Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 3

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

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

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

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

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

A dinar is approximately 4 grams in modern measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Chapter 2, Halachot 4 and 8.

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:20.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I.e., as expression of deference.

As stated in Halachah 3.

See Halachah 12 which describes what this service entails.

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 4:10.

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

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

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

See Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:6-7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halachah 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, op. cit.

But instead, must be performed on Friday.

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

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

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

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

From his own property.

As explained in the following halachah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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