Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן אַחַת מֵחַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת. אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל. אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִבּוֹא כֻּלָּן יָמוּתוּ לְפִי שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשׁוּבִין הֵן וְאֵינָם בְּטֵלִין. וְאִם הִקְרִיב הֻרְצָה שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּין נִדְחִין:
כסף משנה
1.
If one of [the animals designated as] a sin-offering that was consigned to death or an ox that was condemned to be stoned1For killing a human; see Exodus 21:29-32; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:6, such an animal is unfit for sacrifice on the altar. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:1), the Rambam states that, in this context, the term also applies to an ox that was sodomized by - or forced to participate in sexual relations with - a Jew, for it is also condemned to be executed. becomes intermingled with any other sacrificial animals - even in a ratio of one to a myriad - they should all be consigned to death.2For it is possible that every animal is that animal condemned to die. [The rationale is that] living animals are important and are never considered insignificant [in a mixture].3I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a forbidden substance is considered as insignificant if mixed with a larger volume of permitted substances (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1). Even according to Rabbinic Law, it is considered insignificant if mixed with more than sixty times its volume in most situations (ibid.:5). Nevertheless, this situation is an exception for the reason stated by the Rambam.If [the animals] were sacrificed,4For their designated purpose. [the sacrifices] are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.5This is a general principle applicable in many contexts, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 24; Chapter 3, Halachah 22; and Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4. Thus the fact that as an initial preference the animal should not have been sacrificed is not significant, for according to Scriptural Law, the presence of the forbidden animal is nullified. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is acceptable.
הלכה ב
נִתְעָרֵב בָּהֶן אֶחָד מֵאִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. יִרְעוּ כֻּלָּם עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין שֶׁל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב:
כסף משנה
2.
If [sacrificial animals] became intermingled with [animals that are] forbidden to be offered on the altar,6E.g., animals that were set aside for sacrifice to false deities, an animal given to a prostitute, or one exchanged for a dog. See a full listing of such animals in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:11. they should all be allowed to pasture until they contract disqualifying physical blemishes. They should then be sold and the proceeds from the sale of the choicest animal among them7For perhaps the sacrificial animal was the most choice. should be used to bring sacrifices from the type in which [the forbidden animal] became intermingled.8After selling the animals, the person obligated to bring the offerings must say: "The holiness of the sacrificial animal is transferred to these funds" and with those funds, he should purchase a new sacrificial animal.הלכה ג
נִתְעָרְבוּ קָדָשִׁים בְּחֻלִּין תְּמִימִים יִמָּכְרוּ הַחֻלִּין שֶׁבַּתַּעֲרֹבֶת לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְיִקָּרְבוּ כֻּלָּן. כֵּיצַד. אַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת שְׁלָמִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאַרְבַּע בְּהֵמוֹת חֻלִּין תְּמִימִים. יִמָּכְרוּ הָאַרְבַּע שֶׁל חֻלִּין לְמִי שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא שְׁלָמִים וְיִקָּרְבוּ הַכּל שְׁלָמִים. וְכֵן בְּעוֹלָה אוֹ בְּאָשָׁם. וְהַדָּמִים חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהֲרֵי דְּמֵי חֻלִּין הֵן:
כסף משנה
3.
If sacrificial animals become intermingled with unblemished ordinary animals, the ordinary animals in the mixture should be sold as sacrifices of that type, and they should all be sacrificed.What is implied? If four animals that were designated as peace-offerings became intermingled with four unblemished ordinary animals, the four ordinary animals9Even though the owner does not know which four animals they are, he may sell them (Rav Yosef Corcus). To avoid the difficulty mentioned in the following halachah, however, the owners must specify which animals are being given to the purchaser. should be sold to someone who is obligated to bring peace-offerings and they should all be offered as peace-offerings. Similar laws apply with regard to burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings.
The proceeds of the sale are considered as ordinary money, for they are the proceeds of the sale of ordinary animals.
הלכה ד
נִתְעָרֵב שׁוֹר הֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּשְׁוָרִים שֶׁל חֹל. גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּכֻלָּן הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְיִמָּכְרוּ הַשְּׁאָר לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. נִתְעָרְבוּ קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּמִינוֹ. זֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו וְזֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם בְּעָלָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַכִּיר קָרְבָּנוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת נָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם סְמִיכָה. אֲבָל קָרְבְּנוֹת אֲנָשִׁים הוֹאִיל וְכָל אֶחָד צָרִיךְ לִסְמֹךְ עַל רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן הָאֶחָד חֶלְקוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל מוּם בַּכּל וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיָבִיאוּ כָּל אֶחָד בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין:
כסף משנה
4.
When an ox that was consecrated became intermingled with ordinary animals, the largest among them is considered as the consecrated one10And should be sacrificed for the purpose for which the animal was consecrated originally. and the others should be sold for sacrifices of that type.11For it is possible that any one of them is the consecrated animal. If sacrifices of the most sacred order became intermingled with animals consecrated for the same purpose,12E.g., burnt-offerings with burnt-offerings. each one should be offered for the sake of its owner, even though none [of the owners] recognize their sacrificial animal.When does the above apply? With regard to sacrifices to be brought by women in which there is no obligation for semichah.13See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:5 With regard to sacrifices to be brought by men, since each one of them is obligated to perform semichah on his sacrifice,14Although, 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. these animals should not be offered until each one gives his portion [in the sacrificial animal] to his colleague15Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions the Rambam's statements here, noting that in Hilchot Meilah 4:8, the Rambam rules that a person cannot sell an animal set aside as a peace-offering or as a burnt-offering. By the same reasoning, it would seem that it would be forbidden to make the exchange mentioned here. or until they all become blemished and are sold. [In that instance,] each one should then bring a sacrificial animal equal in value to the more select of that type.
הלכה ה
נִתְעָרְבוּ מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ כְּגוֹן עוֹלָה בִּשְׁלָמִים. לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ אֲפִלּוּ כַּחֲמוּרָה שֶׁבָּהֶן. שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפָּסוּל:
כסף משנה
5.
If [sacrificial animals of] two [different] types become intermingled, e.g., a peace-offering with a burnt-offering, they should not be sacrificed, even as the more sacred.16I.e., in the example given above, to offer both of them as a burnt-offering. [The rationale is that] we should not cause sacrificial animals to become disqualified.17See the explanation of this principle in Halachah 12. This rationale is given by Zevachim 8:3 with regard to a peace-offering and a guilt-offering that became mixed together, for it is possible that the meat of one of the animals will not be finished during the first night and will therefore be disqualified, lest it be that of the guilt-offering. This is undesirable, because perhaps it is from the peace-offering and thus it will be disqualified, before its appropriate time (for peace-offerings may be eaten on the following day as well).This explanation of this concept is slightly different for a mixture of a peace-offering and a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering is not eaten at all. Instead, in that instance, offering the peace-offering as a burnt-offering is forbidden, based on Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:4 which states that it is forbidden to offer the meat of sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity on the altar. As a result, the meat of the sacrifice is disqualified.
הלכה ו
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בִּזְמַן אֲכִילָתָן כָּךְ אֵין מְמַעֲטִין בְּאוֹכְלֵיהֶן וְלֹא בִּמְקוֹם אֲכִילָתָן. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִרְעוּ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶם מוּם וְיִמָּכֵר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְבַדּוֹ וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֵן מִמִּין הָאַחֵר וְיַפְסִיד הַמּוֹתָר מִבֵּיתוֹ:
כסף משנה
6.
Just as we may not reduce the time [in which sacrifices] may be eaten,18As explained in the previous note. See also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:12. so too, we may not limit the people eligible to partake of them,19For example, a firstborn offering which may be eaten only by priests, became mixed with a tithe offering that can be eaten be anyone. nor the place where they can be eaten.20Sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten only in the Temple Courtyard, while sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem. Instead,21I.e., for this reason, we do not merely take one animal for one type of sacrifice and another for the other. what should be done? All [of the sacrificial animals of mixed identity] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. Then each one should be sold individually. He should purchase a sacrifice for each type of the value of the most choice animal. He must suffer the loss22The difference between the price of the most choice animal and the other animal. from his own resources.הלכה ז
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר הִקְרִיב עוֹלָה שֶׁחַיָּב בָּהּ אוֹ שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְהַקְרִיבָן. הֲרֵי זֶה מַקְרִיב מִדְּמֵי הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת עוֹלָה אַחֶרֶת וּשְׁלָמִים אֲחֵרִים:
כסף משנה
7.
Even though the person already sacrificed the burnt-offering or the peace-offering which he was obligated to bring,23Using another animal so that he will not delay the fulfillment of his obligation. he should nevertheless bring a different burnt-offering and peace-offering from the proceeds [of the sale] of the mixture.הלכה ח
חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּשְׁלָמִים יִרְעוּ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שְׁלָמִים וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן חַטָּאת. וְאִם קָדַם וְהִקְרִיב חַטָּאת אַחֶרֶת עַל חַטָּאת שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁהּ לוֹ כֻּלָּן יָמוּתוּ:
כסף משנה
8.
When a sin-offering becomes intermingled with a peace-offering, [the two] should be allowed to pasture until they contracted disqualifying physical blemishes and were redeemed. He should bring a peace-offering of the value of the most choice animal and a sin-offering of the value of the most choice animal. If he took the initiative and offered another [animal as a] sin-offering for the sin-offering that was set aside for him first,24I.e., before these animals became blemished. they should all be consigned to death.25As is the law with regard to an animal set aside as a sin-offering that was lost and another was offered in its place (Chapter 4, Halachah 1). Since the animal cannot be sacrificed because its identity is unknown, it is as if it was lost (see Rav Yosef Corcus who discusses this issue). Since it is not known which one of the mixture was consigned to death, both are given that fate.הלכה ט
וְכֵן אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ מְעוֹת חַטָּאת בִּמְעוֹת אָשָׁם. לוֹקֵחַ שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת וּמְחַלֵּל דְּמֵי חַטָּאת בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא עַל חַטָּאת וּדְמֵי אָשָׁם עַל אָשָׁם. וְאִם כְּבָר קָרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ יוֹלִיךְ כָּל הַמָּעוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאִם כְּבָר קָרְבָה אֲשָׁמוֹ יִפְּלוּ הַכּל לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
9.
Similarly, if money for a sin-offering becomes mixed together with money for a guilt-offering, one should take two animals and transfer the holiness of the money for the sin-offering wherever it is on [the animal set aside as] a sin-offering and transfer the holiness of the money for the guilt-offering on [the animal set aside as] a guilt-offering.If he already offered his sin-offering, all of the money should be taken and thrown to the Mediterranean Sea.26As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, with regard to money set aside for a sin-offering that was lost. If he had already offered his guilt-offering, all of the money should be used for freewill offerings.27Rambam LeAm states that this refers to the money that remains after some of the money was used to purchase a sin-offering.
הלכה י
תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן תִּקָּרַבְנָה וְיָנִיף הַלֶּחֶם עִמָּהֶן. וְכָךְ אִם נִתְעָרְבָה תּוֹדָה בִּשְׁאָר זְבָחִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּרְבָה תּוֹדָתוֹ יִרְעוּ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה זֶבַח אַחֵר:
כסף משנה
10.
When a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with an animal exchanged for it,28I.e., he desires to transfer its holiness to the other animal, in which instance, we follow the rule (Leviticus 27:33 : "It and the animal exchanged for it shall be holy." they should both be offered and the bread [that accompanies the thanksgiving-offering] should be waved with [both of] them.29There is an obligation to wave the thanksgiving-offering together with its bread (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-7). When an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering is exchanged for another animal, the holiness of the original offering is not nullified. Nevertheless, the second animal should also be offered as a sacrifice, but bread should not be offered together with it (Chapter 12, Halachah 8). In this instance, since we do not know which is the original animal and which is the one exchanged for it, the bread should be waved with both of them.If a thanksgiving-offering becomes mixed with other sacrificial animals, even if the person offered [another animal as] his thanksgiving-offering, all [the sacrificial animals] should be allowed to pasture until they contract a blemish. He should then bring another thanks-offering of the value of the most choice animal and the other offering of the value of the most choice animal.30The Ra'avad states that bread should not be brought with the second thanksgiving-offering. The Kessef Mishneh states that, since the thanksgiving-offering had already been brought, this is obvious. The Ra'avad mentioned the matter only lest one will think that it is parallel to the situation described in the first clause.
הלכה יא
נִתְעָרְבָה בְּאֵיל נָזִיר שְׁתֵּיהֶם תִּקָּרַבְנָה וְיָנִיף הַלֶּחֶם עִמָּהֶן:
כסף משנה
11.
If [a thanksgiving-offering] becomes mixed with a nazirite's ram, they should both be sacrificed31The forearm of the nazirite's ram may be eaten only by the priests (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:4). Thus to a certain extent, the amount of people eligible to partake of the sacrifice is being reduced (see Ra'avad), because a thanksgiving-offering can be eaten by everyone (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot). Nevertheless, since only one limb is involved, it is not considered significant (Kessef Mishneh). and the bread waved with them.הלכה יב
בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּפֶסַח שְׁנֵיהֶם יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶם מוּם וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ. לְפִי שֶׁהַפֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל לְכָל אָדָם עַד חֲצוֹת וְהַבְּכוֹר לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל וְאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בַּאֲכִילָתָן:
כסף משנה
12.
When a firstborn offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, they should both be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, and then eaten as a [blemished] firstborn offering.32A blemished firstborn animal may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions that apply; see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12; Hilchot Bechorot 1:18.Pesachim 98b states that one should also transfer the holiness of the blemished Paschal sacrifice to another animal and offer it as a peace-offering. The Rambam mentions this point in his restatement of the law in Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:8.
Why aren't they sacrificed?33For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity. As Pesachim 98b relates even if there is a group of priests, they should not offer these animals on the fourteenth of Nisan for the reason stated by the Rambam. Because a Paschal sacrifice may be eaten by any person until midnight34I.e., according to Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:15). and the firstborn offering is eaten for two days and is eaten only by priests. [We follow the principles that] we do not cause sacrifices to be disqualified35As the firstborn offering could be, if forced to be eaten within the time restrictions of the Paschal sacrifice. and we do not reduce the amount of people eligible to partake of them.36As would be done with regard to the people eligible to partake of the Paschal sacrifice.
הלכה יג
וְכֵן מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּפֶסַח כְּשֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם יֵאָכְלוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂר. הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ יֵאָכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן:
כסף משנה
13.
Similarly, when a tithe offering becomes intermingled with a Paschal sacrifice, when they contract a disqualifying physical blemish, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions regarding a tithe offering.37After contracting a blemish, an animal set aside as a tithe offering may be eaten as ordinary meat. There are, however, some restrictions which apply; see Hilchot Bechorot 6:6. As above, the holiness of the Paschal sacrifice must be transferred to another animal. When a firstborn and a tithe offering become intermingled, they may be eaten [as ordinary meat]38But only by a priest. after contracting a disqualifying physical blemish.39In this instance, there is no obligation to offer an animal in their stead.הלכה יד
וְכֵן שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶם מוּם וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנָּפַל בּוֹ מוּם:
כסף משנה
14.
Similarly, when other sacrificial animals become intermingled with a firstborn or a tithe offering, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying physical blemish. They may be eaten according to the restrictions applying to a firstborn offering or a tithe offering that became blemished.הלכה טו
אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁלָמִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן אֶלָּא הָאֵימוּרִין אֲבָל הַבָּשָׂר נֶאֱכָל. לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ אֶלָּא יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהֶן מוּם וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה אָשָׁם וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שְׁלָמִים וְהַמּוֹתָר יַפְסִיד מִבֵּיתוֹ. וְאִם קָדַם וְהִקְרִיב אֲשָׁמוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
15.
When a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace-offering, even though only the fats and the organs are offered and the meat is eaten, they should not be offered.40For doing so would reduce the amount of time in which the peace-offering could be partaken. Instead, they should be allowed to pasture until they contract a disqualifying blemish and he should bring a guilt-offering of the value of the more choice one and a peace-offering of the value of the more choice one. [The owner should] suffer the loss of the difference [between the value of these animals and the animals lost] from his own resources. If he took the initiative and offered his guilt-offering first, they should both [be allowed to pasture until they become blemished and sold, with the proceeds] used for freewill offerings.41This ruling combines that of Halachah 9 with regard to sin-offerings with that of Chapter 4, Halachah 14.הלכה טז
כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּתְעָרְבוּ מִין בְּמִינוֹ. חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת עִם הָאָשָׁם שֶׁאֵין הָאָשָׁם אֶלָּא מִזִּכְרֵי כְּבָשִׂים. וְאֵין לְךָ חַטָּאת מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים אֶלָּא נְקֵבָה:
כסף משנה
16.
It is possible for sacrificial animals of any type to become intermingled with other sacrificial animals of the same species with the exception of [animals consecrated] as sin-offerings and [those consecrated as] guilt-offerings, because guilt offerings may be brought only from male sheep42Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:10. and sin-offerings are brought from female sheep.43Ibid.:9.הלכה יז
וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַמִּתְעָרְבִין בַּחַיִּים אִם הִקְרִיב הֻרְצָה שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין:
כסף משנה
17.
If any of the sacrificial animals [of two types] that were intermingled while alive were sacrificed,44One arbitrarily being taken for one sacrifice and the other, for the second sacrifice. they are acceptable, because living animals are never permanently disqualified.45Thus even though as an initial preference, the animals should not have been sacrificed because of the confusion about their identities, after the fact, the sacrifices are acceptable.הלכה יח
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר וּכְמִדָּתָה לְכָל רוּחַ. אִם נְקֵבָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ הִיא כּוֹנְסָהּ לְכִפָּה עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת שֶׁמָּא חַטָּאת הִיא. הָיְתָה בַּת שְׁתַּיִם יְבִיאֶנָּה שְׁלָמִים וְיָבִיא עִמָּהּ לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא תּוֹדָה הִיא. מָצָא זָכָר בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה. שֶׁמָּא אָשָׁם הוּא וַעֲדַיִן לֹא כִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו. מָצָא זָכָר בֶּן שָׁנָה מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בּוֹ מוּם. וּמֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת תַּחְתָּיו וּמַתְנֶה וְאוֹמֵר אִם עוֹלָה הָיָה זֶה עוֹלָה תַּחְתָּיו וְאִם שְׁלָמִים הָיָה זֶה שְׁלָמִים תַּחְתָּיו. וּמַקְרִיב הָאֶחָד עוֹלָה וּנְסָכָיו מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וְהָאַחֵר שְׁלָמִים עִם הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁמָּא תּוֹדָה הָיָה. וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה בָּזֶה הַנִּמְצָא יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בְּכוֹר אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּמוּמוֹ הוּא נֶאֱכָל. וְאִם פֶּסַח אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁלָמִים וּבִזְמַנּוֹ הַכּל נִזְהָרִין בּוֹ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁמָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר אוֹ אֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע הוּא. אֵינָן מְצוּיִין תָּמִיד. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶן:
כסף משנה
18.
[The following rules apply with regard to] any animal found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder46A small town not far from Jerusalem. or that radius to any other direction.47I.e., since it was found close to Jerusalem, we must consider the possibility that it had been consecrated for a sacrifice. Hence, it must be treated as a sacrificial animal with regard to all the possible consequences. If it is a female [that can be estimated to be] a year old, it is placed in a closed room to die, lest it be a sin-offering.48We suspect that its owner had attained atonement through another sacrifice. Hence the animal is consigned to death, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. If it [appears to be] two years old, it should be brought as a peace-offering49At this age, it is unacceptable to be offered as a sin-offering or a burnt-offering. We do not suspect that it was lost earlier and wandered aimlessly until this time. and bread should be brought with it, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.50Although a thanksgiving-offering must be eaten by midnight, while a peace-offering may be eaten for an extra day, the Rambam's wording does not imply that a second animal should be brought. Instead, he should bring one animal and stipulate: "If it is a peace-offering,.... If it is a thanksgiving-offering..." (Kessef Mishneh). The Lechem Mishneh, however, states that one could infer from Kiddushin 55b, that two offerings should be brought.If a male that [appears to be] two years old is found, there is no way of correcting the situation, for it is possible that it is a guilt-offering whose owner has not yet received atonement.51And thus it could not be used for another purpose. If the owner had attained atonement, it should be allowed to pasture until it becomes blemished as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 14.
If one found a male animal that is a year old, he should allow it to pasture until it becomes blemished, bring two animals in its stead and make a stipulation, stating: "If the [blemished animal] was a burnt-offering, this is designated as a burnt-offering in place of it. If it was a peace-offering, this is a peace-offering in place of it."52For a male animal of that age could be consecrated for either of these types of sacrifices. He then offers the first as a burnt-offering. Its accompanying offerings53The meal, oil, and wine. should be brought from communal funds.54Shekalim 7:5 states that originally our Sages would obligate the person who found the animal to bring the accompanying offerings from his own resources. The financial burden, however, was apparently too great and the people would abandon the animals they found so that they would not be obligated in this manner. When the Sages realized this, they ordained that the accompanying offerings be brought by the community. The other should be brought as a peace-offering together with bread, lest it be a thanksgiving-offering.
What should be done with the animal that was found? It should be eaten after it contracts a blemish. For even if it was a firstborn offering or a tithe offering, it could be eaten after it was blemished.55Without having to be redeemed. If it was a Paschal sacrifice whose time had passed, it is considered as a peace-offering. And during the time the Paschal sacrifice [must be offered], everyone is careful regarding it.56So it would not have been lost. If one might ask: Maybe it is a guilt-offering of a nazirite or a person purified from tzara'at?57For these individuals also must bring male animals that are a year old. These are not frequently found. Therefore [the Sages] showed no concern about them.
הלכה יט
נִתְעָרְבוּ קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן. נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין אוֹ בְּחֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָּעֲזָרָה תְּעֻבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה:
כסף משנה
19.
If sacrifices became intermingled with other sacrifices after the animals were slaughtered, they should be eaten according to the laws pertaining to the more severe category.58In the previous halachot, the Rambam favored the alternative of letting the intermingled animals pasture until they contract a blemish so that none of the sacrifices will be placed under unnecessary restrictions. In this instance, since the animals have already been slaughtered, this alternative is no longer viable (Rav Yosef Corcus). If [such sacrifices] became intermingled with sacrificial animals that were disqualified or ordinary animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard,59The meat of the latter two types of animals is forbidden to be eaten. they should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable60In practice, this phrase, used by the Talmud in several instances (Pesachim 34b, et al), is interpreted (Rashi, Menachot 46b) as meaning "to be left overnight." For it is forbidden to burn sacrifices until they have been disqualified. and then be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.הלכה כ
אֵיבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה. מַנִּיחִין הַכּל עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסְדוּ וּתְעֻבַּר צוּרָתָן. וְשׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָן בָּעֲזָרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:
כסף משנה
20.
When the limbs of a sin-offering become mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, the entire mixture should [be left] until their form is no longer recognizable.61The meat from the burnt-offering may not be eaten and the meat from the sin-offering may not be burnt on the altar. Hence, the mixture should be left overnight, at which point, it is disqualified and consigned to be burnt. [Afterwards,] they should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.62See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.הלכה כא
אֵיבָר שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּאֵיבְרֵי קָדָשִׁים אֲפִלּוּ אֵיבָר בְּאֶלֶף אֵיבָרִים. יֵצְאוּ הַכּל לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרְבוּ כֻּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת. הֲרֵי זֶה יִשָּׂרֵף בָּעֲזָרָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין:
כסף משנה
21.
When a limb from a blemished [sacrificial] animal becomes mixed with the limbs of sacrificial animals - even one in a thousand63Since the limbs of the disqualified animals are significant entities, their presence is never nullified in the mixture. - they should all be taken to the place where sacrifices are burnt.64And burnt there. The rationale is that since the limbs of the blemished animals are forbidden to be eaten and forbidden to be burnt on the altar, the entire mixture must also be done away with. Even if all the limbs [of the sacrifices] were offered except for one, it should be burnt in the Temple Courtyard in the place where sacrificial animals that were disqualified are burnt.הלכה כב
חֲתִיכוֹת קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּחֲתִיכוֹת קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. אוֹ הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּנֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים. יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן:
כסף משנה
22.
When pieces [of meat] from sacrifices of the most sacred order become mixed with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness or those which are eaten for one day65I.e., if sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness that are only eaten for one day (thanksgiving offerings) become mixed with other sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, which (with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice) are all eaten for two days and one night. See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Zevachim 8:3). become mixed with those eaten for two days, they should be eaten according to the prescriptions of the more severe of the two.הלכה כג
חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְמֵאָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל חַטָּאת טְהוֹרָה. וְכֵן פְּרוּסָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁנִּטְמָא שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּסוֹת שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַטָּהוֹר. הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּעֲלֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּתְרוּמוֹת:
כסף משנה
23.
When a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 pieces of meat from a pure sin-offering or a slice of the showbread that has become impure becomes intermingled with 100 slices of the showbread that are pure, [the mixture] may be considered acceptable,66The rationale is that there is enough acceptable meat or bread to render the presence of the unacceptable meat or bread insignificant.Some commentaries have suggested that, based on Yevamot 81b, we are forced to say that this is speaking about small pieces of meat that are not significant enough to be used to honor guests. If they are larger and significant, their presence in the mixture is never nullified. However, it is more likely that since the concept that significant pieces of meat are nullified is a Rabbinic safeguard, it was not applied in this instance (see Lechem Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh to the law from Hilchot Terumah cited in the following note). as we explained in [Hilchot] Terumot.67Hilchot Terumot 14:14.
הלכה כד
אֲבָל חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין. וְכֵן פְּרוּסָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּסוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ אֶלָּא יֵאָכֵל הַכּל לַכֹּהֲנִים כְּכָל הַמְדֻמָּעוֹת:
כסף משנה
24.
If, however, a piece [of meat] from a sin-offering became mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary meat or a piece of the showbread which is pure becomes mixed with 100 pieces of ordinary bread, [the mixture] should not be considered as acceptable.68Since there is an option for the entire mixture to be eaten by priests, there is no reason for leniency. Instead, the entire mixture should be eaten by priests, as is true with regard to any mixture of consecrated food and ordinary food.69The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here is in direct contradiction to his ruling in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:13 where he states that when a piece of the showbread becomes intermingled with pieces of ordinary bread, the mixture is permitted if there is 101 times the amount of ordinary bread.In his gloss to Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Kessef Mishneh explains that here, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.
(As evident from a comparison to that source, the laws governing sacrificial foods are more stringent than those applying to terumah.