Here's a great tip:
Enter your email address and we'll send you our weekly magazine by email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life, week after week. And it's free.
Oh, and don't forget to like our facebook page too!
Printed from chabad.org
All Departments
Jewish Holidays
TheRebbe.org
Jewish.TV - Video
Jewish Audio
News
Kabbalah Online
JewishWoman.org
Kids Zone
Tuesday, 9 Av 5773 / July 16, 2013

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 10, Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 11, Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 12

E-mail
Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 10

Halacha 1

It is a positive commandment for the sin offerings and the guilt-offerings1 to be eaten,2 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall eat [the sacrifices] which convey atonement."3 The priests eat the sacrifices and the owners receive atonement. This also applies to other sacrifices4 that are eaten by the priests; partaking of them is a mitzvah.

Halacha 2

Similarly, partaking of the portion that remains from the meal offerings5 is a positive commandment,6 as [Leviticus 6:9] states: "What remains of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons."

Halacha 3

The sin-offering, the guilt-offering, and the remnants of the meal-offering may be eaten only by males7 of the priestly family in the Temple Courtyard.8 If they were eaten in the Temple building, their consumption is [acceptable], as [indicated by Numbers 18:9-10]: "For all of their meal-offerings, for all of their sin-offerings, and for all of their guilt-offerings.... In the most holy place,9 you shall partake of it.10 All males shall partake of it." Similarly, the communal peace-offerings are similar to the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings, as we explained.11

Halacha 4

The breast and the thigh of the peace-offerings are eaten by both males and females of the priestly family, for with regard to these [Numbers 18:11] states: "I have given it to you, to your sons and your daughters." This also applies to the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram,12 [ibid.:19] states: "All of the elevated portions of the consecrated [offerings] that the children of Israel shall raise up have I given to you, your sons, and your daughters."

Halacha 5

The same applies with regard to the firstborn offering, for concerning it [ibid.:18] states: "Their meat shall be yours, like the breast with which tenufah was performed and the right thigh."13

All of these14 [portions of sacrificial meat] that may be eaten by the women of the priestly family may be eaten by the priests' servants and their wives, like terumah. All [these sacrifices]15 may be eaten throughout the city [of Jerusalem],16 as [Leviticus 10:14] states: "And the breast with which tenufah was performed and the thigh that was lifted up shall you eat in a pure place." It was not specified that they [be eaten] "in a holy place," which would mean "the Temple Courtyard," but "in a pure place." This refers to the camp of the Levites.17 The parallel with regard to future generations is the city of Jerusalem.

The same laws apply to the tithe offering and the Paschal sacrifice, for they are sacrifices of lesser sanctity like the peace-offerings. The windows and the thickness of the wall is considered as being within [the city].18

Halacha 6

The peace-offerings may be eaten on the day they were slaughtered, throughout the [following] night, and throughout the following day until sunset, as [Leviticus 7:16-18] states: "On the day when his sacrifice was offered, it shall be eaten and on its morrow... If one would partake of the peace-offering on the third day...."19 Thus one can derive that they may be eaten for two days and one night. [This applies both] to the portion of the priests and the portions of the owners. This also applies to the firstborn and tithe offerings,20 for they are also sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, like the peace-offerings.

Halacha 7

The thanksgiving-offering, by contrast, even though it is one of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, may be eaten only on the day of its sacrifice and the [following] night, as [ibid.:15] states: "It shall be eaten on the day it was offered. Do not leave anything from it until the morning." This also applies to the nazirite's ram and the bread which accompanies [these offerings], both to the portion of the priests and the portion of the owner. This also applies to the sin-offering, the guilt-offering, the communal peace-offerings, and the remainder of the meal-offerings. All of these are eaten for a day and [the following] night, as it is written: "It shall be eaten on the day it was offered."21 This appears to include all of the sacrifices with the exception of the peace-offerings concerning which the Torah explicitly [stated otherwise] and the firstborn and tithe offerings which resemble the peace-offerings.

Halacha 8

According to Scriptural Law, all of these [sacrifices] that may be eaten on the day [of their sacrifice] and the [following] night may be eaten until dawn.22 In order to separate a person from sin, our Sages said that they may only be eaten until midnight.23

Halacha 9

All of the sacrifices - both those of the highest degree of sanctity and those of a lesser degree - may be eaten only by those who are ritually pure24 and who are circumcised.25 Even if the duration of the person's impurity has concluded,26but he has not brought the [necessary] atonement,27 he may not partake of sacrificial foods. A tumtum28may not partake of sacrificial foods, because there is an unresolved doubt whether he is uncircumcised.29 It appears to me that an androgynus30 may partake of sacrifices of lesser sanctity.31

Halacha 10

It is permitted to eat sacrificial meat together with any other food. Even the priests are permitted to eat their portions - both from the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity and those of a lesser degree - together with any other food.32 And they may changed the manner [in which it is prepared] to be eaten, eating them roasted, lightly cooked, or thoroughly cooked33 and to spice them with spices that are not consecrated. They may not, however, spice them with spices that are terumah, lest this cause the terumah to be disqualified.34

The bones that remain are permitted [to be used for any purpose].35 A person may make any utensil he desires from them.

Halacha 11

If there was only a small amount [of sacrificial meat], ordinary food and terumah should be eaten with it so that it will be eaten in a satisfying manner.36 If there is a large amount [of sacrificial meat], ordinary food and terumah should not be eaten with it so that one will not have overeaten.37 Similar concepts apply with regard to the remainder of the meal offerings.38

Halacha 12

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering should not be cooked together with the elevated portion of the thanksgiving-offering or the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram because doing so restricts the type of people able to partake of them39 and the place where they can be eaten.40 Nor may one [cook] the elevated portion of the thanksgiving-offering or the elevated portion of the nazirite's ram with the breast and thigh of the peace-offering because doing so restricts the time in which they may be eaten.41 Nor may the elevated portion of yesterday's peace-offering [be cooked] with a sin-offering or a guilt-offering brought today because doing so restricts the type of people able to partake of them,42 the place where they can be eaten,43 and the time in which they may be eaten.44

One may, however, cook sin-offerings and guilt-offerings together, the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram together, and the firstborn offering and the breast and the thigh [of the thanksgiving offering] together.45

If one cooked a peace [of meat] from the sacrifices of the most sacred order,46 one that was piggul,47 or one that was notar48 with other pieces of sacrificial meat,49 those other pieces are forbidden to non-priests and permitted to priests.50

Halacha 13

When meat from the sacrifices of the most sacred order or sacrifices of lesser sanctity is cooked together with ordinary meat,51 the ordinary meat is forbidden to those who are ritually impure52 and permitted to those who are ritually pure.53

Halacha 14

With regard to a burnt-offering, [Leviticus 7:8] states: "The hide of the burnt-offering which the priest sacrificed will belong to him." With regard to a sin-offering, [ibid. 6:19] states: "The priest who performs the sin-offering shall partake of it." With regard to a guilt-offering, [ibid. 7:7] states: "It will belong to the priest who brings about atonement because of it." With regard to a peace-offering, [ibid.:14] states: "It will belong to the priest who pours the blood of the peace-offering." And with regard to the meal-offering, it is written: "The priest who offers it shall partake of it."54

In all the above instances, the verses are not referring [to the priest who actually brings the offering, but] to [any priest] who is fit to have done so. Any priest who is fit to perform the service has a right to share in the division [of the sacrifice] to partake of it.55 [Conversely,] one who is not fit [to serve] at the time it is offered, e.g., he was ritually impure, does not have a right to share in the division [of the sacrifice] to partake of it even if he will regain ritual purity in the evening.

With regard to the division, the entire [matter] is given to the men of the clan who offer sacrifices that day.56 They all share in the division of all of the sacraments of the Temple, each man [receiving the same portion] as his brother, whether he was the one who offered the sacrifice or he was together with him in the Temple, but did not offer the sacrifice.

Halacha 15

Why did the verse make a distinction between the meal-offerings that are baked and the meal-offerings of flour? For with regard to [the meal-offerings] that are baked, [Leviticus 7:9] states: "Any meal-offering that is baked in an oven... it will belong to the priest who offers it" and with regard to the meal-offerings of flour [ibid.:10] states: "Any meal-offering that is mixed with oil or that is parched shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man like his brother."

[The following explanation can be given:]57 When [the meal-offerings] that are baked are divided among the members of the clan, whenever a person receives a portion even if it is [merely[ an olive-sized portion of bread, it is fit for him to partake of it, because it may be eaten immediately. When, however, we are speaking of flour, if [such an offering] will be divided among them, there will be those who will receive only a handful of flour or less. This is not fit neither to be kneaded into dough or to be baked. Hence, one might think that one meal offering should be apportioned in consideration of another meal-offering instead of dividing each meal-offering individually among all the members of the clan.58 Therefore it is necessary for the Torah to state [that it] "shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, every man like his brother," i.e., that it is divided individually.

On this basis, our Sages said:59 that a meal offering is not divided in consideration of another meal-offering, not even one offering brought in a flat frying pan in consideration of another such offering or one flour-offering in consideration of another such offering. Instead, what remains60 from every [offering] is divided individually.

Halacha 16

Similarly, an offering of fowl is not apportioned in consideration of another such offering, nor a sin-offering in consideration of another such offering, nor a breast and a thigh in consideration of another such portion.61 Instead, every [sacrificial portion] is divided among all [the members of the clan] equally.

Halacha 17

Even though it is permitted to feed a minor [meat even] from sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, he is not given a portion, even from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.62 Similarly, a woman and an androgynus63 are not given a portion of the sacrifices from the Temple at all, as [the above verse] states: "Every man like his brother."64

[A priest] who has a disqualifying physical blemish - whether permanent or temporary, whether he was born with it or born unblemished and later disqualified - receives a portion of the sacrifices and may partake of them,65 as [Leviticus 21:22] states: "The food of his God, of the most sacred order... he may eat." [The above applies] provided he is fit to partake [of the sacrifice at the time it is offered]. If, however, he is impure, he is not given a portion to eat in the evening.66

Halacha 18

The High Priest may partake [of any of the sacrifices] without a division having been made. Instead, he may take whatever he desires.

Halacha 19

All [priests] who are fit to partake of sacrificial foods at the time the sacrifice is offered receive a share [of the sacrifice] to partake of. All [priests] who are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods at the time the sacrifice is offered, even though they are fit to perform sacrificial service and will be fit to partake [of the sacrifice in the evening] do not receive a share [of the sacrifice] to set aside until the evening.67

What is implied?68 A priest who has immersed that day,69 one who is lacking in atonement,70 or one who is onein on the day of burial,71whether a High Priest72 or an ordinary priest, should not receive a share of the sacrifices in order to partake of them in the evening.

Halacha 20

All [priests] who are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods are not fit to perform sacrificial service with the exception of a High Priest who is an onein who may offer sacrifices, but may not partake [of sacrificial foods], as we explained.73All [priests] who are not fit to perform sacrificial service are not fit to partake of sacrificial foods74 except one disqualified because of a physical blemish [whose license to partake of sacrificial foods] is explicitly stated in the Torah.75

Halacha 21

All [priests] who do not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat do not receive a portion of the hides of the sacrifices.76 Even if a priest was impure at the time when the blood [of a sacrifice] was sprinkled on the altar, but pure at the time its fats were offered on the altar's pyre,77 he does not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat, as [Leviticus 7:33] states: "One who offers the blood of the peace-offering and the fat from the sons of Aaron, to him the right thigh will be [given] as a portion." [Implied is that] the priest must be pure and fit to perform service from the time [the blood] is sprinkled until after the fats are offered.78

Halacha 22

If [a priest] became impure after [the blood of the sacrifice] was sprinkled [on the altar] and immersed himself and thus was also pure when the fats were offered on the altar's pyre, there is an unresolved question whether or not he receives a portion.79 Therefore if he grabs a portion, it is not expropriated from him.80

Halacha 23

When a communal sacrifice is offered in a state of impurity,81 even though impure priests [could have] offered it,82 they do not receive a portion together with the priests who are pure to partake of it in the evening,83 because they are not fit to partake of it [at the time it is offered].

FOOTNOTES
1.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 102) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

2.

This mitzvah is incumbent on the priests; it is not a dimension of the obligation to bring a given sacrifice.

3.

The choice of this prooftext and the concept it teaches sheds light on an issue debated by the commentaries: Is it a positive mitzvah to partake of the meat of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity? In his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that since eating the other sacrifices does not bring about atonement, it should not be considered as an independent mitzvah. Instead, it is an extension of this mitzvah. In this instance, however, since the atonement of the person bringing the sacrifice depends on the priests' consumption of the sacrifice, it is considered as an independent mitzvah. There is extensive discussion on this issue by other Rabbis.

4.

E.g., the communal peace offerings.

5.

I.e., after the handful has been taken out to be offered on the altar. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.

6.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 134) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah encompasses partaking of all the different types of meal offerings (Radbaz).

7.

Even minors; see Halachah 17.

8.

Indeed, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5, there is a prohibition against partaking of these sacrifices outside the Temple Courtyard.

9.

This includes the Temple building.

10.

Zevachim 63a asks: From that verse, it would appear that it is desirable (not merely acceptable after the fact) to partake of the offerings inside the Temple building. Our Sages then cite Leviticus 6:9 which indicates that the sacrifices should be eaten in the Temple Courtyard. They explain that it is preferable to consider the Temple Courtyard the primary place where the sacrifices are eaten, for the Temple building is the resting place for the Divine presence and it is not befitting for that to be the primary place for eating, an activity that is essentially a human need.

11.

Chapter 9, Halachah 4.

12.

The breads and the portions of meat given to the priest from those offerings; see Chapter 9, Halachah 12.

13.

I.e., they are comparable to the peace-offering.

14.

I.e., the portions from the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, including the breast and the thigh of the peace offering and the firstborn offering.

15.

Not only the portions given to the priests, but also those given to the Israelites.

16.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which delineates the prohibition against eating such sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem.

17.

As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11, while the Jews were journeying through the desert, their encampment was considered as divided into three camps: the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of the Israelites.

18.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:9. See also parallel rulings in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:16; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:1.

The Radbaz clarifies that this is referring to instances where the windows are open to the city. If they are open only to the area outside the wall, he maintains that they should be considered as outside the city.

19.

The verse continues "he shall bear his sin," implying that there is a prohibition in partaking of the sacrifice at that time.

20.

But not the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:1, 15.

21.

I.e., the Rambam understands the verse as referring to all sacrifices unless it is specifically stated otherwise.

22.

The first appearance of the sun's rays - but not the sun itself - on the eastern hemisphere. According to different halachic views, it is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise.

23.

I.e., if a person would be given the entire night, he might become lax and delay the consumption of the meat and come to partake of the meat after dawn. Giving him a more restricted time serves as a safeguard to prevent the violation of this limit. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:1).

24.

Indeed, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13, partaking of sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity violates a Scriptural prohibition. See also Hilchot Chagigah4.

25.

As evident from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, sec. 69, the prohibition against partaking of sacrificial meat while uncircumcised is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of terumah while uncircumcised. See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.

26.

The literal meaning of the words used by the Rambam is "his sun has set." For in most instances, it is at sunset when the duration of the term of a person's ritual impurity ends.

27.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, which explains that a zav, a zavah, a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at and a woman who gave birth or miscarried must immerse themselves in a mikveh (or in a stream) to regain ritual purity. Nevertheless, they may not partake of sacrifices until they bring the offerings required of them. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14.

28.

A person whose gender is masked by an extra piece of flesh.

29.

I.e., if he is in fact male, circumcision will not have been performed upon him.

30.

One with both a male and female sexual organ.

31.

For these sacrifices may be eaten by both males and females. Although there is a halachic uncertainty with regard to the definition of his gender (see Hilchot Nizirut 2:10), that should not prevent him from partaking of these sacrifices. He may not, however, partake of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, for these may only be eaten by males and he is not categorically defined as male.

The Kessef Mishneh clarifies that this leniency applies only when the male organ of the androgynus has been circumcised.

32.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling, as noted by Rav Yosef Corcus in his gloss to the following halachah, for sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and ordinary food may not be brought into the Temple Courtyard. Rashi (Temurah 23a) explains that the intent is that one may partake of ordinary food outside the Temple Courtyard and then enter the Temple Courtyard to partake of the sacrificial food. Tosafot explains that the prohibition against bringing ordinary food into the Temple Courtyard applies only when it is not being brought there for a purpose connected with the Temple service. If, however, it is being brought there to be eaten together with the sacrifices, there is no prohibition.

33.

The Paschal sacrifice may only be eaten while roasted, but that is a specific obligation that does not apply to other sacrifices.

34.

The sacrifices may be eaten only for a limited amount of time as mentioned above (Halachot 6-7), while there is no limit on the time terumah may be eaten. Thus if the sacrifices were cooked with terumah, the terumah could be disqualified with the sacrifices and the time in which it could be eaten would be reduced.

35.

I.e., this is not considered as a desecration of consecrated articles (Radbaz). This applies provided there are not any portions of the bones that are fit to be eaten (Kessef Mishneh).

36.

For it is not befitting for one to leave his master's table when he is hungry (Tosafot, Pesachim 120a).

37.

For that is also not becoming.

38.

I.e., that other foods may be eaten with it if there is only a small amount (Kessef Mishneh). Indeed, the verse from which the above concepts are derived (Leviticus 6:9) concerns the meal offerings.

39.

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten by their wives, their daughters, and their servant (Radbaz).

40.

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

Needless to say, one may not cook a sin-offering or a guilt-offering with the portion of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram to be eaten by the owner, for doing so certainly places restrictions on that meat, preventing even the owner from partaking of it.

41.

The elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may be eaten only for a day and a night, while the breast and thigh of the peace-offering may be eaten on the following day as well (ibid.).

The same concepts apply with regard to cooking the meat of the thanksgiving offering or the nazirite's ram together with the meat of a peace-offering. It is only that since the Rambam had been speaking about the portions eaten by the priests, he continued to do so.

42.

For sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the peace-offerings may be eaten by Israelites and women (ibid.).

43.

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the peace-offering may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

44.

Here the restrictions are reversed for the peace offering of the previous day may only be eaten until sunset, while the sin-offering and the guilt-offering may also be eaten until midnight of the following night (ibid.).

45.

In all of these instances, the pairs of offerings mentioned may be eaten by the same type of individual, in the same places, and for the same duration of time.

46.

Which may only be eaten by priests.

47.

Meat from a sacrifice that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood, offer the portions required to be offered on the altar's pyre, or partake of its meat at an improper time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

48.

Meat that remained after the required time for partaking of this type of sacrificial meat passed (ibid. 18:10).

49.

There are others who include sacrificial meat that became impure in the list of prohibitions mentioned here and indeed this is the standard text of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:16) which serves as the source for this halachah. The Rambam does not, however, include that particular in his version of the mishnah. The rationale for this distinction is discussed by the commentaries. See the notes to the following halachah.

50.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about an instance when there is sixty times more permitted meat than the piece of meat that is piggul or notar and that forbidden piece of meat was removed. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:5-6 with regard to the latter points. This addition satisfies the objections raised by the Ra'avad.

According to this interpretation, the fundamental point of this ruling is that the meat is permitted only to priests and not to non-priests. Although the prohibitions against piggul and notar have been nullified since the sacrificial meat was originally to be eaten only by priests, that restriction still remains. There are, however, others who interpret the mishnah differently.

51.

The term the Rambam uses literally translates as "the meat of desire," i.e., meat that there is no mitzvah to partake of.

52.

Because it has absorbed the flavor of the sacrificial meat. The Radbaz states that even if there is enough ordinary meat to nullify the presence of the sacrificial meat, the prohibition against eating the sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity is not nullified.

53.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:17), the intent is that if the sacrificial meat was from sacrifices of the most sacred order, the ordinary meat may be eaten by priests. If it was of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it may be eaten by ordinary individuals, provided they are ritually pure.

In one of his responsa, the Radbaz mentions that only the ordinary meat is permitted to be eaten, the sacrificial meat is forbidden, because it is considered to have become ritually impure because of its contact with the ordinary meat. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam states that "everything may be eaten by pure priests" or "pure non-priests."

54.

The verse cited in the text of the Mishneh Torah does not exist. The commentaries have suggested that the intent is Leviticus 7:9 as stated in the following halachah.

See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains why all the different verses are necessary, because the concepts cannot be derived from each other.

55.

As indicated by Halachah 17 [see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)], priests with a disqualifying physical blemish are not excluded from receiving a portion of the division of the sacrifices even though they are unfit to offer them, because there is a special verse that teaches that they should receive a portion.

56.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 with regard to what is meant by a clan.

57.

The commentaries note that the explanation appears to be the Rambam's own, rather than to stem from a prior source.

58.

I.e., if there were 20 meal-offerings and 60 priests, one might think that each of the meal-offerings would be divided among three priests rather than have all 20 divided among the 60. Hence, it is necessary to explicitly state that every priest receives a portion of a meal-offering of flour.

59.

Sifra to the verse, Kiddushin 53a; Menachot 73a.

60.

After the portions offered on the altar are taken.

61.

In all these instances, one might think that it would be preferable to divide each of the sacrifices among a smaller number of priests.

62.

Instead, he may only partake of what the other priests give him from their portions.

63.

I.e., since the halachic status of the gender of an androgynus is not defined, he is not given a portion as a male would be.

64.

The same phrase excludes both women and minors, because the term "man" implies that the recipient must be male and of age. Since they are not fit to perform service, they are not allocated a portion of the sacrifices.

65.

Even though he is not fit to perform service, he is considered an ordinary member of the priestly clan and given a portion of the sacrifices. There is an explicit verse requiring this [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)].

66.

Even if he would regain his ritual purity by the evening.

67.

For everything depends on the priest's state at the time the sacrifice is offered (ibid.).

68.

I.e., which priests could be fit to perform service during the day and fit to partake of sacrifices after nightfall, but are unfit to partake of the sacrifices at the time they are offered.

69.

But will not regain purity until nightfall.

70.

A priest who had been a zav or who had been afflicted with tzara'at must immerse himself in a stream or a mikveh to regain ritual purity. In addition, he must bring a specific offering. Until he brings that offering, he is considered as lacking atonement, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.

These two categories of priests are considered as fit to serve, because they would be fit to offer a communal sacrifice if it were to be brought in a state of ritual impurity. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10 and Halachah 23 and notes.

71.

The term onein refers to a person in the acute state of mourning experienced at the time of the death of any of seven close relatives. On the day of such a relative's death, one is an onein according to Scriptural Law. If the relative is not buried on the day of his death, the priest is considered an onein according to Rabbinic Law until after the day of burial. Once the relative is buried, however, the priest may perform service and partake of sacrifices in the evening. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:7, 9-10.

72.

Who is permitted to serve even though he is in the state of onein mourning. See the following halachah.

73.

Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-8.

74.

The Or Sameach suggests that the text should read "are not fit to receive a portion of sacrificial foods," because women and children are fit to partake of the sacrifices, but are not fit to perform sacrificial service.

75.

As stated in Halachah 17.

76.

Zevachim 12:2 derives this concept from Leviticus 7:12: "The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered will belong to the priest," i.e., the priest must be fit to offer the sacrifice. If he is fit to offer it, he is fit to partake of it.

The Radbaz explains that it is necessary for the Rambam to mention the allocation of the hides explicitly, because one might not necessary derive this point from the allocation of the meat.

77.

This is speaking about an instance where a priest was impure at the time a sacrifice was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on the altar. Nevertheless, the offering of the fats of the sacrifice was delayed and not performed until after nightfall. In the interim, the priest immersed himself and thus was pure at the time the fats were offered.

78.

For the prooftext mentions both these services.

79.

For although he was pure when both these services were performed, he was impure in the interim.

80.

I.e., he is not given a portion, because he cannot prove that he is worthy of one, but it is not taken from him, since the other priests also cannot prove that he is not worthy. In both instances, the basis for the decision is the principle: When one seeks to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

81.

I.e., as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10,12, when the majority of priests are impure, the communal offerings may be offered by the impure priests.

82.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the glosses of the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus who note that if the sacrifice was offered by impure priests, its meat is not eaten (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:11). Hence we are forced to say that we are speaking about a situation where the sacrifice could have been offered by impure priests, but in fact it was offered by pure priests. Thus the sacrifice may be eaten. One might think that the impure priests would receive a portion since they were fit to offer the sacrifice. Hence, the Rambam explains that they do not, because they were not fit to partake of it at the time it was offered.

83.

I.e., even if they would be fit to partake of it in the evening.

Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 11

Halacha 1

Anyone1 who eats an olive-sized portion2 of the meat of a burnt-offering, whether before its blood is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards,3 is liable for lashes,4as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain...5 and [the sacrifices brought because of] the vows that you take." According to the Oral Tradition,6 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering.7

Halacha 2

Its fat, its meat, and the flour, oil, and wine of its accompanying offering - all five [of these components] can be combined to comprise this olive-sized portion.8

Halacha 3

Similarly, one who partakes of an olive-sized portion9 of any of the portions of the sacrifices to be offered on the altar's pyre, whether before the blood [of the sacrifice] is sprinkled [on the altar] or afterwards, whether he is a priest or an Israelite, is liable for lashes.10 For the portions to be offered on the altar's pyre must be totally consumed like the totality of the burnt offering. Now [Leviticus 6:16] states with regard to a meal-offering of a priest: "It shall be totally consumed; it should not be eaten." [From this, we derive that] there is a negative commandment [prohibiting] partaking of anything that should be consumed by [the fire of] the altar.11 One is liable for lashes for eating an olive-sized portion [of such substances].

Similarly, anyone who eats an olive-sized portion of any of the sin-offerings that must be burnt12 is liable for lashes,13 as [ibid.:23] states: "Any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting... should not be eaten. It should be burnt with fire."

Halacha 4

Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the sacrifices - even sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity - before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar]14 is liable for lashes,15 as it is written: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil... and [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges." Implied is that you may not eat [the sacrifices brought because of] your pledges in your gates before their blood is sprinkled [on the altar] in God's gates.

According to the Oral Tradition,16 it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a thanksgiving-offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood. This also applies to [the meat of] other sacrifices, whether sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity or those of a lesser degree.17 The six components of the thanksgiving offering, the fat, the meat, the flour, the oil, the wine,18 and the bread, may all be combined to comprise the olive-sized portion [for which one is liable].

Halacha 5

Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat of any of the [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes,19 as [implied by] the verse: "You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your sheep...." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that this is a warning against partaking of [the meat of] a sin-offering or a guilt-offering outside the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, one who partakes of [the meat of] the sacrifices of lesser sanctity outside Jerusalem is liable for lashes. For with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, the walls of Jerusalem are comparable to the walls of the Temple Courtyard with regard to sacrifices of the most sacred order. [Included equally are] the meat of the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings and what remains of the meal-offerings.20

Halacha 6

Meat from [sacrifices of] the most sacred order that was taken outside of the walls of the Temple Courtyard and meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity that was taken outside Jerusalem is disqualified and is forbidden forever. Even if it is taken back to its place, it is forbidden to partake of it. One who eats an olive-sized portion of it21 is liable for lashes, as [implied by Exodus 22:30]: "Meat in a field [from an animal that is] treifah, you shall not eat." Once meat has left its designated place, it is considered as treifah, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.22

Halacha 7

If meat from [sacrifices of] a lesser degree of sanctity was taken into the Temple Building, it is acceptable.23

Halacha 8

A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order24 in the Temple Courtyard after their blood was sprinkled [on the altar] is liable for lashes,25 as [Exodus 29:33] states: "And they shall partake of [the sacrifices] which bring them atonement... and a non-priest shall not partake of them." [The association teaches26 that when sacrificial meat] was eaten by a non-priest in a place where a priest partakes of it and at a time when it is fit to be eaten, he is liable for lashes. If, however, a non-priest ate an olive-sized portion of meat from sacrifices of the most sacred order outside [the Temple Courtyard], he is liable for lashes for partaking of the sacrificial meat outside [the Temple Courtyard]27 and not because [of the prohibition against] a non-priest partaking of sacrificial foods,28 for they are not fit to be eaten by priests there. Similarly, if [a non-priest] partook of [such meat] in the Temple Courtyard before [the blood] was sprinkled [on the altar], he is liable for lashes only for partaking [of the meat] before the sprinkling of the blood, not because of [partaking of it] as a non-priest.

Halacha 9

A non-priest who ate an olive-sized portion of meat from a sin-offering from fowl is liable for two sets of lashes: one because he is non-priest partaking of sacred meat29 and one because he is partaking of a neveilah.30 For every [fowl killed by] melikah31 is a neveilah.32 When license was granted to partake of it, it was granted to priests, but not to non-priests. These two prohibitions are considered as two prohibitions that take effect at the same time,33 as we explained.34

FOOTNOTES
1.

This prohibition applies equally to priests and Israelites (Radbaz).

2.

This is a general principle with regard to all prohibitions involving eating. Lashes are given only for partaking of an olive-sized portion.

3.

Compare to Halachah 4.

4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 447) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As explained in Hilchot Meilah 1:3, this negative commandment is also the source for the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated articles (meilah).

5.

This refers to the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem.

6.

Sifri to the above verse, Makkot 17a.

7.

For the latter term is understood as a reference to the burnt offering (ibid.).

8.

I.e., since they are all considered as components of the burnt offering, they are all forbidden. The Radbaz mentions that the omission of the blood of the sacrificial animal indicates that it is not included.

9.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam explicitly mentions that one must partake of an olive-sized portion to be liable - instead, of allowing a reader to reach that conclusion on his own - because one might think that since the verse states that "It shall be totally consumed," as long as a person prevents it from being totally consumed, he is liable.

10.

Besides the prohibitions mentioned here, a person who partakes of these sacrificial components also violates the prohibition against meilah.

11.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 138) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 137) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the commandment specifically refers to the meal offering brought by a priest, the Sifra understands it as applying to a greater scope of sacrificial foods, as the Rambam explains.

12.

See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-4.

13.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 139) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 139) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A separate commandment is necessary, for these sin-offerings are not burnt on the altar of the Temple.

14.

As stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:1, after the blood is sprinkled on the altar, even one who is not permitted to partake of these sacrifices is not liable for meilah, misappropriating the sacred articles for one's personal use.

15.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 448) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.

16.

For this is not the simple meaning of the verse (Rav Yosef Corcus).

17.

Makkot 17a explains the process of exegesis through which the prohibitions against partaking of the other sacrifices are derived.

18.

I.e., the flour, the oil, the wine that comprise the accompanying offering that is brought together with the thanksgiving-offering.

19.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 145) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 446) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot and in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity although he does state that one who partakes of other sacrifices outside of Jerusalem is liable for lashes. When listing the prohibitions for which lashes are given in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, the Rambam lists these two activities separately.

20.

After the handful was taken to be offered on the altar. All of these are considered as sacrifices of the most sacred order.

21.

Whether it was returned to its place or not.

22.

Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:9. As the commentaries explain there, the term "field" is referring to a place which is not the natural place for the meat to be found. Being there causes it to be considered treifah, unfit to be eaten. Similarly, the fact that this meat is taken outside its natural place causes it to become forbidden.

23.

Since, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 3, after the fact, sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten in the Temple Building, taking sacrificial meat there is not considered as taking it outside its designated place. The Radbaz questions whether it is acceptable to eat meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity in the Temple Building.

24.

The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only to meat from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. If, however, a non-priest partakes of meat from a burnt-offering, he is liable only for the prohibition against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering (see Halachah 1) and not because of the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of sacrificial meat.

25.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 148) includes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Sefer HaChinuch, however, does not include it.

26.

I.e., as Makkot 18b states, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of this sacrificial meat applies only in an instance where atonement would be granted were a priest to partake of the meat there.

27.

As stated in Halachah 5.

28.

The Radbaz explains that there is a practical as well as a theoretical difference resulting from this concept, for if the non-priest was given a warning for partaking of the meat because he was a non-priest and not because he was partaking of it outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable.

29.

This law also applies only when the meat of the fowl was eaten in a time and a place when the fowl would have been permitted to be eaten by the priests (Radbaz).

30.

An animal that died without proper ritual slaughter.

31.

Snipping off its head, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 21.

32.

For this is not an acceptable process of ritual slaughter.

33.

At the time the fowl's head was snipped off, it becomes both forbidden to non-priests and a neveilah.

34.

Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8 states:

13There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless:

a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time;

b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited;

c) the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.

Maaseh Hakorbonos - Chapter 12

Halacha 1

Meal-offerings are a type of sacrifice.1 The meal-offerings that are offered independently and not as part of the accompanying offerings2 include both communal meal-offerings and individual meal-offerings.

Halacha 2

All of the meal-offerings are brought from fine wheat flour with the exception of the meal offering of a sotah3 and the omer with which tenufah is performed4 which are brought from barley.

Halacha 3

There are three types of communal meal-offerings:

a) the omer with which tenufah is performed.5 [A portion of] it is offered on the altar, as will be explained.6

b) the two breads offered on Shavuot.7 They are called a meal-offering, but are not offered on the altar and are chametz.8 Concerning them, [Leviticus 2:12] states: "You shall offer them as a sacrifice of first fruits to God, but they shall not be offered on the altar."

c) The third meal-offering is the showbread that is brought every Sabbath. They are not offered on the altar, but instead are eaten entirely by the priests, as will be explained.9

Halacha 4

There are nine types of individual meal-offerings. They are all offered on the altar.10 They include:

a) the meal-offering of a sinner when he is obligated to bring a sin-offering, but is financially incapable.11

b) the meal offering of a sotah; it is the meal-offering of jealously. The manner in which it was offered has already been described.12

c) the meal-offering that every priest brings at the outset when he enters the Temple service the first time. He brings it himself. It is called the meal-offering of initiation.13

d) the meal-offering that the High Priest would offer every day. It is called the chavitin [offering];14

e) a meal-offering of fine flour.15 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;16

f) a flat-pan flour-offering.17 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;

g) a deep-pan flour-offering.18 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;

h) a flour-offering baked in an oven.19 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge;

i) an offering of wafers.20 It is brought as either a vow or a pledge.

Halacha 5

With regard to all of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar, none may be less than an isaron,21 even a small portion of it is an absolute requirement for the entire [offering to be acceptable].

A person may pledge and vow as large a quantity as he desires, even 1000 isaronim22 for any of the five meal-offerings that are brought as a pledge or a vow. By contrast, the meal-offering of the omer, the meal-offering of a sinner, the meal-offering of jealously, the meal-offering of initiation, and the chavitin offering must each be one isaron, neither more or less.

Halacha 6

All of the meal-offerings23 that are brought to the altar must be brought close to the altar on its western side, facing the tip of its southwest corner.24 Tenufah25is not required for them with the exception of the meal-offering of a sotah26 and the omer [offering].27 Both of them require both tenufah and being brought close to the altar.

Halacha 7

All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar28 require that oil and frankincense be placed upon them,29 a log30 of oil for every isaron [of flour]31 and a handful of frankincense for every meal-offering whether it comprised one isaron or 60 isaronim32 - [the latter measure is mentioned because] more than 60 isaronim are never brought in one container, as will be explained33 - with the exception of the meal-offering of jealously and the meal-offering of a sinner, as [Leviticus 5:11] states:34 "He shall not place oil upon it,35 nor shall he place frankincense upon it."36

Halacha 8

If one placed [oil and/or frankincense on these offerings] and offered them,37 he is liable for the oil individually and the frankincense individually.38If one placed a container holding oil or frankincense on the offering, he does not transgress,39 nor does he disqualify [the offerings].40 Oil must be added to each of the initiation and chavitin meal-offerings, as will be explained.41

Halacha 9

A handful is taken42 from all of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar.43 That handful is offered on the altar in its entirety and the remainder [of the offering] is eaten by the priests with the exception of a meal-offering brought by a male priest. A handful is not taken from such an offering. Instead, the entire offering is offered on the altar's pyre, as [Leviticus 6:16] states: "Every meal-offering from a priest [is offered on the pyre in its entirety]."44 From this we learn that all [of the following offerings]: an initiation and chavitin meal-offering or a meal-offering of a sinner or a free-will meal-offering brought by a priest are all offered on the altar's pyre and a handful is not taken from them.

Halacha 10

A handful is taken from a meal-offering brought by woman of the priestly family45 as it is taken from the meal-offerings brought by Israelites and the remainder of it is eaten.46

Halacha 11

When sons [from a priestly family and one of Israelites] become intermingled and each of their identities are doubtful, a handful is taken from a meal-offering [brought by either], as is done with regard to a meal-offering brought by an Israelite, but [the remainder] is not eaten, as is done with a meal-offering brought by a priest.47

What is done? The handful alone is offered on the altar and the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.48

Halacha 12

The meal-offerings brought by all women married to a priest - whether from the priestly family or Israelites - are not eaten, because of the portion of the husband [present within them],49 nor is it offered on the pyre in its entirety, because of the portion of the woman.50 Instead, a handful alone is offered on the altar and the remainder is scattered over the ash heap.

The handful may be taken in any place within the Temple Courtyard. If it was taken in the Temple Building, it is acceptable.

Halacha 13

A meal-offering may be consecrated by [placing the flour] in a container [even] while it is placed on the ground.51 [Similarly,] the handful may be taken from a container [placed] on the ground, [but] the handful may not be consecrated52in a container [placed] on the ground.53

When is the remainder of a meal-offering permitted to be eaten? When the fire [of the altar] has consumed most of the handful.

Halacha 14

All of the meal-offerings that are brought to the altar are unleavened.54Similarly, although the remaining portions of the meal-offerings that may be eaten by the priests may be eaten with all foods and with a sweetener,55 they may not be eaten while leavened, as [Leviticus 6:10] states: "It shall not be baked leavened; their portion...." [Implied is that] even their portion may not be leavened. If they cause the remaining portion to become leavened, they are liable for lashes.56 One who performs an act that causes [the remaining portion of the meal-offering] to be leavened after it was leavened,57 is liable. One is liable for each act [that causes the remnants of the meal-offering to leaven].58

Halacha 15

What is implied? If one mixed [the remnants of a meal-offering] with water in manner that causes them to leaven, one kneaded them in a manner that causes them to leaven, 59 one shaped the loaves in such a manner, or baked them in such a manner, he is liable for lashes,60 as [Leviticus 2:11] states: "It shall not be prepared as leavened." [Now it is also written:] "It shall not be baked leavened." [Why are the two verses necessary?] To make one liable for every individual act performed [in its preparation]. If one prepared it as leavened from the beginning to the end, one is liable for lashes for every individual act performed.

Halacha 16

If one left yeast on a dough and then departed and sat elsewhere and [let] it leaven on its own accord, he is liable for lashes, for placing yeast [on the dough] is a deed.61

Halacha 17

If one dipped the remainder [of a meal-offering] in caraway or sesame seeds or any type of spice or oil, it is acceptable. It is matzah; it is merely called spiced matzah.62

Halacha 18

A person who causes a meal-offering that was disqualified63 to become leavened is exempt, as [implied by Leviticus 2:11]: "which will be offered to God; it should not be prepared as leaven." [We can infer that the prohibition applies when the offering is] acceptable to God, not when it is disqualified.

If one caused [a meal-offering] to become leaven while it was acceptable and then it was taken outside the Temple Courtyard,64 and he then caused it to leaven again after it was disqualified, he is not liable65 for lashes.66 If one caused [a meal-offering] to become leavened at the top of the altar, he is not liable for lashes, for it is written "which will be offered," and this [offering] was already offered and it is acceptable.67

Halacha 19

One who causes the showbread to become leaven is liable for lashes, for [the verse cited] states: "Any meal-offering."68 [Causing] the meal-offering of the accompanying offering [to leaven] does not incur liability for lashes. For if [the flour] was mixed with water, it was disqualified before it became leavened.69 And if it was mixed with the oil70 of the accompanying offerings, it is considered as fruit-juice and it does not cause [dough] to leaven.71

Halacha 20

We do not soak the wheat kernels72 for the meal-offerings, lest they leaven. For they would be soaked outside [the Temple Courtyard]73 and not everyone is ardent [enough] to watch them [so that they do not leaven]. With regard to the meal-offering of the omer, since it is a communal offering, [the kernels] are soaked, for [those acting on behalf of] the Jewish people as a whole are ardent74 and watch it.

Halacha 21

All of the meal-offerings that are baked should be mixed with lukewarm water75 and watched so that they do not leaven. [This is permitted,] because they are mixed and baked within the Temple Courtyard and [the priests] inside [the Temple Courtyard] are ardent.76

Halacha 22

In the place where the sacrifices of the most sacred order are cooked, the meal-offerings are baked,77 as [Ezekiel 46:20] states: "This is the place where the priests will cook the guilt-offering and the sin-offering, where they will bake the meal-offering...."

Halacha 23

The grinding and the sifting [of the flour] for the meal-offerings is performed outside [the Temple Courtyard],78 while the mixing of the dough, the kneading, and the baking are performed inside.79

All of the acts [necessary to prepare it] are acceptable [when performed] by a non-priest until it reaches the stage where the handful [of flour] is separated.80 There were a flat frying pan and a deep frying pan in the Temple Courtyard. They were both considered as sacred utensils and caused [the substances placed in them] to be sanctified.81 The oven in the Temple Courtyard was made of metal.82

FOOTNOTES
1.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

2.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

3.

A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.

4.

This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3-12.

5.

This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3-12.

6.

See ibid.:12.

7.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1-16.

8.

Leavened bread in contrast to almost all the other meal-offerings that are unleavened.

9.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10-12; 5:5.

10.

I.e., they are brought to the southwestern corner of the altar as described in Halachah 6 and a handful from them (or with regard to offerings brought by priests, the entire offering) is offered on the altar's pyre, as described in Halachah 9.

11.

See Leviticus 5:11; Hilchot Shegagot 1:4;10:4.

12.

A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.

13.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:16. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 4.

14.

See Leviticus 6:13-15; Chapter 13, Halachot 2-4; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18. The above four offerings are obligatory. The five that follow are voluntary.

15.

See Leviticus 2:1; Chapter 13, Halachah 5.

16.

See Hilchot Nedarim 1:2 with regard to the distinction between these two types of commitments.

17.

See Leviticus 2:5; Chapter 13, Halachah 6.

18.

See Leviticus 2:7; Chapter 13, Halachot 6-7.

19.

See Leviticus 2:4; Chapter 13, Halachah 8.

20.

This offering is also baked in an oven, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 8.

21.

An isaron is 2500 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 4320 cc according to Chazon Ish.

22.

The offerings must, however, be of complete isaronim.

23.

The Radbaz explains that this includes the meal offerings brought by priests even though a handful of flour is not removed from them. It does not, however, include the meal-offerings brought as part of the accompanying offerings. The rationale for the distinction is that this rite is required only for the meal-offerings that are brought as independent offerings, not for those that merely accompany other offerings. The showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos are not brought close to the altar, because they are not offered on the altar at all.

24.

Leviticus 6:7 states: "The sons of Aaron will bring it close, before God, towards the face of the altar." Sotah 14b interprets this as referring to the southwest corner of the altar."

25.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 7, where this rite is described.

26.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 16.

27.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.

28.

This term excludes the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos, as mentioned above.

29.

With the exception of the meal-offering of a sinner and a sotah, it is explicitly stated that oil must be brought with every meal-offering. Including frankincense is mentioned only with regard to the offering of fine flour. Nevertheless, Menachot 59a uses techniques of Biblical exegesis to derive that it should be included with every meal-offering.

30.

A log is 344 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

31.

This represents the minimum. More oil is placed on certain offerings as mentioned in Halachah 8.

32.

In contrast to the oil which is added proportionately to the flour, a uniform measure of frankincense is included for every meal offering.

33.

See Chapter 17, Halachah 6.

34.

This verse applies to the meal-offering of a sinner. Similar statements are made with regard to the meal-offering brought by a sotah in Numbers 5:15. In both instances, the commentaries explain that the reason for the prohibition is so that the sinner's (or the suspected adulteress') sacrifice should not appear attractive.

35.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 104) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 366) include the prohibition against placing oil on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See also Hilchot Sotah 3:13.

36.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 105) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 367) include the prohibition against placing frankincense on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

37.

The Rambam's understanding is that one is not liable unless he offers these meal-offerings on the altar after placing the oil and frankincense on them (Radbaz).

38.

For they are considered as independent prohibitions.

39.

Even if he offers the meal-offering on the altar in this manner (Radbaz).

40.

If, however, he placed oil and/or frankincense directly on the meal-offering, he does disqualify it. Should one remove the frankincense after placing it upon the offering, the offering becomes acceptable again (Radbaz).

41.

Chapter 13, Halachah 2.

42.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 13, for a description of how this handful is taken.

43.

The Radbaz states that this does not include the meal-offerings that are brought as part of the accompanying offerings, for they are offered on the altar in their entirety.

44.

The passage from which the prooftext is taken speaks about the initiation offering and the High Priest's chavitin offering. Nevertheless, since it includes the word "every," the concept it states is applied to other offerings brought by priests (Radbaz).

45.

I.e., one unmarried, alternatively, one married to an Israelite as evident from Halachah 12 (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

46.

Sotah 23b derives this concept from the fact that the prooftext cited above uses a male term for priest.

47.

I.e., since there is a doubt involved, the offering is treated with both the stringencies applying to one brought by priests and those applying to one brought by Israelites (Yevamot 99b).

48.

Rashi (ibid. 100a) interprets this as referring to the place outside the Temple Courtyard where the ashes from the altar are deposited. Tosafot interprets it as the place inside the Temple Courtyard where sacrifices of the most sacred order that are disqualified are burnt. This difference of opinion is possible, because the term ash-pile is used for several different places.

The offering may not be eaten, for perhaps the person bringing it is a priest and meal-offerings a priest brings may not be eaten. Nor may it be burnt entirely on the altar, for perhaps the person bringing it is an Israelite and an Israelite's offerings may not be burnt entirely.

49.

For a woman will bring her offering from flour that belongs to her husband (Rashi, Sotah 23a).

50.

For she is bringing it for her atonement.

51.

I.e., it need not be held by a priest.

52.

The consecration of the handful is discussed in Chapter 13, Halachah 12.

53.

Menachot 7b derives this concept from a parallel to the receiving of the blood. Just as that is only acceptable when the priest holds the container in his hands, so too, the consecration of the meal-offering is acceptable only when the priest holds the container.

54.

The only meal-offerings that are leavened are the two loaves brought on Shavuos and ten of the loaves brought for the thanksgiving offering and these are not brought to the altar.

55.

Although a sweetener may not be offered on the altar (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1), it may be eaten with sacrificial foods.

56.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 124) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 135) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

57.

E.g., one allowed it to leaven while kneading it and then another baked it.

58.

As explained in the following halachah.

59.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:2).

60.

Each of these acts carries liability individually, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

61.

And thus the person caused the dough to leaven.

62.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:20 where the Rambam rules that the addition of such substances does not cause matzah to leaven.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, stating that it is permissible to dip baked matzah in the substances mentioned in this halachah, but not to mix them into the dough used to prepare matzah. The Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh, and others support the Rambam's position.

63.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 11, describes many different factors that can cause a meal offering to become disqualified.

64.

Which disqualifies it, as evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 6.

65.

For the second leavening. He is, however, liable for the first leavening (Rav Yosef Corcus).

66.

Although generally one who causes a meal-offering to leaven a second time is liable (Halachah 14), in this instance, since it was disqualified in the interim, he is exempt.

67.

It should not, however, be offered on the altar's pyre (but should be taken from the altar and discarded), because no leaven should be offered on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1 (Radbaz).

68.

And this also includes the showbread. The commentaries note that Menachot 57a derives this concept from a different prooftext.

69.

For the flour of the accompanying offerings should be mixed with oil, not water (Chapter 2, Halachah 4).

70.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "wine" and hence, has been questioned by many.

71.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:2.

72.

In the Talmudic era, when preparing fine flour, the wheat kernels would be soaked and then ground in a mill so that the shell of coarse bran would be removed. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:7 which states that in order that the kernels not become leaven, they should be ground immediately.

73.

By private individuals.

74.

Rashi (Pesachim 36a) states that this sacrifice would be prepared by the agents of the court and those individuals would certainly act with the proper care and energy.

75.

Even though lukewarm water will serve as a catalyst to cause the dough to leaven faster (Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:11), since the priests inside the Temple Courtyard are performing the service, we are not concerned that they will allow it to leaven.

76.

And will not allow the flour to leaven.

77.

For their status is the same.

78.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 12; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:19.

79.

Exceptions to this general principle were the the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos which were also kneaded outside the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:7; 8:7).

80.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:7.

81.

For anything placed in a sacred utensil becomes sanctified, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19.

82.

Zevachim 96a explains that it could not be made of earthenware, because it had the status of a sacred utensil since the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos were sanctified because they were baked inside of it and it is not befitting to make a sacred utensil from earthenware.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
E-mail
Daily Quote
Send forth your bread upon the surface of the water, for after many days you will find it
  –Ecclesiastes 11:1
This page in other languages
FEATURED ON CHABAD.ORG