah was precise about their price and gave it an explicit limit.הלכה כד
הִפְרִישׁ אֲשָׁמוֹ וְהָיָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה יָפֶה סֶלַע וּבִשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה יָפֶה שְׁתַּיִם כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁהַדָּחוּי מֵעִקָּרוֹ אֵינוֹ דָּחוּי וַעֲדַיִן לֹא נִרְאֶה עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה שָׁוֶה שְׁתַּיִם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵאֵלָיו אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָיָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה יָפֶה שְׁתַּיִם וּבִשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה יָפֶה סֶלַע הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. חָזַר וְנַעֲשָׂה יָפֶה שְׁתַּיִם יַחְזֹר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְמוּם שֶׁנָּפַל וְעָבַר:
כסף משנה
24.
If a person set aside an animal as a guilt offering which was worth [only] one sela at the time it was set aside, but its worth appreciated to two at the time of atonement,81I.e., when it was sacrificed. it is acceptable. For the fact that it was initially unacceptable does not make it permanently disqualified, since it was not fit to be sacrificed until it was worth two [selaim]. Even though it increased in value on its own,82I.e., the market price of rams rose; it was not fattened to the extent that its value increased (Rav Yosef Corcus). a person can gain atonement through the increase in value of consecrated property.83I.e., it had already been consecrated at the time its value increased.If it was worth two selaim at the time it was set aside, but its worth depreciated to one at the time of atonement, it is unacceptable.84For at the time it is to be sacrificed, it is not worth the required amount. If its value later appreciated to two, it becomes acceptable again. For living animals are never permanently disqualified, as we explained.85Chapter 3, Halachah 22; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. To what can the matter be likened? To a physical blemish that was contracted, but which disappeared.
הלכה כה
הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים לְאָשָׁם וְלָקַח בָּהֶם שְׁנֵי אֵילִים לְאָשָׁם. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים יִקָּרֵב לַאֲשָׁמוֹ וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
25.
[The following rule applies when a person] set aside two selaim for a guilt-offering and purchased two rams for a guilt-offering with them. If one of them was worth two selaim, he should offer it as his guilt-offering86Since it is of the required worth. and the other should be left to pasture until it contracts a blemish [and then sold]. The proceeds should be used for a freewill offering.87In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 6:6), the Rambam explains that this follows the general principle that if any money that was set aside for the purchase of a guilt-offering remains after the purchase of that offering, it should be used for the purchase of freewill offerings.הלכה כו
הָיָה חַיָּב בְּאָשָׁם בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ בְּבֶן שְׁתַּיִם וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שָׁנָה. אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ מְחֻסַּר זְמַן בַּבְּעָלִים. פָּסוּל וּתְעֵבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל הַפָּסוּל בְּחַטָּאת פָּסוּל בְּאָשָׁם. חוּץ מִן הָאָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:
כסף משנה
26.
If a person was obligated to bring a guilt-offering that was a year old,88I.e., he was purifying himself from tzara'at or atoning for becoming impure while a nazirite. and instead, brought one that was two years old,89As is obligated for the other types of guilt-offerings. brought one that was a year old when he was obligated to bring one that was two years old, or brought one when the time for him to bring it had not come,90E.g., a nazirite must wait seven days after becoming impure to offer his sacrifice and a person who was purified from tzara'at must wait eight days. If these individuals sought to offer these sacrifices before this time came, they are unaceeptable. it is unacceptable. It should be [left] until the next day91We have translated the term used by the Rambam according to its halachic intent. The literal meaning is that it should be left long enough to decompose until it loses the appearance of meat. Our Sages (see Pesachim 34b, et al; Rashi, Menachot 46b) understood that as being a twenty-four hour period. and then it should be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.This is the general principle: Any factor that disqualifies a sin-offering disqualifies a guilt-offering except a guilt-offering that was slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice, which is acceptable, as will be explained.92Chapter 15, Halachah 1. A sin-offering, by contrast, is unacceptable if slaughtered with the intent that it was another sacrifice.
הלכה כז
עוֹלַת נָזִיר. עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת. עוֹלַת מְצֹרָע. שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּנֵי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד. אוֹ מְחֻסְּרֵי זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים. כְּשֵׁרִים וּטְעוּנִין נְסָכִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה. בֵּין עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לָהֶם:
כסף משנה
27.
When a burnt-offering that must be brought by a nazirite,93When he completes his nazirite vow, as stated in Numbers 6:14; Hilchot Nizirut 8:1. a woman who gives birth,94The obligation for a woman to bring a burnt-offering after childbirth is mentioned in Leviticus 12:6; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3.. or a person who is being purified after tza'arat,95See Leviticus 14:10, 20; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit. was slaughtered when it was more than twelve months old or the time for the owner to bring it had not come,96See note 88 with regard to the nazirite and the person purified after tzara'at. A woman who gave birth must wait 40 or 80 days before bringing a sacrifice as explained in the passage from Leviticus. it is acceptable97I.e., the sacrifice is acceptable. The person bringing it, however, has not satisfied his obligation and is required to bring another offering. and its accompanying offerings are required to be brought.This is the general principle: Any factor that does not disqualify a burnt offering brought willingly does not disqualify a burnt-offering that is obligatory regardless of whether the one bringing it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation or not.