Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See the description of the way in which the incense offering was prepared in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, ch. 2.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 28) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 103) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. Preparing the incense for the offering is not considered as a mitzvah (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 10). Significantly, the Ramban (Hosafot to the negative commandments) maintains that the morning incense offering and the afternoon one should be considered as separate mitzvot.

See the description of the Golden Altar in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:17.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:4), the Rambam writes that it was rare that the priests willfully omitted offering the incense offering, because offering it brought blessings for prosperity.

Note the contrast to the daily offering (Chapter 1, Halachah 12).

A dinar is approximately 4 grams in modern measure.

For the altar itself need not be there for the offering to be acceptable. Note the parallel in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbonot 19:15.

From the exegesis of Leviticus 6:3, Yoma 45b derives that the limbs of a sacrifice that fly off the altar should be returned to it, but not the grains of incense. The grain should be entombed (Radbaz).

The Kessef Mishneh states that this phrase is making a distinction between the incense offering brought each day and that brought on Yorn Kippur. Since the latter offering is brought into the Holy of Holies, it is necessary to depart only from the Temple Building.
One may remain in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. See Hilchot Avodat Yom Kippurim 4:2.

This refers to the bull brought by a High Priest as a sin-offering, the bull brought as atonement for a law forgotten by the High Court, and the goats that are brought to atone for idolatry (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:13).

This translates the Talmudic term binyan av. Note the Radbaz who explains that although Yoma 44a appears to derive this concept through the exegetical method referred to as a gezeirah shaveh (a textual association), the intent is really a binyan av.

I.e., who was chosen in the lottery, as described in Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

The term is used in several contexts in the Talmudic literature to refer to a metal container. In his gloss to Tamid 3:6, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura states that it has the same root as the word tene used by Deuteronomy 26:2 to refer to the container used to carry the first fruits.

As a sign of wealth and prosperity. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:19.

A kab is 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

They were already burnt out and there was no danger of him being burnt.

Yoma 21a states this was done, because of a miracle that occurred. To explain: Our Sages relate that the ashes from the Menorah and from the Golden Altar would be miraculously swallowed up in their place each day. In order not to require God to perform this miracle twice each day, the ashes from the Golden Altar would be put aside until those from the Menorah were collected. See Halachah 12.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 7; Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

In his translation of the Torah, Onkelos translates the word kaf, generally translated as “spoon,” as bezech. Both the kaf and the bezech were utensils resembling ladles, i.e., they had a receptacle and a long arm leading to it.

The one who merited to remove the ashes from the altar, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

I.e., with burning coals, as explained in the following halachah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:5), the Rambam writes that this fire-pan would hold four kabbim.

The Rambam’s statements are based on his text of the Mishnah (Tamid 5:5). Apparently, the Ra’avad had a slightly different version.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 8.

This fire-pan would hold three kabbim [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. Yoma 45a explains that gathering the coals would damage the fire-pan slightly and over time, it would have to be replaced. Hence rather than damage a golden one, the Sages took the financial needs of the Jewish people into consideration and did not require that a golden one be used each day.

Since the golden fire-pan was smaller than the silver one, it was natural that this would occur (ibid.).

As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11, there was a channel for outflow that ran through the Temple Courtyard. The priest would sweep the coals there [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that in his Targum (Exodus 27:3), Onkelos uses the term pisachter for the Hebrew sir, meaning “pot.”

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:20.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

Tamid 6:1 states that he would be accompanied by the priest who would clean the Menorah. The Rambam does not mention this point, because it is not germane to the discussion at hand.

Which he had left previously in the Temple Sanctuary, as stated in Halachah 4.

As appropriate for one who completed his Temple service and depart.

I.e., thus four priests would enter: a) one to clean the altar; b) one to place the coal on it; c) one to pour incense into the hands of the priest who would offer it; and d) one to offer the incense on the coals (Radbaz).

As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7, the incense offering would be given to a priest who never offered it previously. Hence he would not be experienced and required these warnings (Radbaz).

I.e., the person offering the incense stands to the east of the altar. He should begin pouring the incense on the western side of the altar. Otherwise, he will have to lean over the altar while the incense is burning and he could be burned in this manner.

Rashi (Yoma 28a) maintains that this term refers to the segen, the High Priest’s assistant. Tosafot maintains that it refers to the priest who apportions the Temple service by lottery. From Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:16, it is obvious that the Rambam accepts Rashi’s view.

I.e., as expression of deference.

As stated in Halachah 3.

See Halachah 12 which describes what this service entails.

The Rambam’s view that the Menorah was kindled both in the afternoon and the morning is not accepted by all authorities. Many maintain that it was kindled only in the afternoon. And there is an intennediate view that one (or two) lamps also burned during the day.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 98) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Although kindling light is usually forbidden on the Sabbath, in this instance it is pennitted.

If the majority of priests or sacred utensils are impure, the Menorah may still be kindled.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:10.

172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon Ish.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 2:2) maintains that since the summer nights are shorter than the winter nights, the priests would compensate for that by using thicker wicks (which burn more oil) in the winter and thinner ones in the summer. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3), however, the Rambam writes that a medium sized wick was used at all times. The Radbaz explains that position, stating that if some oil was left over, it was not significant, for the Temple sacrifices should be offered in a spirit of wealth and prosperity.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 3:4) where the Rambam writes that deshen means “ash” and the remainder of the wicks and the coals produced are considered as ash.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

Other authorities interpret hatavah as referring to the cleaning of the lamps. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:9), the Rambam explains that this term means “the cleaning of the lamps, rekindling what was extinguished, and changing their wicks.” See also Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:7 where it appears that the Rambam interprets this term as meaning cleaning and preparing the Menorah.
As the Kessef Mishneh mentions, many other commentaries follow the approach of Rashba (Responsa 79 and 309) who maintains that the term hatavah means only the cleaning and preparing of the Menorah. This difference of opinion regarding the defmition of this term is dependent on a larger issue. Were all the lamps kindled in the morning or not? As mentioned in Halachah 10, the Rambam maintains that they were. The Rashba and those who follow his approach differ. Accordingly, they differ in their interpretation of Exodus 30:7 “when he performs hatavah for the lamps, he shall offer the incense.” According to the Rambam, this refers to the kindling of the lamps, while according to the Rashba, this refers only to cleaning them.
Exodus 30:8 uses a different term for kindling the lamps at night (as the Rashba states in support of his approach). Perhaps hatavah can refer only to the rekindling of the lamps in the morning as indicated by the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah cited above. See the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh.

I.e., add oil so that it will bum until nightfall.

As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:8, the Rambam maintains that the Menorah was positioned from north to south. Accordingly, this refers to the center lamp that was positioned opposite the Holy of Holies. Others differ, maintaining that the Menorah is positioned from east to west and the term “western lamp” refers to the second lamp from the east which is “western” in relation to the more eastern one.

Yoma 45b derives this concept from Leviticus 6:6 which reads “A continuous fire shall bum on the altar.” Using the rules of Biblical exegesis, our Sages explain that the verse can be interpreted as meaning: Whenever a continuous fire will bum - and the Menorah is also referred to as a continuous fire - it shall be kindled from the altar.
The Ra’avad differs with this ruling and maintains that when possible, even the western lamp should be kindled from the other lamps of the Menorah. Only when there is no alternative, it should be kindled from the altar. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, give support for the Rambam’s view.

Indeed, as stated in the following halachah, it is desirable to do so rather than use another candle.

With tweezers. This was possible, because the wicks were long.

The Radbaz suggests that each lamp would be kindled from the lamp next to it. Thus one would not have to stretch any of the wicks that far.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:6-7.

Even if one would light the ordinary lamp from the lamp of the Menorah, it would be unacceptable, because it is not respectful to light an ordinary lamp from the lamp of the Menorah (Kessef Mishneh, based on Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Chanukah 3:9).

See Hilchot Shabbat 5:5. The substances mentioned there are unacceptable, because they do not allow for a steadily burning flame. Instead, the flames they produce sputter.

They may, however, be used for other purposes, e.g., as wicks for the lanterns used to illuminate the Temple Courtyard during the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations (Shabbos 21b).

This excludes substances which will prevent the fire from ascending smoothly on its own.

The limbs of the sacrifices would be brought up to the altar and the incense offering was brought (6:3-4).

By extending the duration of time in which this service is performed, it will be noticed by all those present [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:9)].

Halachah 13.

The lottery through which this priest is selected is described in Chapter 4, Halachah 6. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, this priest would enter the Sanctuary together with the priest who removed the ashes from the inner altar. The Rambam does not mention that fact here, because it is not a point of present concern.

The wicks and oil were placed in the ash-pile near the outer altar as stated in Halachah 12. The commentaries have questioned the intent of the gloss of the Radbaz.

As stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:11, there was a stone positioned before the Menorah into which three steps were carved. The priest would stand on it while cleaning and kindling the Menorah.

I.e., after the limbs were brought up to the altar as stated above.

This offering resembled flat cakes. The Rambam describes their preparation in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:2-4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 40) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 136) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

See the notes to Halachah 10, for details concerning the above.

For day-old cakes are not attractive.
The Radbaz asks: Since the chavitin offering is considered one of the communal offerings, we know that their offering supersedes the Sabbath restrictions. Why is it necessary to add this and the subsequent rationale? He explains that they are valuable for the lessons that they teach, independent of the concept they are quoted to support.

For an article kept in a sacred vessel overnight is disqualified.

The Lechem Mishneh questions why the Rarnbam speaks of the deep frying pan when in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:3, he states that the High Priest’s offering was prepared using the flat frying pan.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:23. Both the flat and deep frying pans are mentioned there.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, op. cit.

But instead, must be performed on Friday.

Although Halachah 18 stated that the offering of the chavitin supersedes the restrictions of ritual impurity, that refers to an instance when the majority of the Jewish community, the majority of the priests, or the majority of the Temple utensils are impure. In this instance, only the High Priest is impure and that difficulty can be remedied by temporarily appointing another in his place (Radbaz).

These latter two instances are not mentioned in Menachot 50b, the source for the Rambam’s ruling. Nevertheless, the concept follows logically, because in these states, the High Priest cannot serve (Radbaz).

In the latter two instances, if and when the first High Priest regains ritual purity or is healed from his blemish, he is restored to his position (ibid.).

I.e., half the measure required to make the flat-cakes for the entire day, the measure required for the afternoon offering.

From his own property.

As explained in the following halachah.

This term is interpreted to mean that they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight. They cannot, however, be destroyed immediately. The rationale is that since the disqualifying factor is not integral to the sacrificial food itself, destroying them would be an act of disrespect.

I.e., the High Priest must bring a complete isaron, of which half is offered and half is destroyed.

To the east of the altar, as stated in the notes to Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:3.

Menachot 51b derives this concept from Leviticus 6:15: “The priest... from his sons should offer it,” i.e., his heirs should offer it, the entire offering, bringing it in his place.

Menachot, op. cit., derives this concept from the fact that the prooftext states “It shall be offered on the pyre in its entirety.”

For there is a verse requiring the doubling of the flour and no such verse with regard to the oil and the frankincense (Menachot, op. cit.).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:2,4.

This refers to the offering of the communal offerings. The priests to offer individual sacrifices were not chosen on the basis of a lottery (Rashi, Yoma 26b). See also the gloss of the Mishneh L’Melech to Halachah 9 which discusses this issue. Yoma 22a explains that the lotteries were initiated, because originally the priests would race to carry out the Temple functions. Once as the priests were running up the ramp, one pushed another and he fell and broke his leg. When the Sages realized that danger could result, they instituted these lotteries.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash, ch. 4, which explains that the priests were divided into 24 watches. Each watch would serve in the Temple for one week at a time. Each of those watches were divided into seven clans which would carry out the services for that particular day.

A large chamber on the northern side of the Temple Courtyard. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17. This chamber was chosen because a portion of it is outside the Temple Courtyard and it was in that portion that the priests would stand. The rationale is that, as will be explained, the hat of one of the priests would be removed and it is inappropriate to stand bareheaded in the Temple Courtyard even briefly.

The first glowing of the sun’s rays, well before sunrise (72 minutes according to some views, two hours according to others). At this time, the dust was removed from the altar, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 11. See also Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

Immediately, so that the priest would not be bareheaded.

In Halachah 3.

For reasons of modesty.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:8-9.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 2:1), the Rambam writes that a priest would stick out one finger if he was weak or several if he was healthy.

The commentaries note that the Rambam’s interpretation of Yoma, loc. cit., is different from that of most other authorities with regard to this point. See the gloss of the Radbaz who elaborates on this matter.

And thus he could manipulate the counting to favor himself [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Here also, the Rambam’s interpretation differs from that of other authorities.

Proceeding to the right along the semi-circle.

Counting each finger a second time.

Even for a mitzvah (Yoma 22b).

This refers to Saul’s census of the army before entering into battle against Amalek. Conversely, we find that when David took a census and actually counted people, a severe plague resulted.

With regard to the afternoon, see Halachah 8.

As described in Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

The Radbaz elaborates in questioning the Rambam’s ruling, for it appears to run contrary to the statements of Yoma 25b-26a. Indeed, he maintains that there is a printing error in the text and that this phrase should be included in the following halachah. Others, however, explain that it appears that there is support for the Rambam’s position based on the Mishnayot of Tamid 5:5, 6:2.

As Yoma 26b relates, on Sabbaths and festivals even more priests are selected in this lottery. As indicated by Chapter 6, Halachah 1, according to the Rambam, the first two lotteries were conducted in direct proximity to each other.

In Halachah 3.

On his right.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 6, for details concerning how the offering was divided into portions and brought to the altar.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 18; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:4, 6:16.

The laws that apply had they all brought an incense offering once are mentioned in the following halachah.

Bringing the incense offering was a medium to drawn down Divine blessings for prosperity. Hence the opportunity is given to priests who had never brought that offering previously (Yoma 26a).

I.e., in contrast to the previous lottery where those who had brought the incense offering previously did not participate (ibid.).

I.e., one priest would bring up all the limbs (Tosafot, Yoma 26a).

The Kessef Mishneh notes that although the wood for the altar was brought by two priests in the afternoon as opposed to the one in the morning, there was no need for a second lottery. Instead, the priest who was selected in the morning would bring one of his friends to assist him in the afternoon.

I.e., completes their week of Temple service. For the watches changed after the offering of the sacrifices on the morning of the Sabbath (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:3).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 41) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 402) count the offering of the two sheep as the additional offering of the Sabbath as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

This conclusion is reached from the fact that the Talmud does not speak of a separate lottery for the additional offerings.

I.e., begins their week of Temple service.

As described in Halachah 12.

Hilchot lssurei HaMizbeiach 5:11-13; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 16:14.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 11.

They are the fourteenth and fifteenth priests in the second lottery (Kessef Mishneh in the name of the Ritba). The Radbaz maintains that these priests came from the watch that entered the Temple service that week.

This is the portion of the Temple Courtyard where the communal sacrifices are slaughtered. Dividing the bread there distinguishes them as the watch that will perform the service in the Temple that week [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:6)].

This would show that they have completed their service (Sukkah 56b).

I.e., the first and last days of Pesach and Sukkot and the holiday of Shavuot.

I.e., during the Chol Hamoed.

This refers to the division of the bread itself, but not to the division of the tasks involved in offering it. Those are performed only by the priests of the watch who serve in the Temple that week (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:6).

See ibid.:4-5 which explains the derivation of this concept.

Indeed, they were given the right to share in the division of the showbread to motivate them to come early.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements, explaining that since tlie festival ended on the day before the Sabbath, the priests had no choice but to stay. The Radbaz explains that it is possible that the priests will be staying in the surroundings of Jerusalem, but will not come to the Temple Mount. Giving them a share in the showbread would encourage them to come to the Temple Mount.

This applies if the last day of the holiday fell on Thursday. Conversely, if the first day fell on Monday, few priests would come, so the watch which departs receives ten loaves and the watch which enters, two. See the Rambam’ Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:6).

For the priests of all the watches will come to serve during the festival.

The Ra’avad and Rashi have a different understanding of the passage from Sukkah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer support for the Rambam’s view.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 27) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 97) count this as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of the section, the Rambam defines the mitzvah as making the showbread. See also the notes of the Ra’avad to the Rambam’s listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah where he questions why placing the incense on the breads and partaking of the breads are not considered as separate mitzvot.

See the description of the table and its utensils in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:13-15.

I.e., in this way, the loaves were lifted up so that air could pass through them. The rods were hollow for this purpose (Menachot 97a). The commentaries note that there was an ongoing miracle with regard to the showbread and it remained fresh from week to week (Yoma 21b). Nevertheless, the Torah advises us to take this precaution, because one should not rely on a miracle.

I.e., a space of two handbreadths was left in the center of the table for this purpose.

The Kessef Mishneh states that although, generally, the word al is translated as “on,” it can also mean “next to,” as in the term alav, “Next to it” (Numbers 2:20).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2), the Rambam notes that bezicha is Onkelos’ translation of the Hebrew kaposav.

I.e., if one had only one set, it should not be offered.

Thus if there is anything lacking in either the breads or the frankincense, nothing should be offered.

One should wait until the Sabbath, because the prooftext cited above states: “On the Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day, the priest shall arrange it.”

See Chapter 4, Halachot 12-13.

See ibid. 14.

In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 2:2), he writes that the showbread may be eaten only on the Sabbath on which it was removed from the table.
Nevertheless, when Yorn Kippur falls on the Sabbath, they are eaten on Saturday night.

From the Rambam’s wording here, it appears that the breads were already folded over (as stated in Halachah 9) and placed one on top of the other. See also Halachah 11.

Each holding one.

I.e., who bring in the new showbread.

The table itself was on the north side of the Sanctuary, extending lengthwise from east to west.

I.e., who remove the showbread from the previous week.

I.e., immediately after removing one, the other should be placed down.

I.e., there should be no time when there is no bread on the table.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16.

On the outer altar. See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 2:11.

For the obligation to partake of them does not supersede the mitzvah of fasting on Yorn Kippur.

The minimum size the contemporary authorities give for a se’ah is approximately 8.5 liter.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:4 with regard to the special stringencies taken with regard to the preparation of the grain for such offerings.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:5) the Ramban interprets this as striking the wheat powerfully with one’s hand so that the dust will be removed from them.

Crushing them with his feet to crack the shells (ibid.).

Which are struck 300 times and tread upon 500 times (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit.).

This was, of course, a far smaller measure· than the 24 se’ah. The remainder of the flour had to be redeemed and then it could be used for ordinary purposes. See Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11 :2), the Rambam writes that it is permitted to knead the loaves outside the Temple Courtyard, but that it is not permitted to bake them outside. He states that the rationale for this distinction was not mentioned in the Talmud.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:21-23. The intent is that the other meal-offerings are baked in the Temple Courtyard. They are, however, also kneaded in the Temple Courtyard. See Kessef Mishneh.

Menachot 94a derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 24:5: “Each loaf will be two esronim.” Implied is that each loaf is treated individually.

This refers to the ka’arot mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:14.

Significantly, Rashi in his gloss to Exodus 25:29 states that the loaves were baked in iron molds.

Since the loaves were thin, it is possible that their shape would be impaired.

In his Commetary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11 :4), the Rambam writes that each loaf had six surfaces: two on either side, one from the front and one from the bottom. This follows the opinion (Menachot 94b) that the showbread was like an open drawer. See the diagram accompanying Hilchot BeitHaBechirah 3:14.

A handbreadth is 8 centimeters in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah.

A fingerbreadth is 2 centimeters in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah.

Rashi (Menachot 94a) states that the loaves were baked while folded over. When the breads folded over, some of the dough would jut out. That dough was left there as support for the sides. Menachot 96a refers to these as karanot, “corners.”
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11 :4), the Rambam writes that the height of the bread was four fingerbreadths. In order that there be no contradiction between those statements and the statements here, Minchat Yehudah suggests that the bread itself was four fingerbreadths high. Together with these karanot, the height was seven fingerbreadths. The Kessef Mishneh, however, suggests that the bread was much thinner.

Hence producing the form “like an open drawer.”
All of the above follows the popular conception of the form of the showbread as it is usually depicted and as is explained by the Ralbag quoted by the Kessef Mishneh. The Radbaz, however, maintains that this is not the Rambam’s intent. Instead, the simple meaning of his words is that the breads were baked as elongated rectangles and folded over only when they were put on the table itself. The folds lay on top of the bread rather than standing perpendicular to it. This form could still be considered “as an open drawer,” because of the space between the two folds.

Baking is one of the labors forbidden on the Sabbath. Although the performance of the Temple service generally supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions, an exception is made in this instance, because the bread could be baked before the Sabbath and it would not spoil due to the passage of one day (Menachot 97a).

Although it is permitted to bake on the festivals, that leniency is granted only with regard to bread to be eaten that day and the showbread would not be eaten until more than a week afterwards [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11 :9)].

The commentaries question why the showbread was not disqualified even though it remained overnight on Friday, for any article that had been placed in a sacred utensil is disqualified if it remains overnight Minchat Yehudah explains that just as the bread is not disqualified while it is left on the golden table on the altar, it is similarly not disqualified when it is left on the marble table in the Entrance Hall (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16).

We are speaking about the era when the Temple existed and then Rosh HaShanah was observed for only one day. Nevertheless, there was a possibility that there would be no witnesses who saw the new moon. In such a situation, the people would regard the 30th of Elul as holy regardless and not perform any work on it. If witnesses came, it was declared as Rosh HaShanah. If they would not come, the following day was declared as Rosh HaShanah, as explained in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:8. Taking that possibility into account, the priests would bake the showbread on Wednesday.

Rashi (Menachot 97a) explains that by placing the rods between the breads, one looks like he is building. Tosafot explains that the problem is that the rods are muktzeh, articles forbidden to be moved on the Sabbath.

Instead of placing them on the table together with the bread, as stated in Halachah 4.

The key to the understanding of this and the following halachah is that for the breads to be acceptable, they and the frankincense must have been placed on the table before the conclusion of the Sabbath, remain there for an entire week, and thus be on the table from the beginning of the next Sabbath.

Because the bread is not acceptable until the frankincense was offered properly and in this instance, it was not, because it was never on the table at the conclusion of the Sabbath.
The Radbaz (see also Rashi, Menachot 100a) explains that in this instance, it is not acceptable to leave the bread and the frankincense on the altar for another week, for the bread was arranged in the proper manner and hence, becomes disqualified if left on the table beyond the following Sabbath. In this instance, it is not possible to leave the bread on the table, because it was not arranged together with the frankincense (Radbaz to Halachah 14).

Therefore the prohibitions of notar, piggul and consuming the bread in a state of ritual impurity are not relevant to it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 11:8)].

For the frankincense should be offered on the Sabbath. Since it was offered improperly, the bread is not consecrated.

Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a different - and somewhat difficult to understand - version. See the glosses of the Kessef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh which discuss this point. According to our version, the intent is that since the frankincense should not have been offered on this Sabbath (but on the next, as stated in the following halachah), the bread is disqualified.

I.e., if they were placed on the table on Sunday, new showbread should not be prepared that week. Instead, the bread and the frankincense should be left on the table over the next Sabbath and should not be removed until the next Sabbath.
The Radbaz questions: Seemingly, since they were not arranged in the proper manner, the arrangement should be not be acceptable. He explains that since they were placed down properly, when the time comes, retroactively, their having been arranged is considered effective.

They became sanctified, because they were arranged in the proper manner (Radbaz).

I.e., during the week; thus doing so in an improper manner.

Because the frankincense which enables it to be permitted to be eaten was offered in an improper manner.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 17:1; 18:9-10, 13, for an explanation of these prohibitions.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 17:1; 18:9-10, 13, for an explanation of these prohibitions.

Menachot 12b derives this concept from the fact that, with regard to all twelve loaves, Leviticus 24:9 states: “It is of the most sacred order of holiness.” By referring to all twelve loaves as a single collective, the Torah implies that they are granted this status only when they are all whole.

Because that offering is made only when the breads are fit. The Radbaz explains that the situation is comparable to that of a meal offering whose substance was reduced before a handful of flour was offered on the altar. In such a situation, the entire offering is disqualified.

And should not be eaten. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 12:4.

Being on the table for the required time is sufficient to warrant that the breads be offered.
If the bread breaks after-the frankincense is offered, it may be eaten, for all the mitzvot associated with it have been fulfilled (ibid.).

The beginning of the seventh hour on the Sabbath afternoon.

I.e., the frankincense should be offered and the priests should partake of the loaves.