Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 11

See the description of the taking of the handful of meal in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:13.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1), the Rambam explains that taking a handful of meal is equivalent to slaughtering an animal sacrifice. Hence if the act is performed by an unacceptable person, it is disqualified. Rav Yosef Corcus states more precisely that it is equivalent to receiving the blood of a sacrifice, thus also disqualifying a non-priest.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:12 which mentions the separation of the frankincense.

The Kessef Mishneh understands the Rambam as ruling that these acts disqualify the offering permanently, even if the priest corrects the act afterwards. From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), it appears that the deed may be corrected.

The frankincense should be shifted to the side before the handful is taken. If afterwards any of these substances is found in the handful, it is unacceptable, because the handful is lacking the required amount [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 1:1)].

Any place within the Temple Courtyard is acceptable (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:12).

And the meal-offering is acceptable. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is referring to an instance where he placed the handful of meal into a utensil and from the utensil, it spilled to the floor. If, however, it falls to the floor from his hand, it is disqualified. As support, he cites a similar ruling with regard to the blood of a sacrifice (Chapter 1, Halachah 26).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:12 with regard to bringing the meal-offering to the altar.

Menachot 26a elaborates on the necessity of using a sacred utensil for each of these stages of service.

Although it need not be mixed with oil by a priest, it must be mixed in the Temple Courtyard (Menachot 9b).

As required for certain meal-offerings; see Leviticus 2:6.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12 which describes the waving process which is necessary for certain meal-offerings.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:23.

One log for every isaron (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:7).

A handful per offering (ibid.).

There is no Biblical phrase using the exact wording employed by the Rambam. Menachot 11b derives the concept stated by the Rambam from Leviticus 6:8. Leviticus 2:2 uses a phrase very close to that cited by the Rambam.

The use of a plural tenn indicates that one particle is not sufficient.

Double the usual measure.

Concerning which Leviticus 5:11 states: “You shall not place upon it oil, nor shall you place upon it frankincense.” See also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:7.

Because of the transgression involved.

Since the frankincense can be removed, the offering is not disqualified.

For the violation of the above prohibition.

The Rambam’s wording appears to imply that as an initial preference, one should not place oil on these remnants. Nevertheless, from other sources, it would seem that there is no difficulty in doing so.

Either ordinary oil or oil from another meal-offering.

For anything less than an olive-sized portion is not halachically significant.

Before the handful of meal is removed.

I.e., when ground, as stated in Halachah 10. Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slight error.

For here also anything less is not considered significant.

Leviticus 7:10 speaks ofa meal-offering “mixed with oil or that is dry.”

The remainder of the offering, however, need not be salted.

Although Menachot 18a states: “If salt was not placed on it, it is acceptable,” it is explained (ibid. 20a): “If a priest did not salt it, but a non-priest did.”

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:12. As stated there, this is a severity that applies to the meal-offerings and not to other sacrifices.

I.e., it must contain at least an isaron, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:5.

Hence it must be complete at that time.

This is the minimum size of the offering, as stated in ibid. 16:13.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:2.

Doubling the minimum requirement.

And thus the offering is acceptable.

On the afternoon of the Sabbath, before the showbreads are replaced by new breads, the bowls of frankincense are removed and the frankincense offered on the altar.

The Rambam is speaking after the fact. As an initial preference, once the handful of meal becomes impure, it should not be offered.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 34-35; Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:7; Hilchot Me’ilah 3:9, et al.

Menachot 26a derives this from a comparison to the laws regarding offering the blood on the altar when the meat of a sacrifice became impure or otherwise disqualified.

Which causes the meal-offering to be disqualified.

And the person who brought it is considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

Menachot 9b derives this concept from Leviticus 2:3: “The remainder of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons.” Implied is that the priests should receive the remainder of the offering and not the remainder of the remnants.

For the handful must be taken from an isaron of flour and since there is a division in the container, it is considered as if the isaron was brought in two containers, which is unacceptable (Menachot 24a).

Since the flour is mixed together below, it is considered to be a single entity.

Since the question was not resolved, one should not attempt to bring the sacrifice in this manner.

The commentaries have not found an explicit source for this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is derived from the Halachah 20 above.

15 handbreadths, for there are six showbreads in each arrangement and each one is two and one half handbreadths high.

I.e., if it remains overnight, is taken out of the Temple Courtyard, or the like. Beforehand, it could not be disqualified for those reasons. From the Rambam’s wording, one can infer that placing the handful of meal on the table does not disqualify the handful entirely and if it is gathered and placed in a sacred vessel, it may be placed on the altar’s pyre (Kessef Mishneh).

Menachot 11a questions whether these situations are acceptable and leaves the matter unresolved.

The rationale for the ruling is that their presence in a common container causes the different elements of an offering to be considered as one, even if they are not touching (Chagigah 20b; Hilchot Sha’arAvot HaTuma’ah 12:7). Hence, since these two portions were originally part of the same offering and they are now in the same container, the first part is also disqualified.

Since these two portions were never planned to be offered together, they do not share a halachic connection.

For the portion set aside as a replacement and the original portion were intended to serve as a single offering.

For, as mentioned, it and the replacement have no intrinsic connection.

For they both share a connection with it.

In its entirety.

Instead, another portion should be combined with it and a second meal-offering brought (Zevach Todah).

The remainder of the first portion may, however, be eaten, because the handful is acceptable.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, taking the handful from a meal-offering enables the remainder of the isaron from which it is taken to be eaten. It, however, only allows an isaron to be eaten, not more. Thus the two portions could not be eaten because, when brought together, the three would comprise more than an isaron.

Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.

Since each portion is distinct from the other, it is possible for the priest to be focused on two, but not three.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:9.

See ibid. 2:1.

Our translation reflects the version in the standanl published texts of the Mishneh Torah even though many commentaries have questioned it and have suggested that the text should read: “or [the handful] became mixed with the remaining portion of another meal-offering.” This version appears preferable, for seemingly, even if two offerings become mixed together, if their handfuls have already been separated, why shouldn’t the handfuls be offered? Halachah 29 apparently leads to such a conclusion. Nevertheless, we did not correct the text in this fashion, for the authoritative manuscripts and early printings employ the same version as the standard printed text. Moreover, the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah (Menachot 3:3) also contains such statements.

In the first instance, this refers to the mixture of the handful and the remainder. In the second instance, according to the standard version of the Mishneh Torah, it refers to the handful for the remainder that became intermingled with another remainder.

Generally, when a forbidden substance becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of the same type, the forbidden entity becomes batel—it is considered nullified because it is a tiny proportion of the mixture. Nevertheless, in this instance, Menachot 23b quotes a textual association to prove that the handful does not become batel to the remainder of the offering.