Halacha
הלכה א
שְׂאוֹר וּדְבַשׁ אֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאִסּוּרָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״א) "כִּי כָל שְׂאֹר וְכָל דְּבַשׁ לֹא תַקְטִירוּ" וְגוֹ'. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אִם הִקְטִירָן עִם הַקָּרְבָּן אוֹ לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּן. וְאֶחָד הַמַּקְטִיר עַצְמָן אוֹ הַמַּקְטִיר תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן לוֹקֶה עַל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאִם הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא אַחַת לְפִי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד:
כסף משנה
1.
Even the slightest amount1For the prooftexts says "No...." Although setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion (as stated in Halachah 3), if one mixes a small amount of a leavening agent or a sweetener together with other substances the size of an olive, one is liable for setting the mixture on fire. of a leavening agent and sweet entity2Divash, the term used by the prooftext and the Rambam, means "honey." Here it is interpreted in a broader sense applying to date honey, bee-honey, and sweet sap from other fruits. is forbidden [as an offering] for the altar, as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "For no leavening agent or honey shall be kindled... [as a fire-offering]."3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 98) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 117) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable only if he set them afire together with a sacrifice or for the sake of a sacrifice.4If, however, he sets them afire for the sake of fuel, he is not liable as stated in Halachah 3.Whether one sets afire these entities themselves or a mixture of them, he is liable for lashes for each one individually. If he set afire both of them at the same time, he is liable for only one set of lashes, because both of them are mentioned in the same prohibition.5Although one is liable for lashes for each individually, since both transgression are mentioned in the same verse, one is liable for only one set of lashes. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that he is liable for two sets of lashes. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the standard printed text of Menachot 58b appears to follow the Ra'avad's understanding, but a more comprehensive understanding of the issue would favor the Rambam's view.
הלכה ב
נָפַל מֵהֶם כָּל שֶׁהוּא בַּקְּטֹרֶת נִפְסְלָה. וְאִם הִקְטִיר מִמֶּנָּה בַּהֵיכָל לוֹקֶה. וְאֵין הַקְטָרָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת:
כסף משנה
2.
If even the slightest amount of these substances fell into the incense offering, it is disqualified.6The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:5) states that honey would greatly enhance the aroma of the incense offering. Nevertheless, it is forbidden by Divine decree. If one set [the mixture] afire in the Sanctuary,7On the Inner Altar where the incense offering is brought. If he would offer the incense on the Outer Altar, he would not be liable for lashes, because that is not the place where it is burnt (Kessef Mishneh). he is worthy of lashes. Setting an entity afire is significant only if one sets afire an olive-sized portion.הלכה ג
הֶעֱלָה שְׂאוֹר אוֹ דְּבַשׁ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן לַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְשֵׁם עֵצִים פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ב) "וְאֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יַעֲלוּ לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ". לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשֵׁם עֵצִים. אֲפִלּוּ הִקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַקְטָרָה בִּדְבַשׁ אוֹ בִּשְׂאוֹר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מִן הַקָּרְבָּן לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
3.
If one brought a leavening agent or a sweetener on the altar alone8I.e., not together with a sacrifice. as kindling fuel, he is exempt, as [ibid:12] states: "They should not be brought to the altar as a pleasant fragrance." [Implied is that] they should not be brought as "a pleasant fragrance," i.e., as a sacrifice, but they may be brought as kindling fuel. Even if one set afire an entity that is not ordained to be set afire9As explained in the following halachah. together with a leavening agent or with a sweetener, he is liable since it is part of a sacrifice.הלכה ד
כֵּיצַד. הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אוֹ מִבְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אוֹ מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַמְּנָחוֹת אוֹ מִמּוֹתַר הָעֹמֶר אוֹ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף אוֹ מִלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם אוֹ מִלּוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצֹרָע הַמַּעֲלֶה כְּזַיִת מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ בְּחָמֵץ אוֹ בִּדְבַשׁ בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּין לַכֶּבֶשׁ לוֹקֶה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כָּל אֵלּוּ רְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה הוֹאִיל וְהֵן קְרוּיִין קָרְבָּן חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ב) "קָרְבַּן רֵאשִׁית תַּקְרִיבוּ אֹתָם לַה'" וְגוֹ':
כסף משנה
4.
What is implied? When one causes [the following entities] to be consumed [by fire on the altar]:10All of the entities the Rambam mentions are sacrifices or portions of sacrifices that were intended to be eaten and not offered on the altar. the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering,11See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:1; 9:1, which outlines the portions of the sacrifices that were eaten. the meat of sacrifices of a lesser order of sanctity,12Ibid. 10:1. the remains of the meal offering,13Ibid. 12:9. what is left-over from the omer14Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12. or from a sin-offering from fowl,15Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:7. the showbread,16Ibid. 12:3. the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],17Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:11. the log of oil brought by a leper18Hilchot Mechusrei Kapprah 4:2-3. - if one were to cause an olive-sized portion of any one of these entities to be consumed on the altar or on its ramp with a leavening agent or a sweetener,19From the exegesis of Leviticus 2:12, the Sifra and Menachot 57b derive that the altar's ramp is equivalent to the altar in this context. he is liable for lashes. Even though none of these entities are fit to be consumed by fire on the altar, since they are called sacrifices, one is liable for them, as [indicated by the initial clause of the verse cited above]: "You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering to God."20The verse speaks about the two loaves offered on Shavuot and from them, inference is drawn to other sacrificial entities.הלכה ה
וְכֵן אָסוּר לְהַקְטִיר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּבָר מִכָּל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְהַקְטָרָה. כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ לָאִשִּׁים הֲרֵי שְׁאֵרִיתוֹ בְּבַל תַּקְטִירוּ:
כסף משנה
5.
Similarly, it is forbidden21Although the Rambam considers this prohibition as Scriptural in origin, he does not consider it as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, Moreover, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that although this prohibition is derived from the exegesis of the verse cited above, since it is not explicitly stated in a verse, lashes are not given for its violation. to offer on the altar22Here the prohibition applies only to the altar and not to the ramp. any entity from all those listed that is not fit to be consumed by fire, e.g., the meat of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, the remains of the meal offering, or the like. According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that when there is an entity from which a portion is designated to be consumed by fire, it is forbidden to have the remainder [of that entity]23Which was designated to be eaten and not consumed. consumed by fire.הלכה ו
הַמַּקְטִיר אֵיבְרֵי בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לוֹקֶה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִסּוּר הַקְרָבָתָהּ מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר מִן הַטְּהוֹרָה אֱכל וּמִן הַטְּהוֹרָה הַקְרֵב הָא טְמֵאָה לֹא תֹּאכַל וְלֹא תַּקְרִיב. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוֹקֶה עַל אֲכִילַת הַטְּמֵאָה הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כָּךְ לוֹקֶה עַל הַקְרָבָתָהּ. אֲבָל הַמַּקְרִיב אֵיבְרֵי חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא א׳:ב׳) "מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן תַּקְרִיבוּ אֶת קָרְבַּנְכֶם" הָא מִן הַחַיָּה לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה:
כסף משנה
6.
A person who has the limbs of an impure24I.e., non-kosher. Conversely, in this context, "pure" means kosher. animal consumed by fire on the altar is liable for lashes despite the fact that the prohibition against offering it is [merely] derived from a positive commandment.25And generally, lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated and not when a positive commandment is violated. [This is derived as follows:] The Torah teaches us to partake of pure animals26As stated in Deuteronomy 14:6; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1. and to offer pure animals as sacrifices.27In the verse stated at the conclusion of this halachah. One may conclude that an impure animal should not be eaten and should not be offered. Just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of an impure animal [although it is a prohibition] derived from a positive commandment as explained in the appropriate place,28Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1-2. There the Rambam explains that "with regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: 'These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.' From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut." And he concludes "Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut." Thus although other non-kosher animals are not specifically mentioned in the prohibition, since they are included in the converse of the positive commandment, we conclude that the negative commandment applies to them as well. so too, he is liable for lashes for offering it.29The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that just as one does not receive lashes for offering an animal with a blemish, so too, he does not receive lashes for offering an impure animal. His objection appears to be based on the principle that punishment is not given for transgressions that are derived by logical inference. Accordingly, since the obligation for lashes is explicit, even though it could be derived by logical inference, we should not make such a conclusion. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's perspective: these cannot be considered as prohibitions derived from logical inferences, because they are forbidden due to the positive commandment. Logic only expands the scope of the person's liability. When, by contrast, one offers the limbs of a kosher wild beast,30All sacrifices are brought from behemot, domesticated animals, or fowl, not from chayot, wild beasts. he violates a positive commandment, but he is not liable for lashes. What is the source that teaches that he violates a positive commandment? [Leviticus 1:2] states: "You shall offer your sacrifices from the domesticated animals: from cattle and flocks."31The term tzon, translated here as "flocks," can be used in reference to both sheep and goats. This is the intent here. From this, one can derive that one should not offer wild beasts as sacrifices. A prohibition derived from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.32This is a general principle, applicable in many different contexts. See Chapter 3, Halachah 8, Hilchot Ishut 1:8, et al.הלכה ז
הַגּוֹנֵב אוֹ הַגּוֹזֵל וְהִקְרִיב הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה סא-ח) "שֹׂנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה" וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַבֵּל. וְאִם נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים הַקָּרְבָּן כָּשֵׁר. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חַטָּאת שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִין אֶת בְּשָׂרָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת מִזְבֵּחַ אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַחַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה אִם נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹכֵל גְּזֵלוֹת וְכֵן הָעוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
7.
When one steals or obtains an object through robbery and offers it as a sacrifice, it is invalid33The Radbaz quotes Bava Kama 66b which explains that this refers to an instance where a person steals an animal set aside as a sacrifice and offers it as that sacrifice. It reaches that conclusion for it is obvious that if the animal was not consecrated beforehand, its offering is not acceptable, for a person cannot consecrate an object that does not belong to him. and the Holy One, blessed be He, hates it, as [Isaiah 61:8] states: "[I am God Who...] hates a burnt offering [obtained] through robbery." Needless to say, it is not accepted. If the owner despairs of its return, the sacrifice is acceptable.34When it comes to questions of monetary law, the owner's despair of the object's return is not enough to cause it to be acquired by the thief (Hilchot Geneivah 5:2-3; Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 2:1). Nevertheless, it is possible to say that according to Scriptural Law, the owner's despair is enough to effect the transfer of the property, further requirements are Rabbinic in origin and the Sages did not apply their decrees with regard to a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, with regard to questions of monetary law, a change of possession together with the owner's despair is sufficient to effect the transfer of the property (Hilchot Geneivah, loc. cit.). Similarly, in this instance, consecration of the animal is comparable to a change of possession (Lechem Mishneh, gloss to Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:14). [This applies] even35The Rambam's words imply that certainly the concept would apply if a burnt-offering was involved, but even when a sin-offering is involved, the principle is applied, implying that a sin-offering is a more severe issue than a burnt offering. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the word "even" should be omitted, implying that the two types of sacrifices are of equal standing.(A similar concept applies with regard to the conclusion of the halachah: The Ma'aseh Rokeach suggests amending the text to read: "How much more so does this apply with regard to a burnt-offering?!" I.e., according to the Rambam, the sin offering is considered more severe, while the Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that the burnt offering deserves more weight.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam uses "even" in reference to the first clause, even though the priests partake of such a sacrifice, it is unacceptable. if it is a sin-offering and thus the priests partake of its meat.
For the sake of the enhancement of the altar's [honor], it was decreed that if it became public knowledge that a sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not bring about atonement even if the owner despaired of its return, so that it will not be said that the altar consumes stolen property.36The Radbaz asks: How can our Sages rule that the sacrifice is unacceptable and require that the person bring another offering? Since according to Scriptural Law, he has fulfilled his obligation, bringing the second sacrifice is in fact transgressing, for he is slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Shechitah 2:1). The Radbaz answers that from this we see the power of the Sages: that if there is a significant reason - as in this instance - their decrees can nullify the validity of the first sacrifice. Hence, when the person brings the second sacrifice, he is bringing a sacrifice required of him, not an ordinary animal. Similar laws apply with regard to a burnt offering.
הלכה ח
הַגּוֹנֵב עוֹלַת חֲבֵרוֹ וְהִקְרִיבָהּ סְתָם נִתְכַּפְּרוּ בָּהּ הַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים:
כסף משנה
8.
When a person steals an animal consecrated to be offered as a burnt- offering37But not a sin-offering, for a sin-offering must be brought explicitly for the sake of the person receiving atonement (Radbaz). by a colleague and has it offered without any further explanation,38I.e., he did not specify the reason for which it should be offered. the original owner receives atonement.39I.e., it is as if he had the animal sacrificed himself.הלכה ט
אֵין מְבִיאִין מְנָחוֹת וּנְסָכִים לֹא מִן הַטֶּבֶל וְלֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ קֹדֶם לָעֹמֶר וְלֹא מִן הַמְדֻמָּע וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מֵעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכָּרֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָהּ. וְאִם הֵבִיא לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לִהְיוֹתָן רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבָּן אֲבָל נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לְהִפָּסֵל וְיִהְיוּ כְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ:
כסף משנה
9.
Meal offerings and wine libations may not be brought from tevel,40Produce from which the agricultural obligations of terumah and the tithes were not separated. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19-21. from chadash before the omer was offered,41This refers to produce from the five species of grain which is forbidden before the offering of the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan or the passage of that day. See ibid.:2-5. or from miduma.42A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which may be eaten only by a priest. See ibid. 15:13; Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2. This is unacceptable, because the offerings must come from produce which is permitted to every Jew, not only a priest (Pesachim 48a). Needless to say,43The substances mentioned in the first clause, though forbidden at present, will ultimately be permitted, while those in this clause will never be permitted. Moreover, it is forbidden not only to partake of them, but also to benefit from them. they may not be brought from orlah44Produce that grows during the first three years of a tree's growth or replanting. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:9-10. or from mixed species in a vineyard,45When a species of grain or vegetable is sown together with a vineyard, both plants become forbidden (ibid.:6-8). for that would be a mitzvah that comes as a result of a sin which God despises.46This is a principle applicable in many other contexts as well. For example, Hilchot Lulav 8:1 speaks of being unable to fulfill that mitzvah with a stolen lulav. If one brings such [an entity as a sacrifice], it is not sanctified to become fit to be offered as a sacrifice, but it is sanctified to be disqualified as are other consecrated entities that are disqualified.47I.e., once it is consecrated, it may never be used for ordinary purposes again, but must be destroyed like consecrated property that was disqualified.הלכה י
כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת אֵין מְבִיאִין אוֹתָן מִן הֶחָדָשׁ קֹדֶם שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן (ויקרא ב-יד) (ויקרא כג-יז) "בִּכּוּרִים לַה'". וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר. וּמְבִיאִים נְסָכִים מִן הַמֻּקְצֶה בְּיוֹם טוֹב:
כסף משנה
10.
As an initial preference, none of the meal offerings should be brought from chadash before the two breads [are brought on Shavuot], for [Leviticus 23:17]48In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:6), the Rambam uses the previous verse in that Biblical passage as a prooftext. refers to them as "the first fruits unto God."49Implied is that these breads should be the first offerings brought from the new flour. Although it is permitted to be used by an ordinary person beforehand, it should not be used for sacrifices before then. If, however, [such a meal offering] was brought, it is acceptable.50Since it is permitted to be used by a private person, after the fact, it is acceptable (op. cit.). Wine libations may be brought from wine that was set aside51I.e., was placed with one's merchandise and was not intended to be used for one's individual purposes. Such wine is forbidden to be used on festivals, but not on the Sabbath. See Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 1:17. on a festival.52Although the Rabbis forbade the use of such wine for private use, it is fundamentally permitted. Hence using it for a libation is not considered as bringing a forbidden substance as an offering. The Radbaz states that the Sages never extended their prohibition to encompass sacrifices.הלכה יא
מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִמְלֹחַ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ג) "עַל כָּל קָרְבָּנְךָ תַּקְרִיב מֶלַח". וְאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ בְּלֹא מֶלַח חוּץ מִיֵּין הַנְּסָכִים וְהַדָּם וְהָעֵצִים. וְדָבָר זֶה קַבָּלָה וְאֵין לוֹ מִקְרָא לִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו. וּמִצְוָה לִמְלֹחַ הַבָּשָׂר יָפֶה יָפֶה כְּמוֹלֵחַ בָּשָׂר לְצָלִי שֶׁמְּהַפֵּךְ אֶת הָאֵיבָר וּמוֹלֵחַ. וְאִם מָלַח כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֲפִלּוּ בְּגַרְגִּיר מֶלַח אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר:
כסף משנה
11.
It is a positive commandment to salt all the sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar,53Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 119) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 2:13] states: "On all of your sacrifices you shall offer salt."54This commandment is mentioned many times in this text; among the references: Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1; 6:4, 21-22; 7:1-2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10; 6:3; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16. There are no entities that are offered on the altar without salt except the wine libations, the blood, and the wood. This matter was conveyed by the Oral Tradition, but there is no explicit verse to rely on.55Although Menachot 21a explains that this concept can be derived from a verse, apparently, the Rambam does not accept the exegesis mentioned there.It is a mitzvah to salt the meat very thoroughly like one salts meat before roasting it, in which instance one turns over the limbs and salts it.56See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:12. If, however, one applies even the slightest amount of salt, even one grain, it is acceptable.
הלכה יב
הִקְרִיב בְּלֹא מֶלַח כְּלָל לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ב׳:י״ג) "וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיךָ". וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלּוֹקֶה הַקָּרְבָּן כָּשֵׁר וְהֻרְצָה. חוּץ מִן הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁהַמֶּלַח מְעַכֵּב בַּקְּמִיצָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית אֱלֹהֶיךָ מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ":
כסף משנה
12.
If one offered a sacrifice without any salt at all, he is liable for lashes,57Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 118) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.The question is raised: Why is he liable for lashes? Lashes are not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). In this instance, seemingly, the omission of salt does not involve a deed. In reply, it is explained that the offering of the sacrifice without salt is a deed and thus warrants lashes. as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God."
Even though he receives lashes, the sacrifice is valid and is accepted [Above] with the exception of the meal offering. For salt is an absolute necessity when taking a fistful of the meal offering,58See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16 where this concept is discussed. Salt is not placed on the entire meal offering, only on that fistful which is offered on the altar. as [the above verse] states: "You shall not withhold salt, the covenant of your God from your meal offering."
הלכה יג
הַמֶּלַח שֶׁמּוֹלְחִין בּוֹ כָּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר כְּמוֹ הָעֵצִים. וְאֵין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא מֶלַח אוֹ עֵצִים לְקָרְבָּנוֹ מִבֵּיתוֹ. וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין הַמֶּלַח. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח. וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ. וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַמֶּלַח הָיוּ מוֹלְחִין עוֹרוֹת הַקָּדָשִׁים. וְעַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ מוֹלְחִין הָאֵיבָרִים. וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ מוֹלְחִין הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וּמְנָחוֹת הַנִּשְׂרָפוֹת וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף:
כסף משנה
13.
The salt which is used to salt all of the sacrifices should be communal property like the wood. A private individual should not bring salt or wood for his sacrifice from his home.59Although a private individual may donate wood for the altar (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:9), he may not demand that this wood be used for his own sacrifice.There are three places where salt is stored for the sacrificial service:60See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus. in the Chamber of Salt,61See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 where the chamber is mentioned. on the ramp [ascending to the altar], and on the top of the altar itself. In the Chamber of Salt, the hides of the sacrificial animals would be salted. On the ramp, the limbs would be salted and on the top of the altar, the fistful of meal [taken from the meal offering], the frankincense [from the Showbread], the meal offerings which are burnt, and a fowl brought as a burnt offering are salted.