Mishnah Zevachim 14:4-8 describe the times that bamot were permitted and forbidden:
Before the mishkan was set up - bamot permitted
Once the mishkan was set up in the desert - bamot forbidden
While the mishkan was in Gilgal - bamot permitted
While the mishkan was in Shiloh - bamot forbidden
While the mishkan was in Nov and Giv'on - bamot permitted
Once the ...
The gemara on Yoma 26a explains that there was just one lottery that covered both services:
א"ר יוחנן אין מפייסין על תמיד של בין הערבים אלא כהן שזכה בו בשחרית זוכה בו ערבית
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not hold a separate lottery for the
slaughtering and sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering. Rather,
the same priest who won a particular ...
This question is discussed in Chevel Nachalato 8:13, where a number of contemporary Rabbis' approaches are presented.
R. Avigdor Nebenzahl writes that he knows of no good answer to the question, but does note some hints to the shtei halechem, such as Chabad's text of ושני שעירים לכפר as part of musaf.
R. Ya'akov Epstein suggests that there is a hesitance ...
Why both ideas?
We can address your final question - why did Rashi cite both of these explanations - on a simple, structural level by looking at the Talmud passage Rashi got them from. In Shevu'ot 9a, the Talmud deals with an apparent tension between these two concepts, each of whose transmitters derive them from the same textual point - the fact that this ...
What is called the time of mincha is actually the time of the afternoon tamid (for explanations of the name, see Tosafot Pesachim 107a). The afternoon tamid was generally slaughtered at eight and a half hours into the day and sacrificed at nine and a half hours into the day (Pesachim 5:1; see there for when it was slaughtered earlier on Erev Pesach). Since ...
It is a sheep who was traded against a dog that is forbidden to be brought as an offering. See the gemara in Temura 30a and following. Such a sheep is forbidden as the verse continues: as it is "abhorrent to the LORD your God.
Regarding dogs specifically artscroll, quoting Ramban, explains
Dogs are considered abominations because they were often trained ...
The Mishna says
"כל הארצות היו כשרות אלא מכאן היו מביאין"
and tells about Omer and shti Halechem, which need to be from Erets Israel. So the Bartenura is right when he adds
"של ארץ ישראל"
The Bartenura's source should be the Rashi from manuscript in Menachot 83b:
כל ארצות - של ארץ ישראל כשרות היו אלא מכאן היו מביאין:
A Kohen would be liable to pay for intentionaly invalidating any Sacrifice whether Neder(voluntary sacrifice that must be replaced) or Nedavah(voluntary sacrifice that does'nt need to be replaced) or chovah(obligatory Sacrifice) even though there is no visible damage.
The Tashbeitz (14th century) Chelek Gimmel 82 gives a good summary
of what the Halacha is ...
There are some essays (in Hebrew) on the realia of the Beis Hamikdash, including its economics, by Prof. Zohar Amar, on his website (http://zoharamar.org.il/מקדש/).
His study of the korbanos tzibbur (ההיבט הכלכלי של קרבנות הציבור במקדש) suggests that the costs of those, plus various operating expenses (not all of which are known from our sources), would ...
The Sefer HaChinuch explains (§286):
שרש המצוה נגלה, עם מה שהקדמנו למעלה, בענין הקרבנות על צד הפשט, שהם לעורר ולכון מחשבת בני איש אל השם ברוך הוא, כי האדם מתפעל בכח מעשיו, על כן ראוי על כל פנים להיות הקרבן בלי מום, כי מזמות בן אדם לא ינוחו ולא יתפשטו במין הפחות כמו בחשוב, כי הלבבות יתעוררו בחשוב ובשלם במינו יותר, וזה דבר ידוע לכל מבין.
For background, in ...
Rav Hirsch writes that usage of מנחה as a flour-and-oil offering is imprecise:
The מנחה offering in the Sanctuary is an offering of flour and oil. But we do find מנחה as a general term for offerings - even for animal offerings; thus in Malachi 1:10, 1:13, and 2:13, and throughout the book of Malachi. Outside the Sanctuary, מנחה denotes a gift, a sign of ...
In Emunot V'Deiot 3:9 R. Saadia Gaon explains that prior to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons, there were always specific people appointed to perform sacrificial services:
The third [problem is presented by] the fact that God commanded all men to offer up sacrifices and then forbade such activities to everyone except Aaron and his children. But this, ...
In nazir the Korban Chatat is writen in Torah. Chachamim give an explanation, but we cannot infer from the explanation that all such deprivation engender a Chyuv Chatat. Korban chatat follows precise rules. The Gemara you quoted from Nedarim 10a (also in Nazir 19a) says that a fortiori a man who deprivales himself is called sinner, but not regarding Korban ...
Your question brings me to tears, and I know you are not the only one who has questions about the future reinstatement of the korbanos. You have asked the question very honestly and in an even-handed way. Let me address some of your points.
2) In Shmuel (I 15:22) for example, the prophet says to King Shaul:
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁמוּאֵ֗ל הַחֵ֤פֶץ לַֽיהוָה֙ ...
Mishnah Horayos 3:3:
וְאֵיזֶהוּ הַנָּשִׂיא, זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד) וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מִכָּל מִצְוֹת ה' אֱלֹהָיו, נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה' אֱלֹהָיו
Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler (king) who has none ...
My (un-sourced) understanding is that the difference is that the end of Kinnim 2:3 is dealing with a case where an entire group of birds can no longer be offered. This means that they attain the status of chata'ot hametot, and then if one of them flies into any other group of birds the entire group becomes invalid. (See the last two comments of Yachin on ...
Mishna Kretot 2.1:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, גֵּר, מְחֻסַּר כַּפָּרָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק עָלָיו הַדָּם
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A convert [has the status of] a Mechusar Kapparah until the blood has been sprinkled [on the altar] for him
ותנא קמא סבר, גר כיון שמל וטבל מותר לאכול בקדשים, ואין קרבן מעכבו אלא מלבוא בקהל, ...
I think this would be a dispute between Rashi and Rambam, but partly for a different reason. Before we factor in the dispute between Hillel and the Sages (and rishonim's interpretations thereof) we need to define what the essential nature of tzafun is. This appears to be a dispute between Rashi and Rambam. As I noted in this answer the simple reading of ...
In his commentary on Leviticus 2:2, R' Samson Raphael Hirsch notes, as you do, the strong association in the Torah between the term אזכרה and the Mincha offering of flour, oil, and spices. In fact, he says that the concept of אזכרה is the whole purpose of the Mincha offering.
Note that the term אזכרה refers, in this verse, specifically to the handful of the ...
What time of the year are lambs born?
California is the same zone, temperatures, growing season, etcetera as Israel and can be used to determine Ancient Israel's Lambing and Wheat harvest, for Passover and First Fruits. Yep, and "First Fruits" is about July 4.
Lambs are born during the winter for various reasons. ... Sheep are short day/long night breeders ...
R. E. Melamed addresses the issue of the reason for two days of Rosh Chodesh in a footnote here:
לכאורה יש לשאול, הרי ר"ח הוא היום הראשון של החודש, ומדוע כשהחודש מלא גם יום השלושים לחודש הקודם נחשב לר"ח? באר בשבולי הלקט קסח, בשם רבנו שלמה והרי"ד (רבי ישעיה הראשון), וכך מובא בברכ"י תכז, שכאשר החודש מלא, חידושה של הלבנה חל באמצע היום השלושים (לאחר עשרים ...
That there are forty loaves is something I'd always heard. Thank you for making me realize that I had no idea where it actually comes from.
It gets intricate, so buckle up. I tried to explain it below, but just let me know if I should explain further.
On Menachos 77b, the Gemara derives that any loaf brought must be exactly one tenth-eiphah. It's a long, ...
The Node Beyehuda (V1, OCH §4) discusses this question:
ואשר בדק לן מעלתו למה פסוקי המוספין קבעו בתפלת המוסף ופרשת התמיד לא
תיקנו לומר בתפלה פסוקי התמיד.
Loosely translated: Why are the verses of the Mussaf established within the Mussaf prayer, yet the verses of the Tammid were not fixed into Shacharis/Mincha prayer?
He begins be stating that no-...
I would say that בהמה comes to exclude a חיה (see Difference between behema and chaya) and then the Torah explains that what types of בהמה are acceptable:
מן הצאן - which means the ovicaprid family
מן הבקר - which means the bovine family.
This serves to exclude other possible kosher animals which might be considered a בהמה (like a buffalo according to ...
Joel K suggested in the comments that, in fact, you're not allowed to put the Chagiga on the table with the Pesach lechatchila, for this reason. The Rambam relies on the other places where he paskens that אין מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול, such as Chagiga 2:13.
Double AA supported this with a diyuk from the Rambam's language: for the Chagiga he says שעלה, ...
Yes. Non-Jews may sacrifice to G-d on any private altar they build, anywhere in the world.
Rambam Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 19:16:
וְהַנָּכְרִים מֻתָּרִין לְהַקְרִיב עוֹלוֹת לַשֵּׁם בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּ בְּבָמָה שֶׁיִּבְנוּ.
Non-Jews may offer burnt offerings to G-d in any place, offering them on an altar which they have built.
I would deduct that your first guess is the correct one .
For the korbanot conditions, it's common sense.
For the יע"ש:
Mishna Bechorot p5
מתני' מעשה בזכר של רחלים זקן ושערו מדולדל וראהו קסטור אחד ואמר מה טיבו
של זה אמרו לו בכור הוא ואינו נשחט אלא א"כ היה בו מום נטל פיגום וצרם
אזנו ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירו ואחר שהתירו הלך וצירם באזני בכורות
An OU.org article by R' Ari Zivotofsky titled "The Korbanot" brings many methods/ sources as how to reconcile the Rambam's and R' Kook's positions.
However-- while perhaps not as thorough or as sourced as we may like-- he also brings the reasoning for those who accept the position of the Rambam & R' Kook at face value:
Some who support the claim that ...