The Toras Cohanim Parshas Emor [12-6] states, “Miyom haviachem tisporu. Yachol yiktzor v’yovi v’yispor eimasai sheyirtzeh. Talmud lomar, mehochel chermesh bakomah tochel lispor. I meheichel chermesh, yachol yiktzor v’yispor veyovi eimasai sheyirtzeh. Talmud lomar, miyom haviachem tisperu.” At first glance, it would seem that the mitzvah of sefirah is not inherently connected to the actual bringing of omer hatenufah, and that the posuk merely teaches the beginning time of the sefirah, namely, after the bringing of omer hatenufah.

However, from the fact that the Rambam placed the halachos of Sefiras Ha’omer in Hilchos Temidin U’mosafin, after the dinim of minchas ha’omer, and not in Hilchos Chometz U’matzah, as the Rif placed them at the end of Perek Arvei Pesochim, it is evident that the Rambam held that sefirah is essentially shayach to the bringing of omer hatenufah. The ikar mitzvah is to count from the time of the bringing of ha’omer, and therefore these two inyonim are mishach shaychi ahadadi.

Rav Yeruchom Fishel Perla, in the introduction to his pirush on Sefer Hamitzvos, discusses the machlokes harishonim regarding Sefiras Ha’omer nowadays, when there is no omer. Is the mitzvah min haTorah, or only mid’Rabbonon? He explains that this depends on the above chakirah. If the etzem mitzvah of sefirah is from the bringing of ha’omer, then today, when there is no bringing of ha’omer, the mitzvah should only be mid’Rabbonon. But the Rambam rules in Hilchos Temidin U’mosafin that Sefiras Ha’omer is min haTorah even today. It would seem, then, that the Rambam holds that the bringing of ha’omer is not essentially shayach to sefirah, and that “miyom haviachem es omer hatenufah” is only a limud for the starting time. If so, why did the Rambam place Hilchos Sefiras Ha’omer in Hilchos Temidin U’mosafin and not in Sefer Zemanim, in Hilchos Chametz U’matzah?

It would appear that the matter can be explained through the nusach said after Sefiras Ha’omer, “Harochaman hu yachazir lonu avodas Bais Hamikdosh limkomah bimheirah veyomeinu.” The lashon “limkomah” requires biur. Is it not pashut that the avodah of the Bais Hamikdosh can be performed only in its place? Moreover, at the end of Shemoneh Esrei, where Chazal were mesaken a bakosha for the return of the avodah, the nusach is “veshom naavodcha b’yirah,” and it does not say “limkomah.”

The Rambam rules in Hilchos Temidin U’mosafin [7-24], that Sefiras Ha’omer today is min haTorah. This is difficult from the sugya in Menachos 66a, “Amar Abaye, mitzvah lemimnei yomi umitzvah lemimnei shavuei. Rabbonon devei Rav Ashi monu yomi umonu shavuei. Ameimar moni yomi velo moni shavuei, amar zecher l’Mikdosh hu.” Rashi explains, “Hai minyona dehashta lav chovah hu, deha leika omer, ela zecher leMikdosh be’alma hu, hilkach beyomi sagi.”

In the simple reading, even Abaye and Rabbonon devei Rav Ashi agree that the sefirah nowadays is only zecher l’Mikdosh. Their machlokes with Ameimar is only whether this zecher requires counting both days and weeks, or days alone. This is difficult according to the Rambam, who rules that the mitzvah nowadays is min haTorah.

Rav Chaim Brisker explained the Rambam as follows. When Rashi writes, “Hai minyona dehashta lav chovah hu, deha leika omer,” his intent cannot be that whenever the omer is not actually brought, there is no chiyuv to count, for even in the time of the Bais Hamikdosh, the sefirah was at night, before the omer was actually brought. Rather, Rashi means that since nowadays there is no din hakrovas ha’omer at all, because the Mikdosh is destroyed, the mitzvah of sefirah is botel. Thus, Rav Chaim explained that the sugya in Menachos follows the view that kedusha rishonah kidsha leshaatah velo kidsha le’asid lavo. According to that view, once the Mikdosh was destroyed, the din of hakrovas ha’omer ceased, and therefore the mitzvah of sefirah ceased. But the Rambam rules in Hilchos Bais Habechirah that kedusha rishonah kidsha leshaatah vekidsha le’asid lavo. Therefore, the din of bringing ha’omer remains, and the mitzvah of sefirah remains min haTorah.

However, this explanation requires iyun, for according to it, the whole sugya in Menachos is not aliba dehilchesa, but follows the man de’amar that lo kidsha le’asid lavo, and this is dochak.

It therefore appears to say differently. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Bais Habechirah [6,14-15] that Shlomo was mekadesh the azorah and Yerushalayim leshaatan vele’asid lavo, and therefore “makrivin kol hakorbanos kulan af al pi she’ein shom bayis bonui.” Thus, korbanos may, in principle, be brought even when the Bais Hamikdosh is not built.

Yet in Zevochim 59a the Gemara says, “Amar Rav Gidal amar Rav, mizbei’ach sheneekar maktirin ketores bimkomo, umodeh Rav bedomim.” Meaning, ketores may be offered on the place of the mizbei’ach, but zerikas hadom requires an actual mizbei’ach, because the posuk says, “vezovachta olov.”

Tosafos in Zevochim 59b ask why, according to Rabbi Yochonon, one who is maaleh bachutz nowadays is chayav for shechutei chutz. Since there is no standing mizbei’ach, it should be eino rauy lepesach Ohel Moed. Tosafos answer that Rabi Yochonon may be speaking of haalaas ketores, since “mizbei’ach sheneekar maktirin ketores bimkomo.” Alternatively, he may be speaking of haalaas mincha whose kemitzah was done in a kli shareis inside, for “makrivin af al pi she’ein bayis,” and only regarding zevochim do we require a mizbei’ach, as it says “vezovachta olov.” It is clear from Tosafos that there is room to be mesupak whether the din of “maktirin ketores bimkomo” applies only to ketores, or also to other haktaros, such as haktoras mincha.

According to this, we may say that the sugya in Menachos also holds aliba dehilchesa that “kidsha le’asid lavo.” Nevertheless, it holds like the first tzad in Tosafos, that maktirin bimkomo applies only to ketores, but not to other haktaros. If so, nowadays it is impossible to be maktir the Minchas ha’omer. Although the kedushas hamikdosh remains, since there is no actual cheftza of a mizbei’ach, the mincha cannot be brought. Therefore, Ameimar and the other Amora’im held that since the din hakrovas ha’omer is botel, the mitzvah of sefirah is also botel min haTorah, and the chiyuv is only mid’Rabbonon as a zecher l’Mikdosh. Their machlokes is whether this zecher requires days alone, or also weeks.

The Rambam, however, holds that maktirin bimkomo applies to all haktaros, not only to ketores. Therefore, the din hakrovas ha’omer was not botel, and consequently Sefiras Ha’omer remains min haTorah even nowadays.

According to this, the nusach is exact, “Harachaman hu yachazir lonu avodas Bais Hamikdosh limkomah.” In truth, even nowadays, there is room for hakrovas hakorbanos, since kedusha rishonah kidsha le’asid lavo. The lack is that certain avodos require the actual cheftza of the mizbei’ach, and not merely the place of the mizbei’ach. Thus, we ask that the avodah return “limkomah,” meaning to the mizbei’ach itself. Then the avodas ha’omer will return in its complete form, and the mitzvah of sefirah will stand again in its full Torah form.

This also explains why in Shemoneh Esrei the nusach is only “veshom naavodcha beyirah,” and not “limkomah.” In the general tefillah for the restoration of avodah, there is no specific nafka minah in the nusach whether the hakrovah is upon the actual mizbei’ach or in the place of the mizbei’ach. But by Sefiras Ha’omer, whose yesod is taluy in the din of hakrovas ha’omer, there is a special bakosha that the avodah return specifically limkomah.

Accordingly, it is well understood why the Rambam brought the dinim of Sefiras Ha’omer in Hilchos Temidin U’mosafin and not in Hilchos Pesach. Even though the Rambam holds that the mitzvah nowadays is min haTorah, nevertheless, the mitzvah of Sefiras Ha’omer is essentially connected to “yom haviachem es omer hatenufah.” And although the omer is not actually brought nowadays, since the Rambam rules that kedusha rishonah kidsha le’asid lavo, the din of hakrovas ha’omer still has a kiyum in halacha, and therefore the chiyuv of Sefiras Ha’omer remains min haTorah.