Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין לַעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁמָּלְקוּ מְלִיקָתָן פְּסוּלָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הָעוֹף פָּסוּל אֵינוֹ כְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר לְטֻמְאָה. וְכֵן אִם מָלַק בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. אֵינָהּ כִּנְבֵלָה:
כסף משנה
1.
Whenever anyone who is unacceptable to perform Temple service performs the rite of melikah,1The process of snipping of the head of a sacrificial dove. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:8. the melikah is unacceptable. [Nevertheless,] even though the dove [killed by such a melikah] is unacceptable, it is not considered as a nevelah2An animal that dies without ritual slaughter. of a kosher fowl with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.3A person who eats the corpse of a kosher fowl that was not slaughtered according to Torah Law contracts ritual impurity as stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1.Similarly, if one performed melikah at night or slaughtered an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard], they are not nevelot.4In all of these instances, it is forbidden to partake of the meat of these doves. For melikah is acceptable only during the day (see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:1), ordinary doves slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard are considered as tereifah (Hilchot Shechitah 2:1-2), and sacrificial doves slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard are disqualified (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:9). Nevertheless, since melikah is a valid process for killing sacrificial doves and the doves that were slaughtered in the wrong locations were slaughtered properly, the corpses do not convey impurity as a corpse of a nevelah would.
הלכה ב
מָלַק תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנָּם וְשֶׁיָּבַשׁ גַּפָּהּ וְשֶׁנִּסְמֵית עֵינָהּ וְשֶׁנִּקְטְעָה רַגְלָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ נְבֵלָה. לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר:
כסף משנה
2.
If one performed melikah on turtle-doves before they reached the appropriate age or on young doves who passed the appropriate age5As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2, young doves are acceptable as offerings only when they are still underdeveloped, before they begin to sprout yellow feathers and turtle-doves are acceptable only after they pass this stage of development. or on a dove whose wing shriveled, whose eye was lost6I.e., not merely blinded, but having lost the eye. or whose leg was cut off,7And thus was disqualified as a sacrifice, as other doves which have lost a limb or organ (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1. it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. This is the general principle: Any disqualifying factor that takes place after [a dove] entered the Temple Courtyard8Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered. disqualifies it, but does not render it a nevelah. If the disqualifying factor did not take place after it was brought into the Temple Courtyard, [the dove] is a nevelah in all contexts.הלכה ג
לְפִיכָךְ הַמּוֹלֵק וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵפָה. אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק בְּסַכִּין אוֹ שֶׁמָּלַק חֻלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר. שֶׁאֵין הַמְּלִיקָה מַתֶּרֶת וּמְטַהֶרֶת אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
כסף משנה
3.
For this reason, when a person performs melikah and the animal is discovered to be tereifah,9A dove which is tereifah is not acceptable as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:1). he performed melikah with a knife,10Melikah may only performed with the priest's hands. or performed melikah on an ordinary dove in [the Temple Courtyard] or a consecrated dove outside [the Temple Courtyard],11See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:12. they are considered as a nevelah in all contexts. For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar.12I.e., melikah is not an acceptable means of slaughter. It is acceptable only for sacrificial doves. Therefore when it is performed on a dove that is not acceptable as a sacrifice or in a place where a sacrifice is unacceptable, it is considered as if the animal has merely been killed.הלכה ד
אֲבָל הַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמֻּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד וְהָאֶתְנָן וְהַמְּחִיר וְהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁנִּמְלְקוּ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נְבֵלָה לְכָל דָּבָר וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה. שֶׁאֵין הַקְּדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן וַהֲרֵי אֵין פְּסוּלָן בְּקֹדֶשׁ:
כסף משנה
4.
In contrast, if melikah was performed on a dove that was sodomized, set aside for pagan sacrifice, worshiped, given to a prostitute as her fee, exchanged for a dog, was a tumtum13An animal whose sexual organ is covered by a mound of flesh and thus its gender cannot be determined. or an androgynus,14An animal which has both male and female sexual organs. All of the animals mentioned above are not acceptable as sacrifices, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 3-4. it is considered as a nevelah in all contexts. It causes a person's garments to become impure when it [enters his] gut.15As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure. The rationale is that the holiness [of a sacrifice] does not fall upon them16Since these types of animals are fundamentally unacceptable, they are not considered as sacrificial animals. See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 3:10. and thus it is not considered as having been disqualified [after entering] the Temple Courtyard.הלכה ה
כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁחַטַּאת הָעוֹף נַעֲשֵׂית לְמַטָּה וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְמַעְלָה. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה פְּסוּלָה. בֵּין שֶׁעָשָׂה הַזָּיָתָהּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת:
כסף משנה
5.
We already explained in [Hilchot] Ma'aseh Hakorbanot,17Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20; 7:6. that [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the lower [half of the altar] and [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar].18As mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, after purification, a zav (a male with discharges resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea), a zavah (a woman with vaginal bleeding outside her menstrual cycle) and a woman after childbirth, are required to bring a pair of doves, one as a sin-offering, and one as a burnt-offering. The remainder of this chapter and the three subsequent chapters deal with the possibilities that a dove designated as a sin-offering becomes intermingled with one designated as a burnt-offering.A convert also must bring a pair of two doves and they are offered as burnt-offerings, but since this is a rare occurrence, it is not taken into consideration [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kinnim 1:2)]. When [the blood from] a sin-offering of fowl is presented on the upper [half of the altar], it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the blood was presented in the manner of a sin-offering19As described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:20. or in the manner of a burnt-offering,20As described in ibid. 7:6. whether it was offered for the sake of a burnt-offering or for the sake of a sin-offering.
הלכה ו
וְכֵן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה אֲפִלּוּ מָלַק סִימָן אֶחָד לְמַטָּה וְסִימָן אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה פְּסוּלָה בֵּין שֶׁמְּלָקוֹ כִּמְלִיקַת עוֹלָה בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת בֵּין שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
6.
Similarly, when [the blood from] a burnt-offering of fowl was presented on the lower [half of the altar], even if he performed melikah on one of the signs of ritual slaughter21Ritual slaughter involves slitting two "signs" - the windpipe and the gullet. These two organs must also be slit during melikah. on the lower half and the other sign on the upper half, it is unacceptable. [This applies] whether the melikah was performed in the manner of a burnt-offering or in the manner of a sin-offering,22In addition to the place on the altar where the blood of the two is offered, there are two differences between the way melikah is performed for a burnt-offering and for a sin-offering:a) The head of the dove may not be severed while performing melikah on a sin-offering. For a burnt-offering, by contrast, there is an obligation that the head be separated.
b) The blood of a burnt-offering is squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The blood of a sin-offering, by contrast, is sprinkled on the altar. whether it was offered for the sake of a sin-offering or for the sake of a burnt-offering.
הלכה ז
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ לְמַטָּה כִּמְלִיקַת עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה פְּסוּלָה:
כסף משנה
7.
When melikah was performed on a sin-offering of a fowl on the lower half of the altar in the manner as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,23For a sin-offering is not acceptable if it is not offered for the proper intent (see Chapter 15, Halachah 1). or as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering,24I.e., not only is the offering unacceptable as a sin-offering; it is also unacceptable as a burnt-offering (Radbaz). it is unacceptable.הלכה ח
וְכֵן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה אוֹ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת כְּשֵׁרָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה:
כסף משנה
8.
Similarly, when a burnt-offering of a fowl was presented on the upper [half of the altar] in the manner as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering or as it should be performed for a sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is unacceptable. If, however, he performs it as it should be performed for a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is acceptable,25For a burnt-offering is acceptable even if it is not offered for the proper intent. but it is not considered as if the owner fulfilled his obligation.26See also Hilchot Meilah 3:7.הלכה ט
כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעוֹפוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ מִפְּנֵי מְקוֹם עֲשִׂיָּתָן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן אוֹ שִׁנּוּי שְׁמָם. אֵינָן כְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף לְטֻמְאָה. וְכֵן חַטַּאת הָעוֹף אוֹ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁנִּתְפַּגְּלָה אוֹ נִטְמְאָה אוֹ נַעֲשֵׂית נוֹתָר אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה כְּנִבְלַת הָעוֹף. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלָן בְּקֹדֶשׁ:
כסף משנה
9.
All of these fowl that are disqualified because of the place [in the altar] where their blood was presented, because of the difference in the manner in which [melikah] is performed, or the intent for which they are offered, are not considered as a fowl that has become a nevelah with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Similarly, when a sin-offering or a burnt-offering of fowl becomes piggul,27As will be explained in chs. 14-16, when a person slaughters an animal with the intent of partaking of its meat at times other than those which are permitted, the sacrifice is considered as piggul and it is forbidden to partake of its meat. impure,28As stated in ibid.:12, when sacrificial meat becomes impure, it is forbidden to partake of it. or notar29As explained in Chapter 18, Halachot 9-10, when sacrificial meat is left beyond the time when it should be eaten, it is called notar and it is forbidden to partake of it. it does not cause impurity in one's gut30As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 3:1, a person and his garments do not become impure from eating a nevelah of a kosher fowl until he swallows it. While it is in his mouth, he and his garments are pure. as does a fowl that has become a nevelah, for all of these became disqualified [after having entered] the Temple Courtyard.31Our translation is based on Rashi, Zevachim 68b. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5), the Rambam defines the term as meaning disqualification due to the intent of the priest, a factor which disqualifies him from performing service, or because of the place the offering was slaughtered.הלכה י
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק נַעֲשֵׂית כְּמִצְוָתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא תִּשָּׂרֵף כְּכָל פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין. וְכֵיצַד תָּבוֹא עַל הַסָּפֵק. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה סְפֵק זָבָה אוֹ סְפֵק יוֹלֶדֶת וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאֵין לָנוּ חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה עַל סָפֵק. שֶׁאִם נִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם חָטָא אִם לֹא חָטָא יָבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁגָגוֹת:
כסף משנה
10.
When a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt, it should be offered as required, but not eaten.32The sacrifices may not be eaten, for if the women were not obligated to bring them, the doves are considered as ordinary animals slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard which are forbidden to be eaten (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6-7).Hilchot Shegagot 11:2 explains that the women the Rambam mentions are allowed to bring the sacrifices because of a doubt even though it is forbidden to offer a sin-offering if one is not liable, because their purification process is not completed until the sacrifice is offered. Hence they are granted this leniency to allow them to become ritually pure. Instead, it should be burnt like all other sacrificial animals that become disqualified.33See Chapter 2, Halachah 20; Chapter 19, Halachah 10.
When is such a sacrifice brought because of a doubt? When there is an unresolved question whether a woman is a zavah,34A woman had a series of vaginal secretions, but there is a doubt whether they render her a zavah or not. impure because of childbirth,35A woman becomes impure because of childbirth even when she miscarries. There are times when there is a question whether a miscarriage is serious enough to render her impure or not. or the like. There is no concept of an animal being brought as a sin-offering because of a doubt, because if a person is unsure whether or not he committed a sin, he should bring a conditional guilt-offering, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot.36Hilchot Shegagot 8:1.
הלכה יא
חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת בָּהּ וַדַּאי. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ תֵּעָשֶׂה וַדָּאִית וְתֵאָכֵל. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹמֵר הַזָּיַת דָּמָהּ וְתַמְצִיתוֹ וְתִשָּׂרֵף כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק תֵּאָכֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּתְּחִלָּה עַל סָפֵק בָּאָה:
כסף משנה
11.
[The following rules apply when] a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt and then it is discovered that the woman is definitely obligated to bring [the sacrifice]. If she realized this before melikah was performed on [the dove], it should be offered with certainty and eaten.37As would an ordinary sin-offering. If she did not discover this until after melikah was performed, the sprinkling and presentation of its blood [on the altar] should be completed. Then it should be burnt,38As it would have been originally. so that it will not be said that a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt is eaten. For at the outset, [this offering] was brought because of a doubt.הלכה יב
נוֹדַע לָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיֶּבֶת בָּהּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְקָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר:
כסף משנה
12.
If, after melikah was performed, she discovered that she was not obligated to bring a sacrifice, it should be buried.39So that no one will benefit from it. None of the remaining rites should be performed, since there is no need to bring the offering.Keritot 26b explains that this is a Rabbinic safeguard. According to Scriptural Law, it is permitted to benefit from the dove, as long as its blood was not presented on the altar.