Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 64) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 138) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Even though there are several different types of sin-offerings, since they are all offered in the same manner, they are considered only as one mitzvah (Radbaz).

In Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16, the Rambam mentions which sin-offerings are eaten and which are burnt.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 1-3, with regard to the slaughter of the animal and Halachot 7-10 of that chapter with regard to casting its blood on the altar.

The fats and inner organs offered on the altar.

Leviticus 6:19 speaks of the priests partaking of the sin-offerings in the Courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. See Chapter 10.

Leviticus 2:12 speaks of these sacrifices being burnt outside the camp. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:7.

Chapter 6, Halachot 5-9.

They are not skinned before being burnt, as related in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

See Halachah 4.

It was to the east of the ramp ascending to the altar (Sifra, Vayikra 9:3).

Rashi (Zevachim 104b) explains that since these sacrifices are eaten in the Temple Courtyard, they should also be burnt there.

Since these eimorim should have been burnt on the altar, they are burnt in the Temple Courtyard if they became impure (Radbaz). The sacrifices of lesser sanctity themselves should be burnt in Jerusalem (the place where they are eaten). We can assume that they were burnt on the Temple Mount, at the birah (ibid., gloss to Halachah 4).

Although they had reached a stage where they were to be taken out of the Temple Courtyard, since in fact they had not been removed from the Temple Courtyard before they were disqualified, they should be burnt there (Radbaz).

See more details in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:3.

The term birah means “tower” or “large building.” At times, it is used to refer to the Temple complex as a whole.

Because of impurity or because they remained overnight. These factors can still disqualify these sacrifices even though they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard (Radbaz).

I.e., when they have not been disqualified. The Biblical commandment is to burn them “outside the camp.” In later times, that meant “outside Jerusalem” as stated in Halachah 2. The term ash-pile has several meanings; see Chapter 6, Halachah 21.

I.e., those sacrifices which must be burnt outside Jerusalem. Those that must be burnt in the Temple Courtyard must be burnt with wood fit to be used for the altar (Sifra).

This indicates that burning them is not a fundamental element of the sacrificial service (Radbaz).

There are some exceptions to this as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:5.

I.e., the wood need not meet the criteria for wood required for the altar.

From Zevachim 63a, b, it is apparent that, after the fact, a sin-offering is acceptable if melikah is performed at any place in the Temple Courtyard. (See also Halachah 9.) This comer is mentioned as an initial preference, because the blood must be sprinkled there (Radbaz).

Rav Yosef Corcus states that the reference is to the order of melikah described at the conclusion of ch. 6. Melikah at the southwestern comer of the altar is not mentioned elsewhere.

The windpipe and the gullet.

In contrast to the requirement for the burnt-offering mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 112) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 124) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Lechem Mishneh quotes authorities who understand this as meaning that one may not separate both the gullet and the windpipe entirely. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that the Rambam’s words should be explained simply: the head may not be severed from the body. If it is attached, even if these two organs are severed, the prohibition is not violated.

Hence when performing melikah, the priest does not ascend on the ramp, but rather stands on the ground (Radbaz).

The Rambam is explaining why the obligation is to present the blood of a sin-offering from fowl on the lower half of the altar in contrast to the blood of a sin-offering from an animal which is presented on the upper half.

Although there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Talmud and there are passages which appear to follow the other view, the Rambam’s approach represents the consensus, as indicated by Me’ilah 9b (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

See Chapter 10.

The pinky and the finger next to it on his left hand.

The index finger and the middle finger.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 6:4).

With his right hand.

As indicated in Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 6:3, this term refers to the blood that flows out when the fowl is slaughtered.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 6; Chapter 13, Halachah 12.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 6, 10.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.

I.e., in contrast to the wine libations offered throughout the year which are offered on the lower portion of the altar. See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, and notes.

Which was the preferential place for them to be offered, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

I.e., if many fowl were being offered and it was difficult to approach that corner of the altar.

For this is close to the place where portions of the sacrifices are discarded

I.e., they should tum to the southeastern comer. The rationale is that, at the outset, one should always tum to the right

Those who perform the tasks on the lower portion of this comer do not ascend the ramp at all, but instead, approach the altar from the ground.

Wine that became smoky is unacceptable for a libation (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:9). We can assume that the same law applies with regard to water.

There is no necessity - or even preference - that the priest circle the altar. The matter is solely dependent on his choice. The Mishnah (Tamid 6:6) that is the source for this teaching speaks about a High Priest, but as the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the concept applies to any priest. If he desires, he may circle the altar before performing this service.

But not a fowl (Halachah 2).

If, however, it spewed forth from the animal at the time of slaughter, spewed from the blood sprinkled to the altar, or spilled to the floor and was collected from there, these laws do not apply (Halachah 6).

Similarly, once the blood was sprinkled this stringency does not apply (Halachah 7).

See Halachah 10.

This is the meaning of the term beged (Rashi, Zevachim 93b).

See Halachah 5.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:1).

See Halachah 4.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 15-16.

Although melikah is equivalent to ritual slaughter in certain contexts, since the verse specifies “slaughter,” it is excluded in this instance (Radbaz).

I.e., in all these instances, the ritual slaughter and the sprinkling were performed in an appropriate manner and thus the meat could have been consumed in an acceptable manner.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 15:1 which mentions several ways in which ritual slaughter can be disqualified.

And not the entire garment (Zevachim 93b).

I.e., this requirement applies not only to garments, but also other objects made from these materials.

See Hilchot Keilim 1:3-4; 10:1. Zevachim 93b states that only an article that is susceptible to ritual impurity must be washed.

For it is not considered as a k’li, a useful article, in its present state.

Since it has already been sprinkled on the altar, these laws no longer apply to it (Zevachim 92b).

Without first being received in a sacred utensil. In such an instance, it is not fit to be sprinkled on the altar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:25). If, however, it was first received in a sacred utensil and then spilled, it is fit to be sprinkled on the altar. Hence, if it spewed onto a garment, the garment must be washed.

The same Hebrew root haza’ah is used both for the sprinkling of the blood on the altar and the spewing of the blood on a garment, leading to the inference stated by the Rambam.

Our translation is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.

As prescribed in Chapter 5, Halachah 7.

Because pouring out the remainder of the blood is not an essential element of the sacrifice.

I.e., once the priest has completed the sprinkling of their blood that is required as explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 12-18, the remaining blood does not require that it be washed.

As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

Zevachim 92b compares this to the situation described in Halachah 6 when blood was spilled onto the floor and then spewed onto a garment.

For it is considered as if the blood became impure beforehand and thus would have been unacceptable for sprinkling. Zevachim 93a associates this situation with the question whether water set aside to be used for the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer that became impure can be purified or not, Based on that discussion, Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that there is a printing error in the text of the Mishneh Torah and the ruling is that the garment must be washed. This conclusion is supported by the Rambam’s ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:36 which states that blood from consecrated animals can never contract ritual impurity.

I.e., blood from an animal that was not consecrated. As evident from the following clause, seemingly, the same law would apply with regard to blood from a burnt offering. Indeed, Zevachim 98a-b states this explicitly.

For the blood from the sin-offering is absorbed into it and is not washed away by the other blood.

For it had already absorbed the other blood.

The saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, marsh mallow, natron, glasswort, and soapwort. [The names of these detergents were taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Arabic terms used in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6).]

If the stain is removed when these seven detergents are applied to it, we conclude that it was blood. If it is not removed, we assume that it is paint or another type of dye.

For it is not respectful to bring such a substance into a place where the Divine Presence is overtly revealed.
The commentaries have noted that Zevachim 95a (the source for this halachah) mentions that urine was brought into the Temple, except that it was first mixed with the saliva so that it was not taken in as an independent entity.

As opposed to those which are burnt.

The rationale is that the flavor of the meat of the sin-offering can never be totally purged from an earthenware vessel.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8), the Rambam defines this term as meaning “thoroughly washing a utensil until everything attached to it is removed.”

There the Rambam interprets this as meaning “pouring water over the utensil without scraping the filth off by hand." The Radbaz elaborates on the difference between the Rambam’s approach (who appears to require only the thorough cleaning of the vessels) and that of Rashi who interprets Zevachim 95b as requiring that these utensils must be purged in the same manner as one purges non-kosher food from a vessel into which it was absorbed.
According to this conception of the Rambam’s approach, the problem is not that the fat absorbed in the utensil becomes notar, “sacrificial food that remained overnight,” and must be destroyed. Instead, the question involves merely the thorough cleaning of the utensil. This interpretation is borne out by the continuation of the Rambam’s statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah where he speaks about the issue of notar with regard to the food attached to the utensil, but does not mention the food absorbed within it.

As does the preceding verse which mentions washing the blood from a garment.

Since the stew including the meat of the sin-offering was boiling while it was poured into the vessel, it is considered as if it was cooked there.

This represents the Rambam’s version of Zevachim, loc. cit. There are, however, other versions of that Mishnah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes that the intent of this comparison is to imply that the container must be washed until there is no trace of the previous substance, as one would wash a cup from which he would drink.

To remove the fat absorbed in the container (ibid.).

In the above source, the Rambam explains that this purging follows the same process in which non-kosher food is purged from cooking utensils. Significantly, however, when he mentions the process of purging non-kosher cooking utensils (Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 17:3-4), he does not mention the need to rinse them in cold water, although he does mention that requirement in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:23.

This would disqualify the sacrifice.

See Halachah 11.

The Radbaz questions this ruling, because, seemingly, the fat absorbed in the utensil, becomes notar, “sacrificial food that remained overnight,” and it must be destroyed. He offers three possible resolutions:
a) the Rambam is speaking about an instance when the utensil was used on the same day. Hence, the problem does not arise.
b) the issue does not concern notar at all, as explained in the notes to Halachah 12.
c) since the absorbed fat is more than a day old when it becomes no tar, its flavor is impaired (notain taam lifgam). Hence, since the prohibition against the absorbed food is merely a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sages did not apply it in this instance, because the situation involves the Temple service.

The Radbaz uses this law as a further support, for his idea that the fat need not be purged from the utensil. For the concept that cooked food which is absorbed in part of a utensil is considered as if it were absorbed in the entire utensil is an established principle.

Similar laws apply with regard to sacrifices cooked in a metal oven, except that the question involves the requirement to be thoroughly washed and rinsed.

As required by Halachah 11.

For the Torah mentions the necessity of washing out or destroying the utensil after sacrificial meat was cooked in it. It does not state that for that requirement to apply, the flavor of the meat must be absorbed in the utensil.

I.e., the above question is discussed by Zevachim 95b and is left unresolved by our Sages.

I.e., sacrificial meat was either cooked in it or poured in it while warm [the Rambam:’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:8)].

Our translation is based on the glosses of the Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam quotes Zevachim, loc. cit., explaining that this concept is derived as follows. Leviticus 6:21-22 states: “All of the priestly males shall partake of it” and directly afterwards states: “and it shall be washed thoroughly and rinsed in water,” implying that the two activities should be performed in direct sequence.

I.e., beyond the time when it is permitted to eat from them.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating that there is no point in washing an earthenware utensil thoroughly. Even if one does so, the taste of the sacrificial offering will remain absorbed within it. The Rambam’s understanding is that the Torah only required that an earthenware utensil be broken when it was used for cooking a sin-offering. If it was used for cooking other sacrifices, by contrast, there is no such obligation. This difference of opinion relates to a question of greater scope: the difference of opinion mentioned above whether it is necessary to purge the utensils from the food absorbed in them or not.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1), the Rambam mentions that there are some who interpret the Hebrew term as referring to utensils made from marble. He, however, favors the translation given above.

This refers to utensils made from earth that were not fired in a kiln and hence, are not governed by the laws applying to earthenware utensils.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that since the Torah does not make any specifications with regard to such utensils (as it does with regard to earthenware and metal utensils), there is no obligation with regard to them. He does not mention wood utensils, because wood utensils do not resemble earthenware and metal.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, which states that at the outset, a sin-offering should not be eaten together with other sacrifices.

I.e., it can only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard by males of the priestly family on the day the sacrifice was offered and on the following night.

Zevachim 97a, et al, derives this concept from the fact that the term the prooftext uses for “its meat,” bibisarah, literally means “in its meat.” Implied is the flavor must be absorbed into the meat of the other food.

Zevachim 98b interprets this verse as teaching that there is a fundamental commonality to all the sacrificial offerings.

A soft, spongy wafer [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:4)].

And only that portion becomes sanctified.

Unless there is a priest who can distinguish whether the taste was imparted or not, we assume that if the food in the more lenient category is 60 times the amount of the food in the more severe category, the taste of the more severe type of food has not been imparted. Otherwise, we must be stringent (Zevachim 97a).

Similarly, if an earthenware vessel was used to cook meat from a sin-offering, according to the Rambam, it must be broken. According to Rashi and others, this applies whenever sacrificial offerings are cooked in an earthenware utensil (Radbaz).

I.e., when meat from sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is cooked together with a larger quantity of meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity, the utensils need not be purged at the time the commandment to partake of the sacrifices of the most severe degree of sanctity is concluded, because that meat is considered insignificant, due to the majority of the other meat. Nevertheless, when the time to partake of the sacrifices of the lesser degree of holiness is concluded, the utensils must be thoroughly washed and rinsed (ibid.). When sacrificial meat is cooked together with ordinary meat, even if its taste is not recognizable, we require that the utensils be thoroughly washed and rinsed, because of the stringencies involving sacrificial food (Radbaz).

And thus it would not be permitted to return it to the Temple Courtyard in its present state [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 11:6)].

This refers to both ordinary garments and priestly garments with the exception of the cloak. Although it is forbidden to tear priestly garments with a destructive intent (Hilchot K’lei Hamikdash 9:3), tearing it for this purpose is not considered as tearing it with a destructive intent.

As stated in Hilchot Kelim 23:11, when the majority of an impure garment is torn, the remnants are considered as ritually pure.

Leviticus 6:20.

Anything smaller than a handkerchief could not be justifiably called a garment.

And thus one might think that they should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.

I.e., our Sages did not enforce their decree in this instance, because doing so would lead to the nullification of a Scriptural obligation.

Concerning which there is an explicit prohibition not to tear it (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, loc. cit.). Hence the advice given in the previous halachah is not relevant.

A portion of cloth less than three fingerbreadths wide is not considered as a garment. Hence, the laws of ritual impurity do not apply to it. Although in this instance, the cloak is intact and hence, is larger than this measure, since there is no alternative, this provision is allowed.

To purify it.

The Radbaz maintains that this law applies to the meat of a sin-offering, but not the meat of other offerings.

Zevachim 94b explains that this concept is derived from the laws governing the washing of a garment mentioned in Halachah 19.

Zevachim 95a explains that “a utensil” must be able to contain liquids and if it has a hole, it is no longer fit for such a purpose. Thus once the utensil has been broken, it is ritually pure. (This represents the Scriptural Law. With regard to Rabbinic Law, see Hilchot Keilim 19:2.)

And if it is broken to a greater extent, it is not considered as a utensil at all and therefore should not be brought into the Temple Courtyard.
Why was a utensil broken to the extent that a root could project through it allowed to be brought into the Temple Courtyard? Since our Sages considered it a utensil in certain contexts, they allowed it to be considered a utensil so that the obligation to break utensils in the Temple Courtyard could be fulfilled.

With a large hole (see Hilchot Keilim 11:1-2).

Because it is no longer fit to be serve as a utensil.

Hilchot Keilim 12:l states that when a metal utensil that had regained ritual purity because it had been opened, became closed again, it reverts to being ritually impure. This, however, is a Rabbinic safeguard and our Sages did not uphold their decree in this instance so that the practice of purging the utensils could be fulfilled.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 65) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 140) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 9, for a description of the transgressions for which these sacrifices are brought.

See Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 8, for a description of the situations which warrant bringing these sacrifices.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, with regard to slaughter, and Halachah 6 of that chapter with regard to sprinkling the blood on the altar.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

The fats, the lobe of liver, and the kidneys described in Leviticus 7:3-4.

For every element of a sacrifice offered on the altar must be salted (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11).

For Leviticus 7:7 establishes an equation between the guilt-offering and the sin-offering. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 3.

A skin affliction similar to, but not identical with leprosy, that afflicts people, their clothes, and their homes because of spiritual inadequacies, in particular, speaking lashon hara, uncomplimentary gossip (the conclusion of Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at).

Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

This sacrifice is given as an example of one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis taught by Rabbi Yishmael (Sifra 1:4). It describes an entity (the guilt offering brought by a person afflicted by Tzara‘at) that was once included in a general category (all guilt offerings), but was singled out with regard to a new stipulation (that its blood be received in a different manner). Hence the laws that apply to that general category apply to it only because there is an explicit verse (Leviticus 14:13) that returns it to the general category.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 66) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 141) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The two lambs offered on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:19).

The Radbaz emphasizes that there is a difference between peace-offerings and other sacrifices. Most of the peace-offerings are brought voluntarily, while most of the other offerings are brought due to an obligation.

Chapter 1, Halachah 17; Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

Brought when making the festive pilgrimages (Hilchot Chagigah 1:1).

Additional peace-offerings brought at the time of the festive pilgrimages (ibid.).

The term "vow" refers to a promise to bring a sacrifice. The term "pledge" refers to a promise to bring a particular animal as a sacrifice (Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).

See Hilchot Nizirut 8:1.

Ultimately, they will be given to the priests, as stated in Halachah 12.

As explained in the following halachah.

Our translation is based on Rashi, Menachot 61a. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:6), the Rambam writes: “With regard to the guilt-offering brought by a person afflicted with tzara’at…, it is written (Leviticus 14:12): ‘And tenufah should be performed with them before God.’ A tradition has been received interpreting ‘before God’ as meaning ‘in the east.”‘
Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this to mean that even the area to the east of the altar is considered as “before God,” but the area to the west certainly warrants that description. The Rambam does not accept this understanding. His interpretation is question by the Kessef Mishneh and others, for the Holy of Holies was to the west of the altar. Seemingly, the closer one comes to it, the more one is “before God.”

The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:5). This is also the perspective of Rashi (Menachot 62a) based on our Sages’ statements that this action is intended to prevent destructive winds.

This is intended to prevent harmful dews (ibid.).

See Halachot 17-22 for a description of the breads which would accompany the thanksgiving offering.

In the previous halachah.

In this way, the bread will not be spoiled through excessive contact with the meat (Radbaz). In his gloss (based on Menachot 61b), he cites exegetical reasons why the other items are placed in the order mentioned.

More particularly, as mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8, there was a chamber in the southeast portion of the Women’s Courtyard set aside for this purpose.

As commanded by Numbers 6:19. The Radbaz explains that it would appear that the foreleg would be placed above the other portions of the sacrifice, but below the bread.

See Halachah 23.

In the previous two halachot.

An animal's foreleg is comprised of three bones. According to the Rambam, the lower two are given to the priest. See Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 10:4). Others maintain that the upper two should be given to the priest.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

And any both male and female - with whom he desires to share the meat.

Pesachim 59b derives this law from the order in which the concepts are stated in the Torah. Similarly, the owner may not partake of his portion until that time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:7).

See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:21; Hilchot Bikkurim 1:15.

There is, however, no such doubt with regard to the elevated portion of the nazirite’s ram (Radbaz).

For Leviticus 7:14 uses the word terumah when describing this offering. Nevertheless, since we find exclusions with regard to penalties associated with terumah in other verses, it is possible that they do not apply with regard to these breads. Accordingly, Menachot 77b leaves the matter unresolved.

Hilchot Terumot 6:6.

As stated in Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2, in such an instance, one hundred times the amount of terumah is required before the mixture is permitted.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that if these breads become mixed with ordinary breads, seemingly, there is a question whether a Scriptural prohibition applies and one should rule stringently. They explain that as long as there is a majority of permitted substances, the Scriptural prohibition is considered as nullified and the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin (see Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 15:13). This also applies with regard to a mixture of terumah (Hilchot Terumot 14:7). Accordingly, in this instance, since it is possible that the laws of terumah are not applied to these breads, we do not impose the Rabbinic prohibition.

As will be stated (Chapter 12, Halachah 9), in contrast to the meal offerings brought by Israelites, meal offerings brought by the priests are consumed entirely by the altar’s pyre. Hence, the Rambam felt it necessary to clarify that these breads are not in that category.

If the two partners would perform tenufah each one holding part of the items, neither would be performing the rite as required. If one put his hand below the hand of the other one, there would be an interposition between that person’s hand and the sacrificial items. And it is also impossible for them to perform tenufah, one after the other, because the Torah speaks about tenufah, using the singular, and not tenufot, using the plural (Menachot 94a).

That rite must be performed by each of the partners individually (Chapter 3, Halachah 9).

The Radbaz suggests that if she is married, her husband should perform this rite on her behalf.

A woman suspected of adultery who is required to bring an offering as part of her process of atonement.

Hilchot Sotah 3:15; Hilchot Nizirut 8:4.

Menachot 61a derives this concept from Numbers 5:25 which speaks of teriufah being performed with a Sotah‘s offering and then of it being brought to the altar.

An isaron is defined as a measure equivalent to the volume of 43 and 1/5 eggs.

I.e., the space intended for the flour will be taken by the yeast.

And thus take up only a small amount of space.

And thus take up a lot of space.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 9:3), the Rambam writes that he has found no definition for the term murbechet, but that it appears to him that to imply that a large quantity of oil is used in the preparation of the cakes.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:6; Menachot 9:3), where he describes how these fried cakes are made.

Those loaves which are leavened do not require oil [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4)].

A half a log is 172 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc. according to Chazon Ish.

The Radbaz maintains that the measure of half a log was communicated to Moses, but the breakdown of how this measure should be used was not. Hence, after the fact, the sacrifice is not disqualified if there was some deviation.

Although the person desires to bake only four loaves, he must also separate one loaf of each type for the priest. This separation must be done beforehand, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Thus one tenth of each type of dough must be separated and prepared for the priest.

I.e., it would not be deferential to give the priest a piece of each of the four doughs as his sacrificial portion.

The nazirite is bringing two thirds of the unleavened bread brought in connection with a thanksgiving offering. Hence, he uses two thirds the amount of flour.

I.e., a similar amount of oil is used as is used for the corresponding loaves of the thanksgiving offering.

As stated in Numbers 6:19.

I.e., if any of the types of bread are lacking, the sacrifice is unacceptable and nothing should be brought at all.

In his gloss to the Mishnah (Menachot 3:7), Tosafot Yom Tov writes that these breads were baked in Beit Pagi, a small settlement, outside, but close to the Temple Mount.

Chapter 5, Halachah 17.

Chapter 5, Halachah 18.

See Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:14; Hilchot Bechorot 1:2; 6:4.