Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 89) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 102) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

This mitzvah is incumbent on the priests; it is not a dimension of the obligation to bring a given sacrifice.

The choice of this prooftext and the concept it teaches sheds light on an issue debated by the commentaries: Is it a positive mitzvah to partake of the meat of the sacrifices of lesser sanctity? In his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam explains that since eating the other sacrifices does not bring about atonement, it should not be considered as an independent mitzvah. Instead, it is an extension of this mitzvah. In this instance, however, since the atonement of the person bringing the sacrifice depends on the priests' consumption of the sacrifice, it is considered as an independent mitzvah. There is extensive discussion on this issue by other Rabbis.

E.g., the communal peace offerings.

I.e., after the handful has been taken out to be offered on the altar. See Chapter 12, Halachah 9.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 134) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. This mitzvah encompasses partaking of all the different types of meal offerings (Radbaz).

Even minors; see Halachah 17.

Indeed, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5, there is a prohibition against partaking of these sacrifices outside the Temple Courtyard.

This includes the Temple building.

Zevachim 63a asks: From that verse, it would appear that it is desirable (not merely acceptable after the fact) to partake of the offerings inside the Temple building. Our Sages then cite Leviticus 6:9 which indicates that the sacrifices should be eaten in the Temple Courtyard. They explain that it is preferable to consider the Temple Courtyard the primary place where the sacrifices are eaten, for the Temple building is the resting place for the Divine Presence and it is not befitting for that to be the primary place for eating, an activity that is essentially a human need.

Chapter 9, Halachah 4.

The breads and the portions of meat given to the priest from those offerings; see Chapter 9, Halachah 12.

I.e., they are comparable to the peace-offering.

I.e., the portions from the sacrifices of lesser sanctity, including the breast and the thigh of the peace offering and the firstborn offering.

Not only the portions given to the priests, but also those given to the Israelites.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which delineates the prohibition against eating such sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem.

As related in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11, while the Jews were journeying through the desert, their encampment was considered as divided into three camps: the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of the Israelites.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:9. See also parallel rulings in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:16; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:1.

The Radbaz clarifies that this is referring to instances where the windows are open to the city. If they are open only to the area outside the wall, he maintains that they should be considered as outside the city.

The verse continues "he shall bear his sin," implying that there is a prohibition in partaking of the sacrifice at that time.

But not the Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:1, 15.

I.e., the Rambam understands the verse as referring to all sacrifices unless it is specifically stated otherwise.

The first appearance of the sun's rays - but not the sun itself - on the eastern hemisphere. According to different halachic views, it is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise.

I.e., if a person would be given the entire night, he might become lax and delay the consumption of the meat and come to partake of the meat after dawn. Giving him a more restricted time serves as a safeguard to prevent the violation of this limit. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:1).

Indeed, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13, partaking of sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity violates a Scriptural prohibition. See also Hilchot Chagigah4.

As evident from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, sec. 69, the prohibition against partaking of sacrificial meat while uncircumcised is an extension of the prohibition against partaking of terumah while uncircumcised. See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.

The literal meaning of the words used by the Rambam is "his sun has set." For in most instances, it is at sunset when the duration of the term of a person's ritual impurity ends.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, which explains that a zav, a zavah, a person who had been afflicted with tzara'at and a woman who gave birth or miscarried must immerse themselves in a mikveh (or in a stream) to regain ritual purity. Nevertheless, they may not partake of sacrifices until they bring the offerings required of them. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14.

A person whose gender is masked by an extra piece of flesh.

I.e., if he is in fact male, circumcision will not have been performed upon him.

One with both a male and female sexual organ.

For these sacrifices may be eaten by both males and females. Although there is a halachic uncertainty with regard to the definition of his gender (see Hilchot Nizirut 2:10), that should not prevent him from partaking of these sacrifices. He may not, however, partake of sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity, for these may only be eaten by males and he is not categorically defined as male.

The Kessef Mishneh clarifies that this leniency applies only when the male organ of the androgynus has been circumcised.

There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's ruling, as noted by Rav Yosef Corcus in his gloss to the following halachah, for sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard and ordinary food may not be brought into the Temple Courtyard. Rashi (Temurah 23a) explains that the intent is that one may partake of ordinary food outside the Temple Courtyard and then enter the Temple Courtyard to partake of the sacrificial food. Tosafot explains that the prohibition against bringing ordinary food into the Temple Courtyard applies only when it is not being brought there for a purpose connected with the Temple service. If, however, it is being brought there to be eaten together with the sacrifices, there is no prohibition.

The Paschal sacrifice may only be eaten while roasted, but that is a specific obligation that does not apply to other sacrifices.

The sacrifices may be eaten only for a limited amount of time as mentioned above (Halachot 6-7), while there is no limit on the time terumah may be eaten. Thus if the sacrifices were cooked with terumah, the terumah could be disqualified with the sacrifices and the time in which it could be eaten would be reduced.

I.e., this is not considered as a desecration of consecrated articles (Radbaz). This applies provided there are not any portions of the bones that are fit to be eaten (Kessef Mishneh).

For it is not befitting for one to leave his master's table when he is hungry (Tosafot, Pesachim 120a).

For that is also not becoming.

I.e., that other foods may be eaten with it if there is only a small amount (Kessef Mishneh). Indeed, the verse from which the above concepts are derived (Leviticus 6:9) concerns the meal offerings.

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten by their wives, their daughters, and their servants (Radbaz).

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

Needless to say, one may not cook a sin-offering or a guilt-offering with the portion of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram to be eaten by the owner, for doing so certainly places restrictions on that meat, preventing even the owner from partaking of it.

The elevated portions of the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram may be eaten only for a day and a night, while the breast and thigh of the peace-offering may be eaten on the following day as well (ibid.).

The same concepts apply with regard to cooking the meat of the thanksgiving offering or the nazirite's ram together with the meat of a peace-offering. It is only that since the Rambam had been speaking about the portions eaten by the priests, he continued to do so.

For sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten by male priests, while the peace-offerings may be eaten by Israelites and women (ibid.).

A sin-offering and a guilt-offering may only be eaten in the Temple Courtyard, while the peace-offering may also be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem (ibid.).

Here the restrictions are reversed for the peace offering of the previous day may only be eaten until sunset, while the sin-offering and the guilt-offering may also be eaten until midnight of the following night (ibid.).

In all of these instances, the pairs of offerings mentioned may be eaten by the same type of individual, in the same places, and for the same duration of time.

Which may only be eaten by priests.

Meat from a sacrifice that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood, offer the portions required to be offered on the altar's pyre, or partake of its meat at an improper time (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

Meat that remained after the required time for partaking of this type of sacrificial meat passed (ibid. 18:10).

There are others who include sacrificial meat that became impure in the list of prohibitions mentioned here and indeed this is the standard text of the Mishnah (Orlah 2:16) which serves as the source for this halachah. The Rambam does not, however, include that particular in his version of the mishnah. The rationale for this distinction is discussed by the commentaries. See the notes to the following halachah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about an instance when there is sixty times more permitted meat than the piece of meat that is piggul or notar and that forbidden piece of meat was removed. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:5-6 with regard to the latter points. This addition satisfies the objections raised by the Ra'avad.

According to this interpretation, the fundamental point of this ruling is that the meat is permitted only to priests and not to non-priests. Although the prohibitions against piggul and notar have been nullified since the sacrificial meat was originally to be eaten only by priests, that restriction still remains. There are, however, others who interpret the mishnah differently.

The term the Rambam uses literally translates as "the meat of desire," i.e., meat that there is no mitzvah to partake of.

Because it has absorbed the flavor of the sacrificial meat. The Radbaz states that even if there is enough ordinary meat to nullify the presence of the sacrificial meat, the prohibition against eating the sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity is not nullified.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:17), the intent is that if the sacrificial meat was from sacrifices of the most sacred order, the ordinary meat may be eaten by priests. If it was of sacrifices of lesser sanctity, it may be eaten by ordinary individuals, provided they are ritually pure.

In one of his responsa, the Radbaz mentions that only the ordinary meat is permitted to be eaten, the sacrificial meat is forbidden, because it is considered to have become ritually impure because of its contact with the ordinary meat. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam states that "everything may be eaten by pure priests" or "pure non-priests."

The verse cited in the text of the Mishneh Torah does not exist. The commentaries have suggested that the intent is Leviticus 7:9 as stated in the following halachah.

See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains why all the different verses are necessary, because the concepts cannot be derived from each other.

As indicated by Halachah 17 [see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)], priests with a disqualifying physical blemish are not excluded from receiving a portion of the division of the sacrifices even though they are unfit to offer them, because there is a special verse that teaches that they should receive a portion.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 with regard to what is meant by a clan.

The commentaries note that the explanation appears to be the Rambam's own, rather than to stem from a prior source.

I.e., if there were 20 meal-offerings and 60 priests, one might think that each of the meal-offerings would be divided among three priests rather than have all 20 divided among the 60. Hence, it is necessary to explicitly state that every priest receives a portion of a meal-offering of flour.

Sifra to the verse, Kiddushin 53a; Menachot 73a.

After the portions offered on the altar are taken.

In all these instances, one might think that it would be preferable to divide each of the sacrifices among a smaller number of priests.

Instead, he may only partake of what the other priests give him from their portions.

I.e., since the halachic status of the gender of an androgynus is not defined, he is not given a portion as a male would be.

The same phrase excludes both women and minors, because the term "man" implies that the recipient must be male and of age. Since they are not fit to perform service, they are not allocated a portion of the sacrifices.

Even though he is not fit to perform service, he is considered an ordinary member of the priestly clan and given a portion of the sacrifices. There is an explicit verse requiring this [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1)].

Even if he would regain his ritual purity by the evening.

For everything depends on the priest's state at the time the sacrifice is offered (ibid.).

I.e., which priests could be fit to perform service during the day and fit to partake of sacrifices after nightfall, but are unfit to partake of the sacrifices at the time they are offered.

But will not regain purity until nightfall.

A priest who had been a zav or who had been afflicted with tzara'at must immerse himself in a stream or a mikveh to regain ritual purity. In addition, he must bring a specific offering. Until he brings that offering, he is considered as lacking atonement, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.

These two categories of priests are considered as fit to serve, because they would be fit to offer a communal sacrifice if it were to be brought in a state of ritual impurity. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10 and Halachah 23 and notes.

The term onein refers to a person in the acute state of mourning experienced at the time of the death of any of seven close relatives. On the day of such a relative's death, one is an onein according to Scriptural Law. If the relative is not buried on the day of his death, the priest is considered an onein according to Rabbinic Law until after the day of burial. Once the relative is buried, however, the priest may perform service and partake of sacrifices in the evening. See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:7, 9-10.

Who is permitted to serve even though he is in the state of onein mourning. See the following halachah.

Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-8.

The Or Sameach suggests that the text should read "are not fit to receive a portion of sacrificial foods," because women and children are fit to partake of the sacrifices, but are not fit to perform sacrificial service.

As stated in Halachah 17.

Zevachim 12:2 derives this concept from Leviticus 7:12: "The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered will belong to the priest," i.e., the priest must be fit to offer the sacrifice. If he is fit to offer it, he is fit to partake of it.

The Radbaz explains that it is necessary for the Rambam to mention the allocation of the hides explicitly, because one might not necessarily derive this point from the allocation of the meat.

This is speaking about an instance where a priest was impure at the time a sacrifice was slaughtered and its blood was sprinkled on the altar. Nevertheless, the offering of the fats of the sacrifice was delayed and not performed until after nightfall. In the interim, the priest immersed himself and thus was pure at the time the fats were offered.

For the prooftext mentions both these services.

For although he was pure when both these services were performed, he was impure in the interim.

I.e., he is not given a portion, because he cannot prove that he is worthy of one, but it is not taken from him, since the other priests also cannot prove that he is not worthy. In both instances, the basis for the decision is the principle: When one seeks to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

I.e., as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:10,12, when the majority of priests are impure, the communal offerings may be offered by the impure priests.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the glosses of the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus who note that if the sacrifice was offered by impure priests, its meat is not eaten (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:11). Hence we are forced to say that we are speaking about a situation where the sacrifice could have been offered by impure priests, but in fact it was offered by pure priests. Thus the sacrifice may be eaten. One might think that the impure priests would receive a portion since they were fit to offer the sacrifice. Hence, the Rambam explains that they do not, because they were not fit to partake of it at the time it was offered.

I.e., even if they would be fit to partake of it in the evening.

This prohibition applies equally to priests and Israelites (Radbaz).

This is a general principle with regard to all prohibitions involving eating. Lashes are given only for partaking of an olive-sized portion.

Compare to Halachah 4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 146) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 447) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As explained in Hilchot Meilah 1:3, this negative commandment is also the source for the prohibition against deriving benefit from consecrated articles (meilah).

This refers to the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem.

Sifri to the above verse, Makkot 17a.

For the latter term is understood as a reference to the burnt offering (ibid.).

I.e., since they are all considered as components of the burnt offering, they are all forbidden. The Radbaz mentions that the omission of the blood of the sacrificial animal indicates that it is not included.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam explicitly mentions that one must partake of an olive-sized portion to be liable - instead, of allowing a reader to reach that conclusion on his own - because one might think that since the verse states that "It shall be totally consumed," as long as a person prevents it from being totally consumed, he is liable.

Besides the prohibitions mentioned here, a person who partakes of these sacrificial components also violates the prohibition against meilah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 138) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 137) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Although the commandment specifically refers to the meal offering brought by a priest, the Sifra understands it as applying to a greater scope of sacrificial foods, as the Rambam explains.

See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 139) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 139) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. A separate commandment is necessary, for these sin-offerings are not burnt on the altar of the Temple.

As stated in Hilchot Meilah 2:1, after the blood is sprinkled on the altar, even one who is not permitted to partake of these sacrifices is not liable for meilah, misappropriating the sacred articles for one's personal use.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 448) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity.

For this is not the simple meaning of the verse (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Makkot 17a explains the process of exegesis through which the prohibitions against partaking of the other sacrifices are derived.

I.e., the flour, the oil, the wine that comprise the accompanying offering that is brought together with the thanksgiving-offering.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 145) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 446) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot and in his listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of this set of halachot, the Rambam mentions this prohibition only with regard to sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity although he does state that one who partakes of other sacrifices outside of Jerusalem is liable for lashes. When listing the prohibitions for which lashes are given in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, the Rambam lists these two activities separately.

After the handful was taken to be offered on the altar. All of these are considered as sacrifices of the most sacred order.

Whether it was returned to its place or not.

Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:9. As the commentaries explain there, the term "field" is referring to a place which is not the natural place for the meat to be found. Being there causes it to be considered treifah, unfit to be eaten. Similarly, the fact that this meat is taken outside its natural place causes it to become forbidden.

Since, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 3, after the fact, sacrifices of the most sacred order may be eaten in the Temple Building, taking sacrificial meat there is not considered as taking it outside its designated place. The Radbaz questions whether it is acceptable to eat meat from sacrifices of lesser sanctity in the Temple Building.

The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only to meat from a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. If, however, a non-priest partakes of meat from a burnt-offering, he is liable only for the prohibition against partaking of the meat of a burnt-offering (see Halachah 1) and not because of the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of sacrificial meat.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 148) includes this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Sefer HaChinuch, however, does not include it.

I.e., as Makkot 18b states, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of this sacrificial meat applies only in an instance where atonement would be granted were a priest to partake of the meat there.

As stated in Halachah 5.

The Radbaz explains that there is a practical as well as a theoretical difference resulting from this concept, for if the non-priest was given a warning for partaking of the meat because he was a non-priest and not because he was partaking of it outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable.

This law also applies only when the meat of the fowl was eaten in a time and a place when the fowl would have been permitted to be eaten by the priests (Radbaz).

An animal that died without proper ritual slaughter.

Snipping off its head, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 21.

For this is not an acceptable process of ritual slaughter.

At the time the fowl's head was snipped off, it becomes both forbidden to non-priests and a neveilah.

Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8 states:

There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless:

a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time;

b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited;

c) the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 67) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 116) include bringing the meal-offerings as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.

This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3-12.

This refers to the omer offering which is brought on the second day of the Pesach holiday. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3-12.

See ibid.:12.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1-16.

Leavened bread in contrast to almost all the other meal-offerings that are unleavened.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10-12; 5:5.

I.e., they are brought to the southwestern corner of the altar as described in Halachah 6 and a handful from them (or with regard to offerings brought by priests, the entire offering) is offered on the altar's pyre, as described in Halachah 9.

See Leviticus 5:11; Hilchot Shegagot 1:4;10:4.

A woman suspected of adultery. See Hilchot Sotah 3:12.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:16. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 4.

See Leviticus 6:13-15; Chapter 13, Halachot 2-4; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18. The above four offerings are obligatory. The five that follow are voluntary.

See Leviticus 2:1; Chapter 13, Halachah 5.

See Hilchot Nedarim 1:2 with regard to the distinction between these two types of commitments.

See Leviticus 2:5; Chapter 13, Halachah 6.

See Leviticus 2:7; Chapter 13, Halachot 6-7.

See Leviticus 2:4; Chapter 13, Halachah 8.

This offering is also baked in an oven, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 8.

An isaron is 2500 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 4320 cc according to Chazon Ish.

The offerings must, however, be of complete isaronim.

The Radbaz explains that this includes the meal offerings brought by priests even though a handful of flour is not removed from them. It does not, however, include the meal-offerings brought as part of the accompanying offerings. The rationale for the distinction is that this rite is required only for the meal-offerings that are brought as independent offerings, not for those that merely accompany other offerings. The showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos are not brought close to the altar, because they are not offered on the altar at all.

Leviticus 6:7 states: "The sons of Aaron will bring it close, before God, towards the face of the altar." Sotah 14b interprets this as referring to the southwest corner of the altar."

See Chapter 9, Halachah 7, where this rite is described.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 16.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.

This term excludes the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos, as mentioned above.

With the exception of the meal-offering of a sinner and a sotah, it is explicitly stated that oil must be brought with every meal-offering. Including frankincense is mentioned only with regard to the offering of fine flour. Nevertheless, Menachot 59a uses techniques of Biblical exegesis to derive that it should be included with every meal-offering.

A log is 344 cc in contemporary measure according to Shiurei Torah, and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

This represents the minimum. More oil is placed on certain offerings as mentioned in Halachah 8.

In contrast to the oil which is added proportionately to the flour, a uniform measure of frankincense is included for every meal offering.

See Chapter 17, Halachah 6.

This verse applies to the meal-offering of a sinner. Similar statements are made with regard to the meal-offering brought by a sotah in Numbers 5:15. In both instances, the commentaries explain that the reason for the prohibition is so that the sinner's (or the suspected adulteress') sacrifice should not appear attractive.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 104) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 366) include the prohibition against placing oil on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See also Hilchot Sotah 3:13.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 105) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 367) include the prohibition against placing frankincense on the meal-offering of a sotah as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Rambam's understanding is that one is not liable unless he offers these meal-offerings on the altar after placing the oil and frankincense on them (Radbaz).

For they are considered as independent prohibitions.

Even if he offers the meal-offering on the altar in this manner (Radbaz).

If, however, he placed oil and/or frankincense directly on the meal-offering, he does disqualify it. Should one remove the frankincense after placing it upon the offering, the offering becomes acceptable again (Radbaz).

Chapter 13, Halachah 2.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 13, for a description of how this handful is taken.

The Radbaz states that this does not include the meal-offerings that are brought as part of the accompanying offerings, for they are offered on the altar in their entirety.

The passage from which the prooftext is taken speaks about the initiation offering and the High Priest's chavitin offering. Nevertheless, since it includes the word "every," the concept it states is applied to other offerings brought by priests (Radbaz).

I.e., one unmarried, alternatively, one married to an Israelite as evident from Halachah 12 (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

Sotah 23b derives this concept from the fact that the prooftext cited above uses a male term for priest.

I.e., since there is a doubt involved, the offering is treated with both the stringencies applying to one brought by priests and those applying to one brought by Israelites (Yevamot 99b).

Rashi (ibid. 100a) interprets this as referring to the place outside the Temple Courtyard where the ashes from the altar are deposited. Tosafot interprets it as the place inside the Temple Courtyard where sacrifices of the most sacred order that are disqualified are burnt. This difference of opinion is possible, because the term ash-pile is used for several different places.

The offering may not be eaten, for perhaps the person bringing it is a priest and meal-offerings a priest brings may not be eaten. Nor may it be burnt entirely on the altar, for perhaps the person bringing it is an Israelite and an Israelite's offerings may not be burnt entirely.

For a woman will bring her offering from flour that belongs to her husband (Rashi, Sotah 23a).

For she is bringing it for her atonement.

I.e., it need not be held by a priest.

The consecration of the handful is discussed in Chapter 13, Halachah 12.

Menachot 7b derives this concept from a parallel to the receiving of the blood. Just as that is only acceptable when the priest holds the container in his hands, so too, the consecration of the meal-offering is acceptable only when the priest holds the container.

The only meal-offerings that are leavened are the two loaves brought on Shavuos and ten of the loaves brought for the thanksgiving offering and these are not brought to the altar.

Although a sweetener may not be offered on the altar (Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1), it may be eaten with sacrificial foods.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 124) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 135) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

E.g., one allowed it to leaven while kneading it and then another baked it.

As explained in the following halachah.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:2).

Each of these acts carries liability individually, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

And thus the person caused the dough to leaven.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:20 where the Rambam rules that the addition of such substances does not cause matzah to leaven.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, stating that it is permissible to dip baked matzah in the substances mentioned in this halachah, but not to mix them into the dough used to prepare matzah. The Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh, and others support the Rambam's position.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 11, describes many different factors that can cause a meal offering to become disqualified.

Which disqualifies it, as evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 6.

For the second leavening. He is, however, liable for the first leavening (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Although generally one who causes a meal-offering to leaven a second time is liable (Halachah 14), in this instance, since it was disqualified in the interim, he is exempt.

It should not, however, be offered on the altar's pyre (but should be taken from the altar and discarded), because no leaven should be offered on the altar, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:1 (Radbaz).

And this also includes the showbread. The commentaries note that Menachot 57a derives this concept from a different prooftext.

For the flour of the accompanying offerings should be mixed with oil, not water (Chapter 2, Halachah 4).

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "wine" and hence, has been questioned by many.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:2.

In the Talmudic era, when preparing fine flour, the wheat kernels would be soaked and then ground in a mill so that the shell of coarse bran would be removed. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:7 which states that in order that the kernels not become leaven, they should be ground immediately.

By private individuals.

Rashi (Pesachim 36a) states that this sacrifice would be prepared by the agents of the court and those individuals would certainly act with the proper care and energy.

Even though lukewarm water will serve as a catalyst to cause the dough to leaven faster (Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 5:11), since the priests inside the Temple Courtyard are performing the service, we are not concerned that they will allow it to leaven.

And will not allow the flour to leaven.

For their status is the same.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 12; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:19.

Exceptions to this general principle were the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos which were also kneaded outside the Temple Courtyard, as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 5:7; 8:7).

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:7.

For anything placed in a sacred utensil becomes sanctified, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:19.

Zevachim 96a explains that it could not be made of earthenware, because it had the status of a sacred utensil since the showbread and the two loaves offered on Shavuos were sanctified because they were baked inside of it and it is not befitting to make a sacred utensil from earthenware.