Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17

Hence the person(s) bringing the sacrifice are not required to bring another one.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
Chapter 16, Halachah 1, states that when a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul. In the present instance, it is placed in the more severe category, because once the fundamental presentation was made in a manner that rendered the sacrifice piggul, the the priest’s subsequent intentions are of no consequence.

Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

However, it is not piggul. The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is not considered piggul because one must have the disqualifying intent concerning time when performing all of the presentations.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:7.

Literally, the Rambam’s words mean: “Remained silent with regard to the others.”

See ibid.:8.

The commentaries note that this ruling appears to run contrary to the statements of Zevachim 44a: “If one had a disqualifying intent that would render an offering piggul inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not piggul.” Rambam LeAm suggests that Rabbi Elazar, the author of the statement cited, does not accept the concept that one’s intent when immersing one’s finger in the blood can cause an offering to be considered as piggul. If, however, he would have accepted that concept, he would also have accepted the Rambam’s ruling here.

When they should be presented on the day the sacrificial animal is slaughtered.

On the outer altar (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:10).

For the bread is secondary to and dependent on the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not dependent on the bread [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 13.

Rashi’s commentary to Menachot 15a implies that it is forbidden to eat the meat. From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, it would appear that the meat is permitted entirely.

Here, also, the bread is considered as secondary to the sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not secondary to the meat [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

I.e., half an olive-sized portion of meat and half an olive-sized portion of bread (Rashi, Menachot, loc. cit.).

Menachot, loc. cit., mentions both of the situations spoken about in this halachah. One opinion maintains that the ruling was given both with regard to the bread on Shavuot and the bread of the thanksgiving-offering. A second view maintains that it was given with regard to the breads and the offering of Shavuot, for they are interrelated, as evidenced by the fact that they are waved together (Leviticus 23:20). It is possible, however, that it does not apply to the thanksgiving-offering. The Rambam accepts the more stringent view, because of the doubt involved (Kessef Mishneh).

For it is the offering of the bowls of frankincense that enable the breads to be eaten.

For the two loaves are considered as a single offering.

Here too both arrangments are considered as a single offering.

The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction to Chapter 12, Halachah 14. See the notes to that halachah.

Of the blood of the sacrifices or the frankincense for the showbreads [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2)].

For he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to the entire offering that would enable the bread to be eaten.

In this context, each of the sheep is considered as an independent entity.

It appears that the Rambam follows the view of Rava (Menachot 13b) that bread is considered as consecrated, but it is forbidden to be eaten.

The place where the bread is located is not of consequence.

For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:15, the offering of the bread is a fundamental requirement for the offering of the sheep and if the bread is lost, the sheep should be destroyed by fire.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error and the text should read “with an intent for another sacrifice.” This view, however, is not borne out by the manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: One might think that the meat would be permitted to be eaten, because they are peace-offerings and when a peace-offering is offered for the sake of another offering, it is permitted to be eaten, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1. On the other hand, since the sheep are associated with the bread and the bread is lost, there is room to say that they have been disqualified.
The Kessef Mishneh notes, however, that Rabbenu Yehoshua, one of the Rambam’s descendants, was asked about the matter and explained the question according to the existing text. According to his view, the issue is that since the blood was cast on the altar after the bread was lost, the Sages had a question whether to consider the meat as ordinary meat or whether the meat should still be considered as sacrificial meat, because the sheep were slaughtered before the bread was lost.