Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 1

This excludes a challal, a son born to a priest from a forbidden relationship, and a priest who has a disqualifying physical blemish. They are not liable for this severe punishment.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 73) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 152) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note also the parallels in Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:4.

I.e., ascends the steps to the Temple building or enters that structure. See also Halachah 15 and notes.

If he entered this area while intoxicated, but did not perform service, he is only liable for lashes, as stated in Halachah 15. Similar concepts apply if he drank intoxicating beverages while in this area (Halachah 16).

The services for which he is liable are described in Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

He may, however, be punished by a mortal court with lashes and thus freed from the more severe spiritual punishment. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2.

A liquid measure equal to 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish. [It is reputed that the wines of the Talmudic era were very strong and drinking even this small amount could cause intoxication.]

And thus has had time to ferment and reach an alcoholic content sufficient enough to cause intoxication.

Since he paused while drinking it, its intoxicating effect will be less.

Even if one drank the entire quantity, since it was diluted, it will have a lesser effect.

Since its alcoholic content will not be that high, one is not liable. There is, nevertheless, a prohibition against serving in the Temple even when having drunk such wine (Kessef Mishneh).

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that although serving in the Temple in such a condition is forbidden, the priest is not liable for such severe punishment, nor is his service disqualified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of Keritot 13b that substantiate the Rambam’s position.

One of the opinions in Keritot 13b derives this concept from the literal meaning of Leviticus 10:9, translated above as: “Do not drink intoxicating wine,” i.e., it interprets the term vesheicher according to its simple meaning, i.e., an alcoholic beverage other than wine. There is another opinion in that source that interprets vesheicher as an adjective (which we have translated as “intoxicating”) describing the manner in which one drinks wine. Apparently, the Rambam does not see the two interpretations as mutually exclusive. See Kessef Mishneh. See also Halachah 15.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., where the Rambam links the two prohibitions in the same negative commandment. One is not, however, liable for death for delivering a ruling while intoxicated. Note the discussion of this matter by the Ramban and Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot.

One of the eight forbidden teeming animals mentioned in Leviticus 11:29-30. A frog is not one of those animals.

I.e., a directive for actual practice.

Note the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 7:5) which quotes an opinion stating that it is permitted to rule in cases involving financial law when slightly intoxicated.

A Talmudic measure equivalent to a kilometer. If he rode rather than walked, he must ride three mil (Eruvin 64b).

Who serve in the Temple that week. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3, 11.

As stated in that source, on each particular day, there was a clan whose members would perform the Temple service for that day.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the intent of Ta’anit 17a (the Rambam’s source) is not the night before the priests serve in the Temple, but the night afterwards. They are forbidden because it is possible that they will have to continue offering the limbs and fat-tails of the animals at night if they were not able to offer them during the day.
The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s interpretation, explaining that there is no need to prohibit the priests from drinking wine the entire night for this reason. It is sufficient for them to be abstinent until these limbs have been offered.

Were it not for the reason mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah, this law would apply even in the present era. This is a decree, enacted lest the Temple be rebuilt and the priests be required to serve at their appointed time.

Lest he be drinking on a day forbidden for him.

I.e., his lack of knowledge of his watch and clan.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the reason why there is no decree against the priests drinking wine in the present age. He rejects the Rambam’s view, because with Mashiach’s coming, the lineage of the priests will be established according to the spirit of prophecy (see Hilchot Melachim 12:3) and the priests will immediately be called upon to begin their service in the Temple. Instead, the rationale is that because of the length of the exile, we do not expect that the Temple will be built instantaneously. [This is also the view of Rashi (Ta’anit 17a)]. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s view, noting that according to the Rambam, we may offer sacrifices even if the Temple is not rebuilt (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) and furthermore, the establishment of the priest’s lineage even through the spirit of prophecy will not take only one day.

See Halachah 11 for a definition of this term.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 163) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 149) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the objections of the Ramban to the inclusion of this charge as one of the mitzvot and the resolutions offered by Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot.

The law that applies if he does not perform service is explained in Halachah 15.

As stated in Halachah 1.

The prooftext for this prohibition from the Torah (Leviticus 10:6), “Do not let [the hair of] your heads grow long,” is not sufficient, because that could be interpreted as merely granting license for Aaron’s sons to conduct themselves in this manner. Other mourners must rend their garments and let their hair grow and they were not required to. The verse from Ezekiel teaches that the charge applies at all times and is not specific to that situation (Kessef Mishneh; Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.).

I.e., the equation of their service to that of intoxicated priests is not complete. The Rambam’s view is not accepted by all authorities. There are some who maintain that such a priest’s service is also disqualified. See the Ramban’s gloss to Sefer HaMitzvot.

The Ra’avad differs and, from the verse in Ezekiel cited above, understands that all priests are prohibited against growing their hair long and must take haircuts once in 30 days. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s position. See the following halachah and notes.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 5:6 where the Rambam explains the restrictions incumbent on the High Priest in greater detail. As he states there, these prohibitions apply to a High Priest even outside of the Temple and even when he is not in mourning.

See ibid. 5:7.

Hilchot Nizirut 3:2. Thus we can assume that growing one’s hair long encompasses a 30 day period.

Implied is that if a priest does not desire to serve, he is not required to cut his hair (Kessef Mishneh).

This does not refer to the priestly garments, for the priestly garments are not washed (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:5). Instead, the intent is the priest’s personal garments. As a mark of respect, he should ascend to the Temple in freshly laundered clothes (Yeri’ot Shlomo).

Note a parallel decree in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 7:19. See also Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 6:11.

Although doing so is usually forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov, loc. cit. Here leniency was granted, because he is considered to have been held back from cutting his hair before the festival by forces beyond his control.

And not during the festival.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 164) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 150) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In this instance as well, the Ramban objects to the inclusion of this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot.

This ruling appears in direct contradiction to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 8:4 where the Rambam writes: "If [the priestly garments] were muddy, torn, longer than his appropriate measure... and a priest performed service while wearing them, his service is invalid." Among the resolutions offered is that in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, the Rambam is speaking about clothes that remain torn (therefore, even after the fact, the service is invalid), while here he was speaking about torn garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains, here the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made when one rends his garments in mourning (which can be mended) as indicated in the following halachah, and there, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many places.

This expression indicates a conclusion which the Rambam reached through the process of deduction and not derived from any specific source.

The Ra’avad agrees that this law applies to a priest that ascends the altar in these unkempt states, but differs with regard to a priest who proceeds further and ascends the steps of the Temple. He maintains that entering that area in these unkempt states is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. The Kessef Mishneh offers an explanation that justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

I.e., as a conscious transgression.

The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of the Rambam’s source, the Sifra to Parshat Shemini. The Kessef Mishneh and others offer support for the Rambam’s interpretation.

As explained in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 7, the other areas of the Temple Mount have a lesser degree of holiness.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., which speaks of the command to fear the Temple.

Or a Levite as will be explained.

Rambam LeAm gives the example of the prophet Samuel who was a Nazirite and hence, allowed his hair to grow long. Nevertheless, he combed it until it was attractive and hence, he was allowed to remain in the Sanctuary of Shiloh.