Halacha
הלכה א
שְׁתֵי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וְעֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה שֶׁהוֹסִיף בְּמִדָּתָן אוֹ חִסֵּר כָּל שֶׁהוּא פְּסוּלוֹת:
כסף משנה
1.
If one adds to or subtracts from the measure for the two loaves [offered on Shavuot],1See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1. the showbread,2Ibid. 5:1. and the omer that is waved,3And offered on the day following Pesach; ibid. 7:12; Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:5. they are disqualified.הלכה ב
חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דַּם הַזֶּבַח פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דַּם הַזֶּבַח כְּשֵׁרִין:
כסף משנה
2.
With regard to the loaves for the thanksgiving-offering4See ibid. 9:17-22. and the cakes of a nazirite5Ibid.:23. that lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice6The animal offered with the loaves. was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.הלכה ג
וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק דָּמָן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָן כְּשֵׁרִים:
כסף משנה
3.
Similarly, with regard to the two loaves, if they lacked [the required measure], before the blood from the sacrifice7The communal peace-offerings brought on Shavuot. was cast on the altar, they are unacceptable. If the blood was already cast on the altar, they are acceptable.הלכה ד
וְכֵן שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטְרוּ הַבְּזִיכִין פְּסוּלִין. מִשֶּׁהֻקְטְרוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:
כסף משנה
4.
And with regard to the showbread, if they lacked [the required measure], before the the bowls of frankincense were placed on the altar's pyre,8Offering the frankincense is thus equivalent to offering the blood on the altar. See also Chapter 11, Halachah 17. it is unacceptable. If the bowls of frankincense were already placed on the altar's pyre, it is acceptable.הלכה ה
אֲבָל הַנְּסָכִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַזֶּבַח בֵּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב כְּשֵׁרִים. וְיָבִיא נְסָכִים אֲחֵרִים לְמַלְּאוֹתָן:
כסף משנה
5.
With regard to the accompanying offerings that lacked [the required measure]: whether the sacrifice was offered or not, they are acceptable, but other accompanying offerings must be brought to complete [the required measure].הלכה ו
נְסָכִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת וְנִפְסַל הַזֶּבַח. אִם נִפְסַל בִּשְׁחִיטָה לֹא קָדְשׁוּ הַנְּסָכִים לִקָּרֵב. נִפְסַל מִקַּבָּלָה וְאֵילָךְ קָדְשׁוּ הַנְּסָכִים לִקָּרֵב. שֶׁאֵין הַנְּסָכִים מִתְקַדְּשִׁים לִקָּרֵב אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַזֶּבַח. וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶן. אִם הָיָה שָׁם זֶבַח אַחַר זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה יִקָּרְבוּ עִמּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה שָׁם זֶבַח אַחַר זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נַעֲשׂוּ כְּמִי שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ בְּלִינָה וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקָרְבַּן צִבּוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֵּב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן. אֲבָל בְּקָרְבַּן יָחִיד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִקָּרְבוּ עִם זֶבַח אַחֵר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֶלָּא מַנִּיחָן עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ:
כסף משנה
6.
[The following rules apply when] accompanying offerings were sanctified in a sacred vessel and then the sacrifice was disqualified. If it was disqualified through ritual slaughter, the accompanying offerings have not been sanctified so that they must be offered.9In all instances, however, they are considered sanctified to the extent that they must be kept overnight and then destroyed by fire. If it was disqualified from the reception of the blood and onward,10According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is that even the reception of the blood was not performed in an acceptable manner. See the following note. the accompanying offerings have become sanctified, because what sanctifies the accompanying offerings so that they should be offered is solely the slaughter of the sacrifice [in an acceptable manner].11Hence since the sacrifices were slaughtered in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offerings should be offered on the altar. The Ra'avad notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference opinion between our Sages in Menachot 79a. Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon maintains that for an accompany offering to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice must be received in an acceptable manner. Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi differs and maintains that as long as the slaughter is acceptable, even if the blood was not received in an acceptable manner, the accompanying offering should be offered.The Ra'avad maintains that the Rambam follows Rabbi Elazer ben Shimon's ruling. The Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus, by contrast, elaborate to show that he accepts the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Moreover, they cite the Rambam's ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 18, as proof that this is the Rambam's understanding here. The Kessef Mishneh does, however, explain a way to interpret the passage according to the Ra'avad's view.
What should be done with [these accompanying offerings]?12I.e., by definition an accompanying offering may not be sacrificed alone, only with a sacrifice, and in this instance, the sacrifice has been disqualified. If there was another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time,13And does not have an accompanying offering to be brought with it. they should be offered together with it. If there was not another sacrifice that had already been slaughtered at that time, they are considered as if they were disqualified because they were left overnight and they should be destroyed by fire.14The priests must wait until the next morning to burn them. For until a sacrifice is actually disqualified, it is forbidden to destroy it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:4).
When does the above apply? With regard to communal sacrifices, because the heart of the court makes stipulations concerning them.15I.e., the court takes into consideration all the possible eventualities that might crop up and has the accompanying offering brought with those possibilities in mind. Hence if the sacrifice is disqualified, the basis on which the accompanying offering was brought is not nullified. [Different rules apply with regard to] individual sacrifices.16For the court does not make such stipulations about them. Such [accompanying offerings] should not be offered together with another sacrifice even if it was sacrificed at that time. Instead, they should be left until they become disqualified because they remained overnight and then they should be destroyed by fire.
הלכה ז
וְכָל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן יִקָּרְבוּ נִסְכֵּיהֶם:
כסף משנה
7.
Whenever a sacrifice was offered for a purpose other than that for which it was consecrated,17I.e., when one sacrificed it with the intent that it was another type of offering, e.g., one slaughtered an animal consecrated as a burnt-offering with the intent that it was a peace-offering. the accompanying offerings should be offered with it.18For with the exception of a sin-offering, sacrifices are acceptable if slaughtered with such a mistaken intent. And there are no accompanying offerings for a sin-offering.הלכה ח
וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ. וְהַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. אִם הֱבִיאָן לְאַחַר שֶׁכִּפֵּר בְּתוֹדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא כִּפֵּר בָּהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא וַחֲלִיפָתָהּ אוֹ הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ אוֹ הִיא וּתְמוּרָתָהּ. עוֹמֶדֶת. הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן צְרִיכִין לֶחֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּנוֹדֵר תּוֹדָה. אֲבָל תּוֹדַת נְדָבָה חֲלִיפָתָהּ וּתְמוּרָתָהּ טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וּוְלָדָהּ אֵינוֹ טָעוּן לֶחֶם. בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה:
כסף משנה
8.
[The following laws apply with regard to] the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering, an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred, and [a situation in which] one separated his thanksgiving-offering, it was lost, and he separated another one instead of it.19See the parallels to similar questions involving a sin-offering in Chapter 4, Halachah 4. If [any of these animals] were to be offered after the owner's obligation was not satisfied with the original thanksgiving-offering, bread20I.e., the 40 breads offered together with a thanksgiving-offering. need not be brought with it. If the owner's obligation was satisfied with the original offering and it and the one separated in place of it, it and its offspring, or it and the animal onto which its holiness was transferred are both present before us, bread is required to be brought with both of them.21The apparent meaning of the Rambam's words here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot, loc. cit.) is that bread should be brought when offering both of these sacrifices. Shoham VeYashpah, however, cites Menachot 79b which states that when both a thanksgiving-offering and an animal separated as a replacement for it are both present before us, the breads should be offered with either one and the other, offered without bread. Even such an interpretation, however, is not appropriate with regard to an animal onto which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. The Rambam's ruling here is also slightly problematic when compared to the following halachah.When does the above22That bread is or is not required for both of the offerings in the above situations. apply? When one vowed to bring a thanksgiving-offering.23I.e., he did not designate a specific animal as a thanksgiving-offering, but instead, undertook the responsibility to bring such a sacrifice. When, however, one designated an animal as a thanksgiving-offering, an animal set aside instead of it or one onto which its holiness was transferred require that bread [be offered with them].24Rambam LeAm explains that when an animal is designated as a thanksgiving sacrifice and is lost, there is no need to bring another instead of it. Hence the second thanksgiving-offering is considered as an independent sacrifice and bread is required for it independently.
With regard to an animal upon which the holiness of the thanksgiving offering was transferred, Rambam LeAm questions the Rambam's ruling, because seemingly, bread should not be required for such a sacrifice after the first animal was offered. Based on Halachah 13, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error here and that in no instance is bread required when offering an animal on which the holiness of a thanksgiving-offering was transferred. Its offspring does not require bread.25I.e., in any situation; see Hilchot Temurah 4:1. [This applies] whether or not the owner's obligation was already satisfied with the original offering.26Rambam LeAm maintains that this line refers only to the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering.
הלכה ט
הִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה. וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת וַהֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. שְׁלִישִׁית טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית. שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. רִאשׁוֹנָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵינָן טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם:
כסף משנה
9.
[The following laws apply if one] set aside an animal as a thanksgiving-offering27This law applies when the person made a vow to bring a thanksgiving-offering, accepting responsibility for the sacrifice. and it was lost, he set aside a second one in its stead and it was also lost, he then set aside a third animal in its place and then the first two were found. Thus the three animals are standing before us. If he fulfills his obligation with the first one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.28The second animal was set aside in place of the first. Since the owner fulfilled his obligation with the first, there is no obligation to bring bread with the second. The third one, however, requires bread.29For it does not have a connection to the first. Therefore it is considered as a new thanksgiving-offering which requires bread.If he fulfills his obligation with the third one, the second one does not require that bread be brought with it.30For the third animal takes the place of the second. The first one, however, requires bread.31For it is not associated with the third animal. If he fulfills his obligation with the middle one, both the others do not require bread.32Because the middle one is associated with both of the others. It was set aside instead of the first and the third was set aside instead of it.
הלכה י
הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מָעוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ תּוֹדָה בְּלַחְמָהּ. וְהַשְּׁאָר יָבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה. וְאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם אֲבָל טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת. יָבִיא בַּמָּעוֹת תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת. יָבִיא מִן הַמָּעוֹת תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ. וְזוֹ הַתּוֹדָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה תִּקָּרֵב בְּלֹא לֶחֶם:
כסף משנה
10.
[The following laws apply when one] sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, other money was set aside in its place, but [the owner] did not have the opportunity to buy a thanksgiving-offering until the first money was found. He should bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread from a combination of the two. From the remainder, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering, but it does not require bread.33For if there are funds left over from the purchase of a sacrifice, the money should be used to purchase an offering of the same type, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 9. Nevertheless, the additional thanksgiving-offering does not require bread as reflected by Halachah 8. It does, however, require accompanying offerings.34For it must be offered according to the requirements appropriate for thanksgiving-offerings.Similarly, when one sets aside [an animal for] a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, money was set aside in its place, and afterwards [the original animal] was found, he should bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread with that money.35I.e., the animal originally set aside as a thanksgiving-offering should be offered for that purpose together with the bread and the money should be used to purchase an additional thanksgiving-offering. Similarly, if one sets aside money for a thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, a thanksgiving-offering was set aside in its place, and then the money was found, the money should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.36Since the money was originally set aside for this purpose, it should be used for the primary offering. The second thanksgiving-offering should be offered without bread.
הלכה יא
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹדָה וַהֲרֵי זֶה לַחְמָהּ. אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר. אָבְדָה הַתּוֹדָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַלֶּחֶם בָּא בִּגְלַל הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵין הַתּוֹדָה בָּאָה בִּגְלַל הַלֶּחֶם:
כסף משנה
11.
[The following laws apply if a person] says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread."37Setting aside a specific animal and bread. If the bread is lost, he should bring other bread, If the thanksgiving-offering is lost, he should not bring another thanksgiving-offering.38Since he did not accept an obligation to bring a sacrifice upon himself, but rather designated an animal as a sacrifice, if that animal is lost, he is under no obligation. The fact that there is bread remaining does not obligate him as the Rambam explains. [The rationale is that] the bread is brought because of the thanksgiving-offering, but the thanksgiving-offering is not brought because of the bread.הלכה יב
הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ וְנוֹתְרוּ מֵבִיא בָּהֶן לֶחֶם. הִפְרִישׁ לַלֶּחֶם וְהוֹתִיר אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה:
כסף משנה
12.
When a person set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he should use it to bring bread. If he set aside money to bring bread and some remained, he should not use it to bring a thanksgiving-offering.39Because the bread is referred to as a thanksgiving-offering, but the offering is not referred to as bread (Menachot 80a).הלכה יג
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹדָה וְנִתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא. הֲרֵי זוֹ הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה שֶׁאִם יָבִיא עִמָּהּ לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא הַתְּמוּרָה הִיא. וְאִם הֱבִיאָהּ בְּלֹא לֶחֶם שֶׁמָּא הַתּוֹדָה הִיא. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּקָּרֵב זוֹ לְעוֹלָה אֶלָּא תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם:
כסף משנה
13.
[The following rules apply when] one says: "This is a thanksgiving-offering,"40Designating an animal to be offered for that purpose. it becomes intermingled with an animal upon which its holiness was transferred, one died, but he does not know which is which. There is no way to correct the situation of the one which remains. Were one to bring bread with it, [it is possible that he will have erred,] for perhaps this is the animal upon which the holiness was transferred.41And bread should not be brought with such an offering.As mentioned above, there appears to be a contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 8, for Halachah 8 appears to imply that bread is required for an animal to which the holiness of a thanksgiving offering was transferred if the original animal had been designated for the sacrifice. For this reason, Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that there is a printing error in Halachah 8. [But] were he to bring it without bread, it is possible that it is the thanksgiving-offering.42Which requires bread. Therefore this animal should not be sacrificed at all. Instead, it should be allowed to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish.43At which time, it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another thanksgiving-offering and its bread. The Ra'avad maintains that the person should bring another thanksgiving-offering and bread from his own resources and the proceeds from the sale of the blemished animal should be used to purchase a thanksgiving-offering without bread. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, while the Chacham Tzvi (Responsum 24) reinforces the Ra'avad's objection.
הלכה יד
תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּפְרְסָה חַלָּה מֵחַלּוֹתֶיהָ כֻּלָּן פְּסוּלוֹת. יָצָאת הַחַלָּה אוֹ נִטְמְאָה. שְׁאָר הַחַלּוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת. נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה הַתּוֹדָה. מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט נִפְרַס אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא. הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל. וְהַלֶּחֶם כֻּלּוֹ פָּסוּל וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא. נִזְרַק הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִפְרַס מִקְצָת הַלֶּחֶם אוֹ נִטְמָא אוֹ יָצָא. תּוֹרֵם מִן הַשָּׁלֵם עַל הַפָּרוּס וּמִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וּמִמַּה שֶּׁבִּפְנִים עַל שֶׁבַּחוּץ:
כסף משנה
14.
When one of the loaves of the bread brought with a thanksgiving-offering was broken in pieces, they are all disqualified.44The breads accompanying the thanksgiving offering must be whole. The Rambam is speaking about an instance when one of these breads became broken between the slaughter of the animal and the presentation of its blood on the altar. If a loaf was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] or it became impure,45Menachot 12b states that the High Priest's forehead plate causes those impure to be considered acceptable and the acceptability of those taken out of the Temple Courtyard is derived through Talmudic logic. the remainder of the breads are acceptable.If the bread46This is speaking about an instance when all of the loaves were disqualified in this manner. If only some of the loaves were disqualified, they should be replaced. was broken in two, contracted impurity, or was taken outside [the Temple Courtyard] before the thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered, he should bring another bread and then slaughter [the sacrificial animal]. If the above occurred after [the animal] was slaughtered, the blood should be cast [upon the altar], the meat [of the sacrifice] should be eaten, but all of the bread is disqualified.47Rav Yosef Corcus and others question the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is equating the loaves becoming impure or taken outside the Temple Courtyard with their being broken when at the beginning of the halachah, he himself mentioned the difference between these categories. Also, this ruling would apparently contradict the ruling in Chapter 17, Halachah 13. Rav Yosef Corcus suggests that the Rambam's statements are referring to a situation where all the loaves became impure or were taken out of the Courtyard. The person [bringing the sacrifice] does not fulfill his vow.48And instead must bring another thanksgiving-offering. The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling is in direct contradiction to the standard printed text of Menachot 46b. They suggest that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.
If the blood has been cast [upon the altar] and afterwards some of the breads were broken in two, became impure, or were taken outside, [the person bringing the sacrifice] should separate one of the whole loaves49A total of 40 loaves (10 of four different types) are offered with the thanksgiving offering. One loaf of each type is given to a priest (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:12, 17-18). for [all the loaves of that type, including] the one which is broken, one of the pure for [all the others, including] the one which is impure, and one which is in [the Temple Courtyard] for [all the others, including] the one which was taken outside.
הלכה טו
תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת. לֹא קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים. וְאִם אָמַר יִקָּדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים מוֹשֵׁךְ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים וּמֵרִים מֵהֶם אַחַת מִכָּל קָרְבָּן. וְהָאַרְבָּעִים הַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִפָּדוּ וְיֵצְאוּ לְחֻלִּין:
כסף משנה
15.
When a thanksgiving-offering was slaughtered in connection with 80 loaves, 40 of the 80 are not consecrated.50Since only 40 are required, the additional 40 are not consecrated. If [the person bringing the sacrifice] says: "May 40 of these 80 become consecrated," he should take 40 from the 80 and separate one from each [category brought as] an offering. The other 40 should be redeemed and then they are considered as ordinary bread.51The commentaries question why the loaves must be redeemed. Since the person stated that only 40 are being consecrated, why is it necessary to redeem the other 40? Among the answers given is that originally, when setting aside the loaves, he mentioned that all the loaves would be consecrated.הלכה טז
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה וְהָיָה לַחְמָהּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת בֵּית פַּגִי לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ לְפָנִים:
כסף משנה
16.
When a person slaughters a thanksgiving-offering, but its bread was located outside the walls of Beit Pagi,52This term refers to the wall that surrounds the Temple Mount. The term relates to the phrase (Daniel 1:5 : patbag hamelech, "the food of the king" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 7:3)]. the bread is not consecrated. If, however, the bread was outside the Temple Courtyard, the bread becomes consecrated even though it is not inside the Courtyard.53In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that although the Torah states that the thanksgiving offering should be brought "on the bread," the intent is not they must be physically adjacent to each other. It is sufficient that they be close.הלכה יז
שְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְמוּ פְּנֵי הַלֶּחֶם בַּתַּנּוּר וַאֲפִלּוּ קָרְמוּ כֻּלָּן חוּץ מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן. לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם:
כסף משנה
17.
If he slaughtered [an animal designated as a thanksgiving-offering] before the surface of the bread in the oven becomes hard, even if all of [the breads] became hard except for one, the bread is not consecrated.54For in order to be associated with the sacrifice, the bread must be baked at the time that the animal is slaughtered.הלכה יח
שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת זְמַן אוֹ בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. נִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם אוֹ טְרֵפָה אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּאֵיל נָזִיר עִם הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁלּוֹ:
כסף משנה