Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 5

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that “beauty” refers to the attractiveness of his facial features, “appearance,” to the comeliness of his physical form. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 1:3), the Rambam adds that the High Priest must surpass his brethren in the fear of God.

Leviticus 21:10 describes the High Priest as “the priest greater than his brethren.” Yoma 18a offers two interpretations of that phrase: a) The High Priest must be greater than his brethren in all qualities that are significant to human interaction; b) his greatness must come “from (the prefix mei translated as “than” can also mean “from”) his brethren”; they must grant him his wealth. The Rambam does not see the two interpretations as contradictory and combines them both in this halachah.

Har HaMoriah derives this from the fact that, by and large, the High Priests of the Second Temple period lacked the quality of wisdom which is the most important of all attributes. Nevertheless, they were given all the privileges of High Priests.

Our text follows the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah and early printings. The standard published text reads slightly differently.

For participation in a public celebration may compromise his dignity.

I.e., the matter is left to his choice.

Rashi (Sanhedrin 19a) explains that this refers to an instance where the High Priest was disqualified from performing the Yom Kippur service and another priest had to be appointed to replace him. Although that priest is removed from the office after the first returns, he is still treated with an extra dimension of honor.

See the description of this practice in Hilchot Evel 13:1-2.

See Hilchot Evel 4:9 which states that on the first day of mourning, a mourner is not allowed to partake of his own food.

During mourning, one is not permitted to sit on an ordinary chair (see ibid. 5:17-18). Indeed, in the Talmudic era, it was common for the mourners to sit on the ground itself Nevertheless, out of respect for the High Priest, he is allowed to sit on a low stool and the visitors sit on the ground. He may not, however, sit on an ordinary stool, for he is also obligated to observe the laws of mourning (ibid. 7:6).

Rending one’s garments is one of the mourning obligations. People at large, not only the priests, are obligated to rend their upper garments (ibid. 8:1).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 164) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 150) include the commandment for the priests not to enter the Temple with tom garments among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam discusses this mitzvah in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 1. There and in his Sefer HaMitzvot, he explains that there are additional dimensions of this prohibition that apply to a High Priest alone, even when he is not in the midst of Temple service. Since he should be in the Temple at all times, he should never rend his garments. Moreover, he is not allowed to rend his garments during mourning even outside the Temple.

Even though it is a mitzvah for one to rend his garments over his dead, that does not absolve the High Priest for violating this transgression (Radbaz).

This refers to his own personal garments, not the priestly garments.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 163) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 149) include the commandment for the priests not to enter the Temple with overgrown hair among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam also discusses this mitzvah in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, loc. cit. In his Sefer HaMitzvot, he explains that there is an additional dimension of this mitzvah that applies to a High Priest.
As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this mitzvah applies not just when the High Priest is in mourning although others should let their hair grow as a sign of mourning (Hilchot Evel 5:1-2, 6:2), he should not - but at all times.

This is part of the High Priest’s obligation to present himself in a beautiful and attractive manner. This was a very difficult task. Sanhedrin 22b relates that one of the contemporaries of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi (who lived approximately 100 years after the destruction of the Temple) squandered a large amount of money to have his hair cut in this manner. Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi praised him for this, for otherwise, the students would have had difficulty picturing it.

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17, the Rambam notes that this chamber was also called the Chamber of Wood and the Chamber of the Parhedrin. See the notes to that halachah for the explanation of these names.

As is the simple meaning of the charge (Leviticus 21:12): “From the Sanctuary, he shall not depart.” This, however, is not the halachic meaning of the commandment. Instead, as explained in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:5-6, the halachic meaning is that he should not depart in the middle of his service.

This could also be understood from the above command, for according to the Rambam, there are times when the entire city of Jerusalem is referred to as “the Sanctuary.”

I.e., this is not considered as an affront to his honor.

This was part of Jethro's advice to Moses with regard to the appointment of judges. Implied is that matters that involve gadlus (great importance)—for example, a case involving the very life of the kohen gadol (the High Priest)—should be judged by a court with authority equal to that of Moses, i.e., the Sanhedrin of 71 judges. As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 23, cases involving a transgression punishable by lashes are judged by a court of three.

In contrast, an ordinary person is obligated to deliver any testimony that he knows (Hilchot Edut 1:1).

I.e., the kings of the House of David. The kings of the Kingdom of Israel and the like, by contrast, should not be brought to court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:5). Alternatively, it could refer also to the King of Israel and be referring to a case involving the king’s son (Radbaz). Since a king is involved, delivering testimony will not be deprecatory to the High Priest’s honor.

Note the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen to Hilchot Edut who asks why the Rambam does not mention an instance where the High Priest’s testimony is necessary to prevent a transgression, for in such an instance, seemingly, even the High Priest should be required to testify.

Sefer Kedushah, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapter 1. Halachah 1 of that chapter mentions the prohibition against marrying a widow and Halachah 13, the mitzvah to marry a virgin. These concepts are also mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 1:7-8.

Yoma 13a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 16:5 states: “And he will atone… for his household.” “His household” is interpreted as referring to his wife and the term is written in the singular, implying one wife and not two.
In his gloss to Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:13, the Ra’avad notes that II Chronicles 24:3 speaks of Yehoyada the High Priest and the marriage of two women, seemingly contradicting the Rambam’s ruling. The Ra’avad interprets the verse as stating that Yehoyada married the women himself (Similarly, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam’s ruling.) Rambam LeAm, however, advances the interpretation that the verse is stating that Yehoyada had Yoash marry the women.

If a man's brother dies childless, there is a mitzvah for him to marry his brother's widow. This is referred to as yibbum. If he does not desire to marry the widow, he must perform a ritual act called chalitzah that gives her the right to remarry. The Rambam is emphasizing the contrast between a High Priest and a king. A king does not perform chalitzah because such an act would be a compromise to his honor. And since he does not perform chalitzah, he is also not entitled to perform yibbum. Nor does his wife undergo yibbum for she is not allowed to marry anyone else (Hilchot Melachim 2:3). None of these restrictions apply with regard to a High Priest.

The divorcee of a king, by contrast, is not permitted to marry anyone else (ibid.).

I.e., the outer chamber of the Temple building, not the Holy of Holies. This is evident from the fact that he is wearing the ephod, and on Y om Kippur, he enters the Holy of Holies wearing only the four garments of an ordinary priest.

Prostrating oneself in the Temple was considered one of the elements of the Temple service. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:4.

This refers to the jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate. It is necessary to hold these jewels because the Torah comma ver move away from the ephod.

The movement of the High Priest created noise, because there were bells on the bottom of his cloak.

This refers to the curtain over the opening to the Entrance Hall. On his way in, the High Priest would open the curtain by himself. This was not, however, easy on his way out, because he would be backing out, keeping his faced turned to the Temple.

Generally, the task of bringing the incense offering was rotated among the priests and one who offered it once would not offer it again (Yoma 26a). Nevertheless, the High Priest had the option of offering it whenever he desired.

This applies even if he did not offer the sacrifice himself.

Generally, the sacrifices are divided equally into portions for all the priests. The High Priest, however, could claim any sacrifice or portion of a sacrifice (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:18).

As the other priests are (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 4).

E. g., terumah and challah.

In addition to the head, he would carry the right leg of the animal (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:11).

A person bringing a sacrifice would lean on the sacrifice as the Rambam mentions in the following halachah and describes in ibid. 3:6-16. This ritual is called semichah.

For the limbs would have to be tossed to the fire (ibid. 6:4).

I.e., when he reaches the age of thirteen and manifests signs of physical maturity.

For he is obligated - and thus entitled to - perform all the mitzvot including the service in the Temple.

At which time, he can be expected to be more mature and less likely to commit an. error that would disqualify a sacrifice.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the passage from Arachin 13b which is the Rambam’s source is speaking about a Levite and not a priest. The Radbaz agrees that the Ra’avad’s view appears more likely from the context, but since the passage speaks about avodah - a term which usually refers to the service of offering the sacrifices there is room for the Rambam’s understanding.

By mentioning Aaron, the verse indicates that this offering is brought by a High Priest. By mentioning his descendants, it indicates that it is also brought by an ordinary priest.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18 and onward.