Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 7

Shekalim 5:1 mentions officers for these fifteen positions. The Rambam explains that this was not merely the situation at one specific time, but represented the ongoing division of responsibilities in the Temple.

See Halachah 2.

See Halachah 3.

See Halachah 4. The Ra’avad offers ~ different interpretation of this officer’s function. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra’avad’s view is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1), while the Rambam’s opinion is based on the Babylonian Talmud. He questions why the Ra’vad favors the Jerusalem Talmud when generally, if there is a difference of opinion between the two, the halachah follows the Babylonian Talmud.

See Halachah 5.

See Halachah 7.

See Halachah 8.

See Halachah 9.

See Halachah 10.

See Halachah 12. The Radbaz notes that the Mishnah (loc. cit.) refers to this person as being appointed over the flour. He explains that since flour would accompany the wine libation, the same person was appointed over both.

See Halachah 14.

See Halachah 15.

See Halachah 16.

See Halachah 15.

Actually, the announcement would be made slightly before the time for the sacrifice. For example, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:2; 3:8), the Rambam writes that this announcement was made at (or before) dawn.

Where they would stand to sing. Although they would not sing until the wine offering was brought and that was after the limbs of the sacrifice were offered (see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5), they would proceed to their posts at the same time as the priests.

At sunset.

At dawn.

A prolonged and drawn out blast.

A series of staccato blasts.

The priests would also stand watch in three places. The commentaries discuss why they are not mentioned.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:10 where the function of this officer is also mentioned.

As mentioned in Halachah 3.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5, 7.

And thus two different Musaf offerings are brought: one for the Sabbath and one for the festival or for Rosh Chodesh.

One for the Sabbath, one for Rosh HaShanah, and one for Rosh Chodesh.

I.e., a tekiah, teruah, tekiah series.

As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 5:18-20, these trumpet blasts were sounded beginning one and a quarter seasonal hours before sunset. The first three were not sounded together. On the contrary, each represented a further stage in the imminent approach of the Sabbath. The second set of three were sounded close to sunset as a unit of three.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7 for a description of this courtyard.

See ibid. 5:5 for a description of this gate.

7½ cubits higher, as indicated by ibid. 6:2.

The water libation and these trumpet blasts are described in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6-7.

This represents a reversal in the Rambam’s thinking from his earlier views in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 3:8) where he states that it was the shofar that was sounded.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:1, 3.

The Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1) notes that the most renowned figure to fill this post was Mordechai, the hero of the PUrim Megilah. The Radbaz, in his gloss to Halachah 13, feels it necessary to emphasize the extent to which our Sages cherished the service in the Temple. For Mordechai abandoned all the wealth and leisure of the Persian court to provide doves for pilgrims to the Temple.

A smaller, wild variety of the dove family. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:2 for more particulars.

Ordinary domesticated doves.

Many different people would have to bring doves as a sacrifice (see examples in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3). Hence, it was necessary that the Temple provide a source for them.

Note the explanation given by the Rambam with regard to the wine libations and meal offerings. In a similar manner, the Temple treasury would purchase doves and sell them to this officer. He would then sell them to those people required to bring them.

And suffer the loss from his own funds.

And the accompanying flour and oil offerings, as explained in the notes to the following halachah.

This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a bull, a half of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought three esronim of flour and half a hin of oil.

This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a male ram, a third of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought two esronim of flour and third of a hin of oil.

This referred to the wine libations brought when offering a ewe, a fourth of a hin of wine. Together with the wine were brought one isaron of flour and fourth of a hin of oil.

This refers to the wine libations brought by a wealthy person afflicted by tzara’at (a mystic affliction similar to leprosy). He is called a sinner because the affliction was brought about by his sins [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:3)], i.e., because tzara’at is brought about by gossip. (See the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at.)
Such a person would bring three animals as a sacrifice, accompanied by three revi’ot of wine, together with three esronim of flour and three revi’ot of oil (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:6).

If, however, a person afflicted with tzara’at is poor, he is only required to bring a ewe as an offering. Hence, he only purchases a “kid” seal.

We do not accept the claim that the officer’s own money became mixed together with the money he received.

I.e., the prices of agricultural commodities fluctuate seasonally. Were it not for this safeguard, a person could purchase a seal in the summer (when the prices are relatively low, because it is the time of the harvest) and use it in the winter, when the prices had increased.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:4), the Rambam added another reason. Perhaps, the seal was lost and found by another person. The Radbaz states that the latter is an inferior rationale, because we do not usually take safeguards against such occurrences.

For as stated above, the Temple treasury is given the upper hand in all financial transactions.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These fruits are served as dessert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the fundamental “food” of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:4.

While barefoot, so nothing would separate between their feet and the Temple’s floor (Radbaz; see Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:17).

See the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot De’ot 4:9, where he lists certain types of meat as unhealthy food.

As the Rambam mentions, this officer was in charge of healing all the priests’ medical ailments. He singles out their digestive ailments here, because they were the most prevalent (Radbaz).

The Radbaz proceeds to explain that their health situation would have been far more serious except that they were watched over by unique Divine providence.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) explains that these officers had intimate knowledge of the earth and knew how to determine under which rocks there was a spring of cold water and where a spring of hot water could be found.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1), this person’s activity was not confined to Jerusalem. Instead, he would dig wells throughout Eretz Yisrael so that water would be available to the pilgrims.

These were the elders of the House of Garmu. The Mishnah (Yoma 3) criticizes these priests, because they were unwilling to teach others their unique craft.

These were the elders of the House of Avtinas. Yoma 38a explains that they also would not teach their craft to others. At first, the Sages considered this to be undesirable. Later, they discovered that the House of A vtinas refused to do so in order that the information not be used to prepare incense offerings for idols. The Sages then deemed their conduct praiseworthy.

Some commentaries understand the Rambam’s wording as implying that the embroidery was not part of the original weave of the curtain, but needle work done afterwards. Nevertheless, he quotes other sources that indicate that the designs were made within the pattern of the weave itself.

Each year, new curtains were made, because the smoke from the incense offerings would discolor the old ones (Rabbenu Asher to Tamid 29b).

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2 for an explanation regarding the use of these two curtains.

I.e., each string had four strands and each strand had six threads. Yoma 72a explains that the term sheish, the word the Torah uses for linen implies a strand of six threads. See Chapter 8, Halachah 14. From this, we learn that the strings of the other three fabrics were made in a similar manner.

3.5 centimeters in contemporary measure thick.

For there were 72 strings used to weave it.

For the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits wide and 40 cubits high.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:4 for an explanation regarding the gates to the Temple Courtyard.

The Entrance Hall did not have a gate (ibid. 4:8).

The two mentioned in the previous halachah.

See the notes to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2 for an explanation of this term.

For it was necessary to make a distinction between the place of the Sanctuary and that of the Holy of Holies on the second storey as well (Rashi, Yoma 54a; see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:13, 7:23).

I.e., an entity that is not inherently impure, but rather contracted impurity because of contact with another impure entity. More specifically, the commentaries explain that the curtain came into contact with liquids that contracted impurity which render utensils impure (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 7:1-2). Also, it is speaking about a time when the curtain was not hanging in its place. For if it is hanging in its place, it is considered as part of the structure and it does not contract ritual impurity.

It was immersed in "the Sea of Solomon," a large copper receptacle in the Temple Courtyard. That immersion was acceptable, because that receptacle received its water directly from underground springs.

This type of impurity was instituted by Rabbinic decree and they did not impose the stringency of waiting until sunset (see Hilchot Sha’ar Avot Ha Tuma’ah 9:1; 12:6).

For an article that is ritually impure may not be brought within the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:17).

The rampart surrounding the wall of the Temple Courtyard (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3).

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:1.

The Ra’avad maintains that this officer was in charge of dressing the priests (and not necessarily preparing their garments). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:1), the Rambam writes that this officer would perform both functions.

In the Temple Courtyard, next to the Gate of Nicanor. See Midot 1:4.