Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 21) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot, incumbent on both men and women.

As explained in Halachot 7-9, the fulfillment of this mitzvah is not limited to the time when the Temple stood, but is applicable even at present.

This clause is quoted from Yevamot 6a, b. Tosafot explain that such a clarification is necessary, lest the Jewish people worship the Temple per se, bowing down to the physical building or showing it other signs of reverence.

The source for these statements is the Mishnah (Berachot 9:6). The Talmud accepts these as signs of reverence without even questioning the source for these practices.

When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He told him (Exodus 3:5): “Remove your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy.” Similarly, on the Temple Mount, shoes had to be removed.
The Minchat Chinuch states that one may wear shoes on the Temple Mount if they are not made of leather.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot, loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the word, afundaso, as “a garment which one will wear against his flesh to collect sweat, so that his sweat will not spoil his dress clothing.”

Tosafot, in Bava Metzia 26a, explain that only the public display of money is prohibited. One may carry money discreetly in his pockets.

Berachot 62b explains that this concept may be inferred from the prohibition against wearing shoes. If wearing shoes which generally is not considered an act of disrespect is forbidden, then surely spitting is not allowed.

The Har HaMoriah explains that this law was derived from Berachot 24b, which recommended this course of action to someone who has to spit in the midst of the Amidah prayers.

Berachot, loc. cit., also considers this as a lack of respect.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the latter concept is derived from Megillah 28b, where a similar statement is made in reference to a person’s entering a synagogue.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Middot 2:2. By quoting that mishnah here, he implies that these practices are also an expression of deference to the Temple (Rambam LeAm).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: “For example, one who enters through the gate of Shushan, [the eastern gate,] should not tum toward the Chuldah gates, [the southern gates,] but rather toward the Tadi gate, [the northern gate].”

Tosafot Yom Tov explains that this does not necessarily mean that one would exit from the gate in the opposite direction. Rather, one would continue circling towards the right, even though it would be shorter to leave by turning towards the left.

Tifferet Yisrael (Middot, loc. cit.) explains that this distinction was made so that all who see him would be aroused to pray for his welfare. See also Shabbat 67a.

Magen Avraham 651:21 states that from these statements, it appears that only a person who suffered one of the fates listed would circle to the left. Generally, a left-handed person must give his left hand prominence, as others do the right. In this instance, however, he would circle to the right even though it is his weaker side.

Under certain circumstances, the court would place a person who did not follow its directives under a ban of ostracism, restricting the business and social relations he could have with other Jews. See Hilchot Talmud Torah, chs. 6-7.

The Mishnah (Middot, loc. cit.) relates that Rabbi Meir maintained that the people would answer: “May the One Who dwells in this House cause them to have a change of heart and accept you.” Rabbi Yossi explained that such an expression makes it appear that the court was unfair in its judgment and suggests the phrase quoted by the Rambam.

Yoma 53a explains that one must leave the Temple service facing in the same direction as when he entered.

One need not walk backwards the entire way. However, it is also improper to turn one’s back to the Temple.

At which point he may walk in an ordinary manner.

In order to allow the priests to serve in the Temple throughout the year in an organized manner, the prophets organized a rotation system, dividing the entire priestly family into 24 watches. Each watch would serve for a week and perform all the sacrificial functions required. The following week they would be replaced by a new watch according to the order of rotation. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, Chapter 4, Halachah 3.

This refers to the Anshei Ma’amad, who represented the entire Jewish people. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam describes their function as follows:
It is impossible for a person’s offering to be sacrificed unless he is present. The communal offerings are the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people, [and hence, their presence should be required. Nevertheless,] since it is impossible for the entire Jewish people to be present in the Temple Courtyard while sacrifices are being offered, the first prophets established a practice of choosing worthy and God-fearing men... to serve as the representatives of all of Israel, and to be present at the sacrifices... They were divided into 24 watches.
See also Ta’anit 4:2.

After accompanying the sacrifices with songs and music.

After the conclusion of the Amidah prayer, one retreats backwards three steps as “a servant departs from his master’s presence.” (Yoma 53b). See also Hilchot Tefillah 5:10.
The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 123:1) explain that since the prayers were instituted to replace the sacrifices, one should conclude his prayers in the same manner as the priests departed from their service.

Rashi, commenting on Berachot 54a, explains that this also applies to someone standing outside the Temple Mount. See also Halachah 8.

On this statement, the Ra’avad comments: “And not as common people conduct themselves.”

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and in Chapter 5, Halachah 12, there were divisions in the Temple Courtyard for the priests and for the Israelites.

The Targum Yonatan renders Leviticus 19:30: “And you shall revere My Sanctuary” as “Walk to My Sanctuary with fear.” See also Ecclesiastics 4:17: “Guard your feet when you walk to the House of God.”

See Rashi, Avot 6:3.

The Mishneh LiMelech states that this prohibition appears to have its source in the Torah itself.
In Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 21, the Rambam includes this prohibition as one expression of reverence for the Temple.

Rashi (Yoma 25a) explains that this prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 18:5: “For the Lord has chosen him… to stand and to serve in the name of the Lord.”
Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) question whether the priests are permitted to sit in the courtyard when they partake of the sacrifices of the most holy order. From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that he does not permit such leniency.

The narrative in II Samuel relates that after sitting, David stated: “Who am I, O Lord, God, and what is my house that You have brought me this far.” At the moment when he was granted this great honor, he displayed humility.

Who sat.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, and Chapter 6, Halachah 7.

The Rambam uses the expressions “our sins,” rather than “the sins of our ancestors,” for all Israel, in every generation and every place, is one communal body.
The usage of the term “our” also implies a deeper concept. Our Sages declared: “Whoever does not witness the rebuilding of the Temple in his days must consider as if it was destroyed in his days.”
The exile and the Temple’s destruction were caused by the sins of the Jewish people. As soon as sin, the cause for the exile, is eradicated, the effect, the exile, will cease. Similarly, our Sages declared: “If Israel repents, she will immediately be redeemed.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 6.

As stated above, even when the Temple is destroyed, one may not act frivolously directly opposite the gate to the Courtyard. However, when the Temple was standing, that prohibition was extended, and included any place within sight of Jerusalem. (Meiri, Berachot 61b.)

Berachot, loc. cit., explains that Mt. Scopus is the most distant point from which one can see the Temple site.

I.e., even at present, when the Temple is destroyed. It must be noted that with slight emendations, the following laws are all quoted as Halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 3.

Most of the Rabbis explain that there is no prohibition if the toilet is surrounded by a wall. However, the Rambam’s phraseology does not imply such license. Therefore, some authorities recommend that, if possible, one should. construct his home with the toilet facing the north or south.

Most authorities follow the opinion of the Tosafot (Berachot 5b) who explain that this prohibition only applies when sleeping with one’s wife. However, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies even when sleeping alone and strongly urges that this ruling be accepted.

The Halachic authorities question whether the Rambam’s intention is to stress the directions of east and west or the direction of the Temple itself The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:5) states that, regardless of where one is located, one should not face the west, because “the Shechinah is in the west.” On the other hand, certain authorities emphasize that according to the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 6lb), the location of Jerusalem is the determining factor.

The Rabbis explain that although it is preferable to follow the Rambam’s view, one may position his bed between the east and the west if there is no other alternative.

Less severe restrictions are placed on urinating than on defecating. However, from the point where one can see the Temple site, Mt. Scopus, one should also control oneself in this regard.

The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254), explains that this prohibition also stems from the command to revere the Sanctuary. A building or utensil that cannot be copied is obviously unique and special, and emphasis on its uniqueness will lead to reverence.

Based on Avodah Zarah 43a, it would appear that the prohibition forbids constructing a building following the Temple’s measurements exactly, but making a model in miniature would be permitted.

The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 254) analyzes this prohibition in depth and raises a number of issues, including the following:
a) The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 43a) explains that the source for this prohibition is the command against making images, as the Torah commands (Exodus 20:20): “Do not make with Me gods of silver...” If so, on the surface, it would have been more appropriate for the Rambam to mention this concept within the laws of Avodah Zarah (worship of false gods) rather than in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah. Indeed, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 141:8, discuss these prohibitions in that context.
b) As explained above, the structure of the Second Temple differed from the First and the dimensions of the Third Temple will not resemble those of the Second in their entirety. Thus, we must understand: Which structure are we forbidden to copy, that of the First or the Second Temple? Does the prohibition apply only when the Temple is standing, or does it apply to all three structures?
The Minchat Chinuch himself, tends towards the opinion that at present there is no prohibition to duplicate the previous structures of the Temple. Only in the era of the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, will this prohibition apply.
The text, Ma’asai LiMelech, explains that the Rambam’s source for this prohibition is not the abovementioned Talmudic portion, but rather the obligation of awe and reverence referred to previously. It is not respectful to duplicate the Temple or its structures and use them for mundane purposes.

Despite the fact that the Entrance Hall had walls on all four sides. Nevertheless, since its gate was large, 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide, and open at all times, it resembled a porch.

The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) states that this prohibition does not extend beyond the Temple Courtyard. One may make a copy of the chayl, the rampart surrounding the Courtyard, or another similar structure.

The Minchat Chinuch questions if these two utensils were mentioned only as examples, and the same prohibition applies to the other sacred utensils, or if the Rambam meant them exclusively. He concludes that we may not make a replica of any utensil whose exact dimensions are known to us.
He also emphasizes that the prohibition against making a replica of the Menorah applies even if the goblets, bulbs, and flowers are omitted, since the Menorah is acceptable without them when made from other metals (Chapter 3, Halachah 4).

Indeed, it is customary to make Chanukah lamps in the shape of the Menorah.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 18, the sacred utensils must be made of metal. Hence, there is no prohibition against making a replica from other substances.

With these statements, the Rambam introduces the following twelve halachot, which discuss various gradations of holiness. These statements are based on the Tosefta, Keilim 1:10 and Zevachim 116b.

See Numbers 2:1-31, which describes the division of the twelve tribes into the camps of Judah, Reuven, Ephraim, and Dan.

The Levites would dwell in a separate encampment, between the camp of Israel and the Courtyard of the Sanctuary. The particular encampment of each Levite family is described in Numbers, Chapter 3.

No one was permitted to dwell in this region. People would enter only to participate in the service of the Sanctuary.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 14.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 15.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 18.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 16.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 17.

Parrallels to these divisions did not exist in the encampment in the desert. They were instituted when the First Temple was constructed.

The Rambam adds the word “entire” to the phrasing of this law in his source, Kelim 1:6. Rambam LeAm suggests that this addition was made to include all three divisions of Eretz Yisrael: the Galilee, in the north; Judah, in the south; and Trans-Jordan, on the eastern side of the Jordan River.

The barley offering that is to be brought on the day following the holiday of Pesach. See Leviticus 23:9-15.

Ibid., 16-20.

The Bikkurim, which were to be brought between Shavuot and Sukkot. See Exodus 23:16, 19.
Rambam LeAm notes that the Rambam reverses the order of the Mishnah, which mentions the first fruits before the two breads. A possible explanation for the change is that it is proper to bring the first fruits only after the two loaves have been offered.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam cites the verses from which the obligation to bring these offerings from Eretz Yisrael is derived:
In regard to the Omer, it is written (Leviticus 23:10): “When you come into the land which I am giving you and reap its harvest....”
In regard to the two loaves, it is written (ibid.:17): “You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread….”
In regard to the first fruits, it is written (Deuteronomy 26:2): “you shall take the first of all fruit of the earth, which you shall bring from the land that the Lord, your God, gives you….”
It must be noted that the status of Trans-Jordan is a source of disagreement among the Rabbis, regarding these offerings. The Rambam writes (Hilchot Bikkurim) that the obligation to bring the first fruits from Trans-Jordan is Rabbinic in origin. Similarly, Rabbenu Nissim (Nedarim 22a) questions whether, according to the Torah, the Omer offering could be brought from Trans-Jordan.

These ten gradations are listed in this and the following nine Halachot.
The Rambam’s statements are based on Kellim 1:6-7. Most commentaries on the Mishnah explain that the ten gradations described are “within Eretz Yisrael’ and do not include the distinction between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora.”

In their commentaries to the Mishnah, Rabbenu Shimshon and Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explain that only the cities which were surrounded by a wall at the time of Joshua’s conquest of Eretz Yisrael are included in this category.
Also, see Arichin 32a.

Regarding one afflicted by tzara’at, the Torah commands (Leviticus 13:46): “He shall dwell alone, he will live outside the camp.” Therefore, he was forced to leave any city (Commentary to the Mishnah, Keilim, loc. cit.).

The Ra’avad disagrees with the Rambam and states that under no circumstances may a corpse be buried in a city. The dispute between these authorities concerns the interpretation of the Mishnah, Keilim, loc. cit.

It was customary in Talmudic times for the internal affairs of a city to be managed by a committee of seven of its prominent citizens.

Generally, Halachah places many restrictions on the disinterring of graves. However, should the inhabitants of a city feel that the placement of a grave causes difficulties to the entire population, because of questions of ritual impurity, a corpse may be disinterred.

The Tosefta (Bava Batra 1:7) and the tractate of Semachot, Chapter 14, substantiate this statement, noting that the graves of King David and Chuldah, the prophetess, were situated within Jerusalem.

Without requiring such a consensus. The Rambam mentions these rulings only in regard to walled cities. The Har HaMoriah notes that the sources mentioned above make no distinctions and appear to apply these rulings to all cities, whether enclosed by a wall or not.

The obligation to eat the sacrifices of lesser sanctity within the confines of Jerusalem is derived from the verse (Deuteronomy 15:20): “You shall eat it (the offering of a firstborn animal) before the Lord... in the place which the Lord shall choose.” Zevachim 56b explains that this verse refers to all sacrifices of this category, and that the phrase “in the place the Lord shall choose” refers to Jerusalem.

After the first tithe was separated, a second tithe had to also be set aside. In four years of the seven year agricultural cycle, it must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:25-26): “And you shall go up to the place which God chooses... and you shall eat there before the Lord....”

The above statements were a continuation of the Mishnayot in Keilim. The following are based primarily on Bava Kama 82b. See also Tosefta, Nega’im, Chapter 6 and Avot D’Rabbi Nattan, Chapter 35.
Most restrictions listed by the Rambam were instituted to protect against contracting ritual impurity. The Radbaz (Responsum 633) explains that since we are all now ritually impure and Gentiles dwell within the holy city, these rulings no longer apply. Nevertheless, there are certain practices, particularly those regarding burial, that are kept by certain communities.

As stated at the end of the halachah, Jerusalem was not included in the division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes. Therefore, no one is considered to be an outright owner of the land on which he is living. Thus, a home cannot be rented to others.
Yoma 12b, the source for this law goes further and explains that one may not charge for providing guests with accommodation. Even during the three pilgrimage festivals, the Sages forbade charging the festive pilgrims for their accommodation. However, they did allow the hosts to take the pelts of the sacrifices that were offered.

This term refers to a ger toshav, a Gentile who has accepted the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah's Descendants, but who has not converted to Judaism. See Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7, the Rambam explains that the expression “resident alien” is used because we may allow this Gentile to live in Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, such permission cannot be granted in Jerusalem.

The Maharit (Responsum 37) explains that even a king or a prophet should not be buried within Jerusalem. David and Chuldah were originally buried outside the city. The city then grew larger and included their graves. However, as a token of respect, they were not disinterred.

Rashi (Bava Kama, loc. cit.) explains that the gardens may be weeded and the weeds left at the sides to rot. Alternatively, they may be fertilized with foul smelling manure. To avoid these possibilities, planting gardens were forbidden within the holy city.

Rashi (ibid.) explains that the rose petals were used in preparing the incense offering. Therefore, an exception was made in this case.

Leviticus 11:29 lists eight species of crawling animals which cause ritual impurity when touching their dead bodies. Such animals are likely to be found in garbage dumps. Therefore, garbage should be discarded outside of Jerusalem.

The construction of these balconies may lead to an increase of ritual impurity. If a corpse is located under such a balcony, any person or object beneath the balcony is considered ritually impure. If the balcony had not been built, people and objects could not become impure unless they came in direct physical contact with the corpse. Therefore, we may not construct them (Rashi, loc. cit.).

The smoke will discolor the city’s walls.

Chickens feed on the bodies of the eight crawling species mentioned above. Therefore, they might bring the body of one of these animals into contact with a person or article which is ritually pure.

Outside of Jerusalem, an Israelite need not be so careful about ritual purity, because he has no opportunity to eat the sacrifices or other foods which require ritual purity. However, a priest may eat Terumah, which requires ritual purity, outside of Jerusalem as well. Therefore, he must take additional precautions upon himself.

Leviticus 25:29-30 relates: “A man who sells a residential home in a walled city may redeem it within a year after it was sold... If it is not redeemed within the year... it shall become the permanent property of the buyer. It shall not be released in the Jubilee.” Since, as stated above, Jerusalem cannot be considered anyone’s private property, this law does not apply.

Leviticus 14:33-54 states: “I shall place the mark of the curse of tzara’at in houses in the land you will inherit.” Since Jerusalem is not given as an inheritance, none of these rulings apply to it.

Deuteronomy 13:13-19 describes the laws applying to a city in which the majority of its inhabitants have accepted idol worship. The Torah states that these laws apply to “one of your cities.” Since that term does not properly describe Jerusalem, which can never become permanently “ours,” these laws do not apply to it.

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 describes the laws which apply when a corpse is found in a field between two cities. The city closest to the corpse must take a calf (Eglah in Hebrew) and breaks its neck (Oref in Hebrew) as an act of atonement. The Torah describes that these laws apply to "the land which the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance." That expression excludes Jerusalem.

There is a slight difficulty with this statement.
The base of the altar did not surround the Altar on all sides. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.) Most commentaries explain that this step was taken because a slight strip of land extended from the tribal portion of Judah into the Temple Courtyard. The base would have been positioned on this strip. By leaving this space empty, the entire structure of the Altar remained in the tribal portion of Benjamin.
If, as the Rambam declares, Jerusalem was not divided into tribal portions, there would seem to be no reason to leave this empty space. Tosafot (Yoma 12a) notes this difficulty and explains that the portion of the base was not omitted because of the above reason, but due to a prophetic decree which transcends our comprehension.

As mentioned in Halachah 11, the city of Jerusalem corresponds to the camp of the Israelites, while the Temple Mount corresponds to the camp of the Levites.

The term zav, refers to a person afflicted with a venereal condition resembling gonorrhea. Leviticus 15:1-15 explains that such a person is ritually impure himself and can cause other people and objects to contract impurity. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, Chapter 2, Halachah l.