Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The term “dawn” refers to the first shining of the rays of the sun on the horizon, more than an hour before sunrise. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2) which explains that the meaning of the term “the call of the gever” used by that source.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2) which refers to the Song of Songs 5:2: “The voice of my beloved comes knocking,” i.e., a gentle, beckoning knock.

As indicated by Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:11, the supervisor would come from the chayl and knock on the outer door of the Chamber of the Hearth where the priests slept. By knocking, he would wake them. They would open the door for him.
Now the Chamber of the Hearth was located in the middle of the wall on the north side of the Temple Courtyard. Half was consecrated and half was not. There were two gates leading to the Temple Courtyard from the Chamber of the Hearth. A large gate which would be opened at dawn and a smaller gate whose keys were hanging in the Chamber of the Hearth. The supervisor would take those keys and enter the Courtyard.

As described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:2 with regard to how this offering was prepared.

It appears that, according to the Rambam, these two lotteries were performed one after the other. The commentaries have noted that from Yoma 22a, 24b, it would appear that there was a span of time between the two.

See Chapter 4, Halachot 1, 5-6.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

The Rambam does not mention the third array which was kept to maintain a fire, because that was kept burning at all times. Nevertheless, if it was necessary to place wood on it, the same priest would do so (Radbaz).

See Chapter 2, Halachah 2, and Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

The location of this chamber is not mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, nor in the Mishnah of Middot.

Tamid 3:4 speaks of removing 93 utensils.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:6-7.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:5.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 4, and Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 10, and Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 16.

As described in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that they were placed there so that they would be “before God,” closer to the entrance to the Temple.

I.e., to place them in an openly visible place.

Even though causing the salt to dissolve would be forbidden in other circumstances on the Sabbath.

Implied is that while bringing the limbs to the altar - which is part of the Temple service - there should not be any such intervening substances.

The blessing recited before the recitation of the Shema. The blessing Yotzer Or (which precedes Ahavat Olam in the prayer service) is recited afterwards, when the sun rises, because the order of the blessings of the Shema is not an absolute requirement [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:1)].

There the Rambam writes that the Ten Commandments were chosen because they comprise the fundaments of our faith. Indeed, they should be recited every day as part of the prayer service outside the Temple as well. Nevertheless, our Sages [Berachot 12a; Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 1:5)] refrained from doing so, lest the heretics say that these alone are the foundation of the Jewish faith.

I.e., they read the three passages of the Shema. Even though the optimum time for the recitation of the Shema has not arrived, the priests are allowed to recite it early (and fulfill their obligation), because afterwards they will be occupied with the Temple services and we fear that they might forget to do so (Rashi, Yoma 37b).

The blessing that follows the Shema.

Two of the final three blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh. These blessings are chosen because they are all prayers for the sake of the Jewish people [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Loc cit.)].

After the conclusion of their week of service in the Temple, because the priestly watches switch on the Sabbath afternoon (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:3).

See Chapter 4, Halachot 7-8.

All authorities agree that an interruption is made between kindling the five lamps and kindling the two lamps. There is, however, a difference of opinion between the Sages and Abba Shaul with regard to the service that intervenes. Here the Rambam follows the opinion of the Sages that it is the offering of the incense. In our daily prayers, however, we read the passage “Abbaye would recount the order of the offerings on the altar... according to Abba Shaul” (Yoma 33a). That passage states that the blood of the daily sacrifice was offered on the altar between the kindling of the lamps and the incense was offered afterwards. The Eshkol explains that even though Abbaye’s reckoning does not follow the halachah in this instance, it is still included in the prayers, because it is a concise review of all the Temple services

See Chapter 3, Halachah 16.

Where they recite the priestly blessing, as stated in the following halachah.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that on the basis of Tamid 5:6, this was performed when the priest entered the Sanctuary to offer the incense and not when he departed.

Tamid, loc. cit., states that its noise was so loud that no one in Jerusalem could hear his fellow man speaking to him at that time. And Tamid 3:8 states that the noise could be heard even in Jericho.

The prostration was not performed until after the continual offering had been offered.

In this instance as well, as indicated by the conclusion of the halachah, the singing did not actually begin until later, but the preparations were begun.

The term ma’amad refers to the Israelites who would be present during the offering of the sacrifices as explained in Hilchot K’lei Hamikdash, ch. 6.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:6), the Rambam explains that this refers to people who had been afflicted by tzara’at (a skin malediction similar to leprosy) and had been cured, but had not brought their offerings as of yet.

I.e., the Gate of Nicanor which is the main entrance to the Temple Courtyard. See also Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

This follows the order initiated by Aaron, the High Priest, at the dedication of the altar who did not bless the people until he had completed the offering of the sacrifices (see Leviticus, ch. 9).

I.e., in contrast to the practice outside the Temple, the people would not respond after each blessing. Instead, when all three blessings are completed, they would say: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever” (Hilchot Tefilah UNesiat Kapayim 14:9).

Ibid.:10. I.e., they would pronounce the name as it is written.
As stated in the above source, after the death of Simon the Just, the priests stopped using this name, lest it be learned by a person of improper character.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:1.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 3:2-4.

See Halachot 6-7. Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:5

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 6:6), the Rambam states that this refers to the marble table that was positioned to the west of the ramp. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:15.

The assistant to the High Priest. See ibid. 4:16.

The trumpets were sounded like the shofar is sounded on Rosh HaShanah: one long blast (tekiah), a series of staccato blasts (teruah), and then another long blast (tekiah).

See ibid. 7:7.

As a sign for the others to perform their activities.

The songs are recited at this time, because “song is recited only over wine” (Berachot 35a). The songs the Levites would sing are mentioned in Halachah 9.

I.e., a series of tekiah, teruah and tekiah blasts.

Each song had three bars.

I.e., three series of three.

Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 7:5.

See Hilchot Shekalim 4:9.

See ibid 3:2 where the concepts mentioned here are explained in slightly greater detail.

These psalms are also recited as “the song of day” in our daily prayers to recall the Temple Service.

This psalm was associated with Sunday, for the world was created on Sunday and this psalm states how all existence is His [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 6:7, based on Rosh HaShanah 31a)].

For God’s greatness was manifest in the division of the waters, the creation of the second day (ibid.).

For on this day, the earth - the place where judgment is carried out - came into existence (ibid.).

On this day, the sun and the moon were created and this song is a prayer that God will take retribution against those who worship these celestial bodies (ibid.).

On this day, animal life was created. This is truly wondrous and arouses within man a desire to sing praises to the Creator (ibid.).

For on this day, with the creation of man, God’s work of creation was brought to its ultimate fulfillment, because man acknowledges God’s Kingship (ibid.).

For God rested on the seventh day (Rosh HaShanah 31b). And, as the Mishnah (Tamid, Loc. cit.) concludes, this is “a song for the ultimate future which will be entirely Sabbath and rest for life everlasting.”

I.e., the Hebrew letters are an acronym for the words which begin the verses of these segments: Ha’azinu (32:1), Z’chor (32:7), Yarkiveihu (32:13), Vayar (32:19), Lu (32:29), Ki (32:40).

I.e., as the Torah reading is divided up into aliyot. See Hilchot Tefilah 13:5.

The song of redemption after the splitting of the sea. They would read from the beginning of the song until “Who is like You” (Mi Chamocha, Exodus 15:1-11) on one Sabbath afternoon, and then from that verse until the end of the song on the next Sabbath afternoon. The standard published text of Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit., states that on the third Sabbath they would recite the song of the well (Numbers 21:17), but apparently the Rambam’s version of the text did not include that point.

For this psalm also includes the verse “Sound the shofar on the day of the new moon.”

When Psalm 81 was recited as the psalm of the day.

I.e., the second half of the psalm. Since the psalm was already recited in the morning, they did not desire to repeat it in its entirety.

Rashi (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.) explains that this verse recalls the sounding of the shofar at Mount Sinai.

There is no Rabbinic source which is extant that mentions which psalm was recited on Rosh Chodesh.

I.e., for the Musaf offering.

That had been on the Golden Table together with the showbread.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s source for the concept that the offering of the frankincense preceded the wine libation. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that were there not a verse that teaches otherwise, we would think that the offering of the frankincense takes precedence over the additional offering as well. Hence once the additional offering has been brought, it is offered next.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

The ashes were, by contrast, removed from the Menorah and the inner altar in the afternoon, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 10.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 2 and 11, and Chapter 4, Halachah 8.

For the offerings that are offered more frequently are given precedence over those offered only occasionally (Zevachim 89a).
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 42) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 403) include offering the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Numbers 28:11-14.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, Chapter 6.

See ibid., Chapter 7.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 43) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 299) include offering the additional offering of Pesach as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The fact that the same offering is brought on each of the days of the holiday has several consequences in other areas of Jewish Law. Among them: Hallel is only recited on the first (and in the Diaspora, on the first two) days of the holiday. The blessing Shehechiyanu is not recited on the last day(s).

Numbers 28:19-24.

With regard to the date when this offering is brought, see Halachah 11.

As stated in the previous clause.

See Leviticus 23:11.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 44) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 302) include bringing the omer offering and the accompanying sacrifice as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:9-17.

In contrast to most of the other meal-offerings that may be brought from the Diaspora as well (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:15).

The words “your harvest” can be interpreted as a reference to the harvest of your land, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. Alternatively, the Rambam is referring to the beginning of the verse “When you come to the land,” as some have inferred from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:1).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Loc. cit. 10:2), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that it is improper to pass over the opportunity to perform a mitzvah. Since there was barley fit for this offering in Jerusalem, it was not fitting to seek it elsewhere.

Because the grain close to Jerusalem had not ripened (Rashi, Menachot 83b).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:3), the Rambam explains that this preference stems from the fact that the Counting of the Omer must be “seven perfect weeks” (Leviticus 23:15), including both day and night. The counting and the reaping should begin at the same time, as implied by Deuteronomy 16:9 which describes this offering with the phrase: “When the sickle is first put to the standing grain, you shall begin counting.” Hence the reaping should also be done at night.

Since offering the omer supersedes the prohibition against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, this applies to all the aspects of its offering, including harvesting the barley.

Menachot 72a states that the Sages who maintain that it is acceptable to harvest the barley for the offering during the day do not accept the view that this barley may be harvested on the Sabbath. How then can the Rambam accept both rulings? Nevertheless, since the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 1:8, Megilah 2:7) does not see the two as contradictory, it is possible for the Rambam to accept both rulings.

For this offering is referred to with the phrase: “When the sickle is first put to the standing grain.”

For Leviticus 23:14 uses the term karmel which has the connotation of fresh grain.

I.e., from the southern slopes of the mountains on the outskirts of Jerusalem which had greater exposure to the sun (Tosafot, Menachot 85a).

Plowing it, but not sowing it [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:2)].

In this way, the field’s power of growth would always be restored and the barley would be of high quality. Compare to Hilchot lssurei Mizbeiach 7:4.

In contrast to all other meal offerings with the exception of the meal offering brought by a sotah (a woman suspected of infidelity), which were from wheat. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:2, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:3.

I.e., a concept that, although not explicitly stated in the Torah, was given to Moses at Sinai and always practiced among the Jewish people.

Rashi (Menachot 65a) states that all the stalks of barley that could be gathered within the reach of one’s forearm would be tied together.

This was to refute the approach of the Sadducees, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Perhaps the Rambam elaborates so extensively in the refutation of the Sadducees, because in his time there were Karaites who also rejected the authority of the Oral Law while claiming to follow the Written Law.

Thus emphasizing that reaping the omer supersedes the prohibition against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, as stated in Halachah 6.

The Sadducees who maintained that only the Written Law was of Godly origin and that the Oral Law should not be followed.

I.e., Pesach. This is an accepted interpretation, because the festivals are referred to as “Sabbaths” several times in the Torah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 2:4)[.

The Supreme Jewish court.

The proof proposed by the Rambarn does not appear to be based on any prior Rabbinic source. Although Menachot 65b brings several proofs of this concept from the exegesis of different verses, the Rambam does not refer to them because he is seeking an explicit proof from Scripture which the Saduccees accept, rather than a concept derived from exegesis which they do not accept. The Sages did not refer to the proof used by the Rambam, because they would rather employ a proof that has its source in the Torah itself rather than in the works of the prophets (Radbaz).

Thus we can assume the day when the omer was brought and new produce was permitted to be eaten was the day following Pesach.

And thus there would be no proof of what to do in a year when Pesach does not fall on the Sabbath.

Tosafot, Menachot 30a, mentions two opinions with regard to the day of the week on which Moses died: Friday or the Sabbath. Moses died on the seventh of Adar. Accordingly, Pesach, the fifteenth of Nisan, was either a Sunday or a Monday.

For, according to the Saduccees’ misguided conception, the fundamental point is that they ate the grain on the day after the Sabbath. If their approach was right, Scripture should have emphasized that the event took place then and not “on the day after Pesach.”

See Sifra to the verse; Menachot 66b.

A se’ah is approximately 8.3 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. There are also more stringent views.

An isaron is one tenth of an ephah and an ephah is three se’ah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:6)]. Thus an isaron is approximately 2.4 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah.
The priests would be endeavoring to get one tenth of the original amount of grain. There the Rambam explains that since the kernels of grain are still somewhat underdeveloped—for this offering is being made right at the beginning of the harvest—there will not be as much fine flour and much sifting will be required to produce the desired quantity.

Hilchot Ma’aser 3:25; Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3. The rationale is that once the flour has been redeemed, the holiness associated with it has departed. Hence, dough produced from it must be treated like ordinary dough. The obligation to separate terumah and tithes takes effect at the conclusion of the harvest. At that time, the produce is consecrated and therefore exempt. The obligation to separate challah, by contrast, takes effect when the dough is kneaded and, at that time, the flour has already been redeemed and is no longer consecrated.

As all the other meal-offerings. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:7.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaK. orbanot, loc. cit.

See the description of the waving of the offerings in ibid. 9:6-7.

See ibid. 12:6.

See ibid. 12:9.

For the offering brought more frequently receives priority (Kessef Mishneh).

Which accompanies the omer, as stated in Halachah 3.

Wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt.

In the Diaspora, this is permitted, however, because the omer may not be brought from there.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambarn puts the limit on the reaping of the omer and not on its offering. Some have suggested that since the verse mentions “your harvest,” the prohibition applies only until then.

As mentioned in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 10:2-3, it is forbidden to partake of any grain before the offering of the omer. That prohibition is referred to as chadash (“new [grain]”). Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even harvesting such grain is forbidden. The prohibition is, however, an outgrowth of a positive commandment and is not considered as a negative commandment. See Halachah 21.

See Hilchot lssurei Mizbeiach 6:12. Since this grain is not of high quality, the offerings should not be brought from it. It must be emphasized that this is only an a priori consideration. After the fact, such a meal-offering is acceptable.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:2), the Rambam explains why this leniency is granted. The prooftext cited above states: “You shall reap your harvest and you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest.” From the first portion of the verse, it appears that the harvest should precede the omer, but the second portion states that the omer is “the first of the harvest.” The Oral Tradition resolves the difficulty by teaching: “From the place where you may bring the omer, you may not harvest, but from a place where that offering may not be brought, you may harvest.”

The Rabbis explain that it takes fourteen days between the time when seedling trees are planted and when they take root. One may assume that it takes less time for grain to ‘take root.

At this stage, it has not reached a state fit to serve as food for humans. Hence the prohibition mentioned above does not apply. Our translation is dependent on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:8).

Larger bindings collected from several smaller bundles (ibid.).

The Rambam does allow the stalks to be tied, in contrast to Rashi’s view (Menachot 71a).

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:9.

This also includes the wine for the libations (ibid.).

The first-fruits are not mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, loc. cit.

Because the omer must be “the first of your harvest” as mentioned above.

As explained in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:10, the two loaves are described by Leviticus 23:17 as “the first fruits unto God.” Hence, no other grain offerings should be offered before them. Nevertheless, since this grain is acceptable for a private individual, after the fact, the offering is still acceptable.

Since it is the first meal-offering to be brought from new grain, it warrants a blessing. The Rambam is interpreting Menachot 75b differently than Rashi.

Our Sages discussed the issue in Menachot 68b and did not arrive at a resolution.

I.e., the two loaves of the previous year and the omer of the present year.

Rav Yosef Corcus states that if one does bring a meal-offering from such grain, after the fact, he is not required to bring a second one. See also the conclusion of the following halachah.

I.e., without the grain having become rooted in the ground.
The Kessef Mishneh questions: How is it possible for the leaves of a plant to grow without it taking root? He explains that this refers to a situation where the seeds were sprouted in water which could produce leaves before roots.

For the violation of a negative Scriptural commandment is not involved. The Radbaz maintains that one is, however, liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.

Both as food and for a meal-offering (Rav Yosef Corcus). Needless to say, one must wait until the omer or the two loaves are offered.

Verbalizing the reckoning of each day (see Radbaz).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 161) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 306) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

In Sefer HaMiizvot, loc. cit., the Rambam emphasizes that these are not two separate commandments. In some Ashkenazic communities, the custom is to count each night and, at the end of a week, to count the passage of the week. The Sephardic custom is to mention the days and the weeks each night when counting.

For, by including the night, the weeks will be “complete,” without any lack (Menachot 66a).

It appears that according to the Rambam, after the fact, by counting during the day, one fulfills the mitzvah just as one does by counting at night. Rabbenu Asher does not accept this view. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 489:7) states that if one did not count during the night, he should not recite a blessing while counting during the day.

For in its reference to this mitzvah, Deuteronomy 16:9 mentions “standing grain,” which our Rabbis interpret as an allusion to fulfill the mitzvah while standing (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the mitzvah of counting is not entrusted to the court as is the mitzvah of counting the Jubilee, but rather is a personal responsibility for every individual (Radbaz).

I.e., in both Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora.

I.e., even after the destruction of the Temple. There are Ashkenazic authorities who differ and maintain that according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah is dependent on the harvest of the omer. Hence in the present era, our observance only possesses the status of a ‘Rabbinic commandment. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 489:2 writes that although primacy should be given to this view, there is no difference in practice between the two approaches.

As is true with regard to all other mitzvot associated with a specific time.

As one does before fulfilling any other positive commandment (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

For the failure to recite a blessing does not nullify the mitzvah (Kessef Mishneh).

Even if one counted accidentally, one should not count afterwards with a blessing. Therefore if one’s friend asks what day of the omer it is, one should answer “Yesterday was such and such” [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 489:4)].

I.e., unlike other holidays, the celebration of Shavuot is not associated with a specific date of the month, but is instead dependent on the counting of the omer. In the era of the Temple, when the calendar was established based on the sighting of the moon, it was possible for the holiday to be celebrated on the fifth, sixth, or the seventh of the month. See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 45) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 404) include offering the additional offering of Shavuot as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Numbers 28:27-30. ·

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 46) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 307) include offering these loaves and these sacrifices as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Leviticus 23:16-19. The Rambam is following the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 45b) who sees the two as two different sets of offerings.

For Leviticus 23:16 describes this as “a new meal-offering,” i.e., a meal-offering from grain harvested in the present year.

I.e., Eretz Yisrael.

The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words is “from the attic.” To support such a ruling, Menachot 83b explains that the expression “a new meal-offering” can be interpreted to mean that after these two loaves are brought, meal-offerings can be brought from new grain.

I.e., miraculously, without there being a logical explanation for their descent (see Tosafot, Menachot 69b).

I.e., from a simple perspective, the phrase “from your dwelling places,” comes to exclude the Diaspora. Hence one might think grain from the clouds would be acceptable. Nevertheless, grain from the clouds also does not come “from your dwelling places.” Hence there is room to say that it is excluded (Menachot, loc. cit.).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 6, and Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:4.

As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 7, Halachah 12, an isaron is one tenth of an ephah and an ephah is three se'ah. Thus an isaron is approximately 2.4 liter in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah. The priests would be endeavoring to get one fifth of the original amount of grain. Since the kernels of grain are still somewhat underdeveloped, for this is an early stage in the harvest, there will not be as much fine flour and much sifting will be required to produce the desired quantity.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 12; Hilchot Ma’aser 3:25; Hilchot Bikkurim 6:3.

Since the grain has had more time to grow, the kernels of wheat have matured more, and there is more fine flour in each kernel. Hence, there is no need to sift them so thoroughly and more fine flour is produced per se’ah.

Because at the beginning of the harvest such grain does not exist.

The same law applies if the grain was sifted less (see Chapter 5, Halachah 6).

He must, however, used the required amount of esronim for each offering (Kessef Mishneh).

In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Menachot 11:1), the Rambam states that this practice has its roots in the Oral Tradition transmitted by Moses from Sinai.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2), the Rambam notes that the Talmud does not explain why the two loaves were not prepared in the Temple Courtyard.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:23.

Even though the priests do partake of these two loaves, the purpose of their preparation is not to serve as food, but to be an offering unto God.

See Leviticus 23:17. Aside from one of the types of breads offered together with the thanksgiving offering, all of the meal-offerings were unleavened bread.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:18 with regard to the leavening of one of the types of the bread used for the thanksgiving offering.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam derived this concept from the showbread. See also Tosefta, Menachot 11:1.

As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 9, the two loaves should be offered before the sheep that accompany them.

Menachot 61a derives this from the description of the guilt offering and the log of oil that accompanies it.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 12; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:6.

The fats and organs offered on the altar.

I.e., the meat, and apparently also the bread, may not be eaten until the eimorim were offered on the altar.

As in the instance of the showbread where half the loaves are given to the High Priest (Chapter 4, Halachah 14; Kessef Mishneh).

For the priests of all the watches are able to offer the sacrifices of the festivals and share in their division (see Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:4-5). As the Radbaz emphasizes, this division is followed even though each of the priests will receive only a miniscule portion.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:8, this is a Rabbinic safeguard. According to Scriptural Law, the sacrifices may be eaten until dawn. Even though they are peace offerings, since they are communal sacrifices, they are considered sacrifices of the most holy order and the time during which they may be eaten is regulated accordingly (Kessef Mishneh).

The Radbaz emphasizes that if the priest does not make such a statement explicitly, the breads are not sanctified.

And they are acceptable for the offering.

For if they were redeemed outside the Temple, they would be disqualified (Menachot 47b). Rav Yosef Corcus explains that although one is forbidden to bring ordinary food into the Temple Courtyard, in this instance, one is not bringing the bread into the Temple Courtyard, The loaves are redeemed while they are located there. Afterwards, they are removed. ·

In such an instance, the sacrifices are not disqualified, but they are not considered as fulfilling the obligation of the given offering. Hence they are no longer associated with the two loaves. If, however, the blood of the first two sheep was offered with the proper intent, the latter two are disqualified, before they were slaughtered. For this reason, the option mentioned by the Rambam is preferable (Menachot 48a).
That passage asks: Should one slaughter a sacrifice without the proper intent, because there is a redeeming factor by doing so? It explains that there is no transgression involved in slaughtering a sacrifice without the proper intent. Hence, in this situation, it is the most desired alternative.

And they are acceptable.

One is not acceptable without the other and should not be brought (Menachot 27a).

Our additions were made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The Or Sameach suggests (and his suggestion is borne out by some manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah) amending the text to read “If one was slaughtered without the proper intent, (i.e., and thus disqualified,) a partner should be taken for the other.”

If there are no loaves, the sheep should not be offered.

And even if there are no sheep, the loaves should be offered (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:3)].

For waving them together establishes interdependence (see Menachot 46b). The Ra’avad states that the matter is left unresolved by the Talmud and hence, questions the Rambam’s ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, offer an interpretation of the passage that supports the Rambam’s approach.

I.e., overnight. Since they were waved, they are considered as sacrificial entities and may not be burnt until they are disqualified.

In the initial version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.; this is the version in the standard published text), the Rambam rules according to Scriptural Law and states that the loaves should be eaten. Afterwards, he amended that text to read as above (Rav Kappach’s notes).

Offered as burnt offerings (Halachah 1).

Offered as a sin offering (ibid.).

Indeed, the two bulls brought because of the additional offering are not even indispensable requirements for the offering of each other (Kessef Mishneh).

In this instance, however, the two rams brought because of the bread are indispensable requirements for the offering of each other (ibid.).

Here also the seven sheep brought because of the additional offering are not even indispensable requirements for the offering of each other. The Ra’avad maintains, however, that the seven sheep brought because of the bread are indispensable requirements for the offering of each other. The Kessef Mishneh differs and maintains that none of the sheep are indispensable requirements for each other.

For the fact that they were slaughtered for the same purposes causes them to be considered as a single entity. The Ra’avad does not accept this concept, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer an explanation of the Rambam’s source, Menachot 55b, that supports his ruling.

With regard to the Rosh Chodesh sacrifice, Ezekiel 46:7 speaks of offering one bull, while the Torah (Numbers 28:11) speaks of bringing two. Menachot 45a reconciles the apparent contradiction, stating that if two are available, two should be offered. If only one is available, that one should be brought. Similarly that passage speaks of offering “six sheep... that one’s hand will come by,” though the Torah speaks of seven. Implied is that if seven are not available, six should be brought. And if six are not available, whatever animals “that one’s hand will come by” should be offered.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:7.

The continual offerings have the advantage of being offered more frequently, but the additional offerings are on a higher level of holiness. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 2.