Maaseh Hakorbanot - Chapter 2

The term nesachim is used continually throughout the Torah, e.g., Numbers, ch. 15. Literally, it means "libations." We have not used that term, because it is not appropriate with regard to the meal offerings. In his introduction to the tractate of Menachot, the Rambam states that the Torah uses the term in a general sense without attention to its particular meaning.

Since every sacrifice is accompanied by such offerings, before delineating the details of the sacrifices, the Rambam describes these accompanying offerings.

As stated in Chapter 12, Halachot 6-7, all of the meal offerings brought independently must be brought to the corner of the altar and frankincense must be offered with them. Some also must be waved.

For Leviticus 2:13 states that salt must be brought on all sacrifices.

In contrast, there are other meal offerings which are fit to be eaten.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Sukkah 48b gives that instruction with regard to the water libation brought on Sukkot. Nevertheless, that text questions why this instruction is mentioned here with regard to the wine libation, for seemingly, there would be no reason to do so.

The Ra'avad notes that Sukkah 48a,b speaks of two cups on the southwest corner of the altar, i.e., on the upper level around which the priests would walk. The wine and water libations would be poured into these cups and they would extend to the shittin. The Radbaz notes that the Rambam himself (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5; see also Chapter 7, Halachah 11) speaks of bringing the wine to the top of the altar. Hence, he maintains that the Rambam agrees with the Ra'avad concerning this issue. The Kessef Mishneh differs and maintains that these cups were only used during Sukkot. Otherwise, the wine was poured on the altar's base and from there, it flowed into the shittin.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:11 which explains that these were two cavities in the southwest corner of the altar.

These two offerings are singled out because they are individual burnt-offerings that are not dependent on an individual's pledge or vow. Menachot 91b cites an explicit verse that teaches that accompanying offerings are required for these sacrifices.

Even those brought as burnt offerings.

Menachot 91a derives the need for such accompanying offerings from a juxtaposing Leviticus 14:10 and Numbers 15:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that accompanying offerings are brought for these sacrifices, because they do not come because of a sin.

Which are obligations and not dependent on a person's volition.

An isaron is equivalent to the size of 43.2 eggs. In modern measure, the size of an egg is 57.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah, and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

As stated in Halachah 7, a hin is equivalent to twelve log. Each log comprises four revi'iot. In modern measure, a revi'it is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount.

In its first year of life, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11.

In its second year of life (ibid.).

I.e., even if a person pledged to bring several sacrifices of a given type, he must bring the required accompanying offerings for each animal.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3 where this sacrifice is mentioned.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that only a quarter of a hin of oil should be used. The Radbaz notes that Menachot 89b appears to support the Ra'avad's position. Although he explains that the Rambam's position could be justified, he admits that it is somewhat difficult. The Kessef Mishneh also suggests that a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah.

Usually, only one isaron of flour was brought for a burnt-offering of a sheep, as stated in the previous halachah.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Bringing accompanying offerings for these sacrifices is an exception to the general rule, as stated in Halachah 2. The obligation to bring these three esronim is explicitly stated in Leviticus 14:10. The Oral Tradition (Menachot 91a) teaches that each one is designated for a different sacrifice.

This version is found in some of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is also suggested by the Or Sameach. The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

A ram that is between one year and one year and a month old (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).

I.e., regardless of whether he pledged a ram or a male sheep, he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation by bringing a pilgas, for it is too old for the latter type sacrifice and not old enough for the former.

Hilchot Eruvin 1:13.

Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15.

See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:16 which describes the various measures that existed in the Temple.

As stated (ibid.:17), there were measures of a half a hin, a third of a hin, and a quarter of a hin in the Temple.

I.e., a person should not measure out the flour in a private measure he has outside the Temple. Instead, the measurement should be made with the Temple's measure (Radbaz).

See Chapter 12, Halachah 7 and Chapter 13, Halachah 5.

I.e., they are not consecrated.

Flour, wine, and oil that come in contact with sacred utensils become consecrated. Nevertheless, only the inside of the dry measures were consecrated. The outside remained unconsecrated. Hence, the fact that the flour came in contact with it does not change its status. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:19.

As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:20, an object placed in a sacred utensil does not become consecrated unless the person placing it there did so intentionally. Hence, even though the overflows came in contact with a sacred utensil, seemingly, there was no intent for them to become consecrated.

I.e., a safeguard instituted by our Sages lest a mistaken impression be created.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that even though this rationale is advanced by Menachot 90a in support of a minority opinion, it would still be accepted by the majority.

I.e., there was another offering and it was thought they would be offered with it, but for some reason they were not and remained overnight.

For once they were placed in a sacred utensil, remaining overnight would disqualify them, as stated in Halachah 12.

It is permitted to redeem them, because when consecrating them, there was the intent that they would be redeemed in such an eventuality (Radbaz).

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These fruits are served as dessert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the fundamental "food" of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free.

The flour and the oil are, however, absolute requirements. One cannot be offered without the other (Radbaz).

I.e., the person is required to bring both of these elements of the accompanying offering. Nevertheless, the offering of one is not dependent on the other as the Rambam continues to explain.

All of these have a certain dimension of holiness and are not considered as ordinary property. It is forbidden to use them for any purpose other than partaking of them in the ordinary manner. Hence they may not be used for these offerings.

The bread from the thanksgiving offering may be eaten by an ordinary person. Hence, it is permitted for it to be brought from the second tithes. The accompanying offerings, as stated above, are offered on the altar entirely. Hence, they may not be brought from the second tithes (Radbaz).

These differ greatly for the measures usually employed.

The Radbaz explains that since we are speaking about a directive for a specific time and not an ongoing practice, as a prophet, Ezekiel had the right to speak of offerings not prescribed by the Torah. This does not constitute a violation of the prohibition to add to the Torah's commandments. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 9.

All authorities agree that Ezekiel's prophecy referred to special sacrifices and was not to be followed continuously. Rashi (Menachot 45b) interprets it as referring to the Second Temple, while the Rambam understands it as applying to the era of Mashiach.

The leaders of the tribes as related in Numbers, ch. 7.

Ezekiel 46:4.

See Ezra 8:35.

I.e., from the Torah scrolls which he wrote.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 313) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 454) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 314) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 455) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot.

The above is not merely a point of law, but a fundamental issue of Jewish faith. As the Rambam states in the ninth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. 10) declaring:

The ninth principle is that the Torah of Moses will never be nullified.... There can be no additions to it, nor any deletions from it - neither in its text nor in its explanation. And thus we are commanded: "Do not add to it and do not detract it from it."

(Our translation is taken from the original manuscript versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The standard published text varies slightly.)