Temidin uMusafim - Chapter 8

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.