Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 13:12 which states:
Why did the Levites not receive a portion in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael and in the spoils of war like their brethren? Because they were set aside to serve God and minister unto Him and to instruct people at large in His just paths and righteous judgments, as [Deuteronomy 33:10] states: “They will teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah to Israel.” Therefore they were set apart from the ways of the world.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 23) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 394) include this mitzvah in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Sifri to the prooftext quoted states that they can be compelled to do so against their will.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 8, which describes the guarding of the Temple.

See I Chronicles 9:17-26 which lists the Levites who carried out this function. The guards would serve as watchmen and not perform any physical work. The gatekeepers performed physical activities, opening the gates, closing them, and locking them.

I.e., the daily offerings and the special offerings brought on Sabbaths, Rashei Chadashim, and holidays.

As a prooftext for this concept, Arachin 11b cites Numbers 10:10: “And you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over peace offerings.” The plural term implies offerings that are brought for the entire Jewish people.

Arachin, loc. cit., associates the wine libations with song, stating: “Song is recited only over wine.” See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:5.

See Hilchot Shekalim 4:9 for a description of these sacrifices.

With this phrase, Rambam is referring to both wine libations brought by individuals and those brought by the community but which were not brought on the same day as the sacrifice with which they were associated. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:8.

I.e., a close relative died that day (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:9).

In contrast to a priest who may not offer a sacrifice while in such a state (ibid.:6).

Arachin 13b explains that there were at least twelve musical instruments playing each day. And there was one singer corresponding to every one of these instruments.

The platform of three steps that divided between the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Courtyard of the Priests.

Indeed, the fact that a person had served on the duchan is a sign of his lineage.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:3), the Rambam describes these instruments at length.

Indeed, II Chronicles 5:12 speaks of 120 trumpeters.

The preceding verse speaks of sounding the trumpets as an outcry of distress. This mitzvah is described in Hilchot Ta’aniot, ch. 1. In his Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 59), the Rambam writes that the two soundings of the shofar are considered as a single mitzvah.

Numbers 10:2 speaks of beating out the silver and forming trumpets in that manner.

Our translation follows the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:3). Rashi, Arachin 10a, offers a different interpretation, explaining that all melodies were concluded by a long note from a lone flute.

I.e., on these days, the Levites would sing the Hallel and be accompanied by the flutes alone. On the other days of the year, they would be accompanied by the other instruments.

On the 14th of Nissan.

I.e., on Pesach Sheni, on the 14th of Iyar. Those who did not bring a sacrifice on the first Pesach had the opportunity to compensate by bringing the sacrifice a month later (Hilchot Korban Pesach, ch. 5).

This also applies with regard to the sounding of the other musical instruments. A flute is mentioned, because a flute was also sounded in association with the water libation (see Hilchot Lulav 8:13) and the sounding of the flute at that time did not supersede the Sabbath prohibitions (Rashi, Sukkah 50b).

For it is forbidden to sound musical instruments on the Sabbath.

As evident from Chapter 5, Halachah 15, the attainment of manhood mentioned here apparently refers to reaching the age of Bar Mitzvah. Hence the commentaries question the Rambam's statements, for they apparently contradict his statement made previously, that a Levite must be 30 to begin his service. The Radbaz and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that the obligation to be 30 applied only when the Sanctuary was being transported. (Just as the disqualification at age 50 applied only in the era when the Sanctuary was transported, so too, the obligation to be 30 applied only then.) In other eras, all that was necessary was that the Levite study the necessary laws for five years.

See Sefer HaMitzvot,, General Principle 3, which mentions this issue.

As a priest is (see Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 6).

Chullin 24a states that the Levites on the duchan must sing in a manner that their voices sound like one voice. If the voice of a particular Levite becomes spoiled and he is no longer capable of singing in this manner, he is unfit to perform this service.

Indeed, even in the era when the Sanctuary was transported, an elderly person was disqualified only from carrying it. He could serve as a watchman or a singer even then (Har HaMoriah).

Ta’anit 27a derives this concept from I Chronicles 9:22.

The designation of the clans and thus the determination of who would be serving in the Temple on a particular day was the responsibility of the head of the watch (Kessef Mishneh).

This is part of the prohibition mentioned in the following halachah.

This is derived from the law mentioned in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 11:11 that when the table for the Showbread was displayed to the people, they were warned not to touch it lest it become impure. One can infer that there is no difficulty in touching it per se, only in making it impure (Har HaMoriah). The commentaries have noted that Numbers 4:15 specifically mentions that the Levites should not touch the sacred utensils and that doing so was punishable by death. It is, however, possible to explain that this stringency only applied during the time the Sanctuary was transported through the desert and not in subsequent generations.

As stated in the previous halachah.

The Levites.

The priests.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative mitzvah 72) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 389) include the prohibition against performing service designated for someone else in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s ruling, because according to Arachin 11b, the source for the Rambam’s ruling, it would appear that someone who merely renders assistance is not liable for violating a Scriptural commandment.

Implying that the violation of this commandment makes one liable to die.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that the priests are also liable for death, noting that this is stated in Arachin, loc. cit. The Or Sameach notes that the Sifri Zuta (which the Rambam quotes in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., also quoted by the Yalkut Shimoni) to the verse rules differently, distinguishing between the priests and the Levites, leaving room for the Rambam’s decision.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 32) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 269) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., to receive the first aliyah in the public reading of the Torah.

I.e., to recite the blessing HaMotzi and to lead the Grace (Rashi, Gittin 59b).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin 5:8), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies only when there are no sages present whose knowledge surpasses that of the priest. If such sages are present, they are given priority.

More particularly, Samuel divided them into 16 watches and David, into 24 (Ta’anit 27a).

The changing of the watches was marked by the division of the showbread. The entering watch would receive six loaves and the departing watch, six loaves. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 36) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 509) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
There is, however, a difference between the definition of the mitzvah here and that of Sefer HaMitzvot. In that source, the Rambam describes the mitzvah as creating the watches, while here he defines it as allowing all of the watches to serve during the festivals.

All the commentaries agree that this verse is referring to a priest, who is a descendant of the tribe of Levi. See the conclusion of Halachah 6.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers both to the communal offerings required to be offered on the festivals and the individual offerings which people would bring as part of their pilgrimage obligations.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12.

See ibid. 8:11.

A pledge to bring a particular type of sacrifice (see Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).

A pledge to bring a designated animal as a sacrifice (ibid.).

I.e., although all the priests had license to come and serve in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, there was also one watch which was designated to serve at that time, and that watch was entrusted with offering these sacrifices.

The difference between the two is that the showbread is not offered because of the festival (but is instead, an ongoing obligation for every Sabbath), while the two loaves are (Radbaz).

We have translated the word she’arecha figuratively as “your cities,” even though it literally means “your gates.” The implication is that the verse is speaking about a time when all of Israel come to one city, Jerusalem, for the pilgrimage festivals.

For it mentions Levites.

I.e., even if it is not the time when his watch was designated to serve.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the priest who brought the sacrifice has the right to partake of it and benefit from its hide, even if he did not offer it. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh debate these two perspectives based on Bava Kama 110a.

In which instance, he is forbidden to bring his own sacrifice.

This follows the version of Bava Kama 109b cited by Rashi. The standard published text follows a different version. Since he is unable to offer the sacrifice, he may not appoint an agent to offer it, but instead, must give it to the members of the watch. Since they offer it, they are entitled to its hide. The owner of the sacrifice may, however, receive a portion of the meat of the sacrifice since he is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat.

Since it is possible for him to serve, he may appoint an agent to act as the owner of the sacrifice.

According to Rashi (ibid. 110a), it appears that the intent is the priests of the watch are given the right to partake of the sacrifice. Since the owner could not partake of it himself, he cannot appoint an agent to do so.

Since he cannot serve himself, he cannot appoint an agent to serve in his place.

I.e., all the priests found in Jerusalem at that time, including those of other watches.

In which instance, the communal sacrifices may be offered by the priests while in a state of impurity, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:12. Individual sacrifices may not be offered by impure priests even under these circumstances.

In such a situation, the sacrifice should be brought in a state of ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the sacrificial meat itself was ritually pure and it should be eaten by a priest who is ritually impure. Since the priest who is physically blemished is ritually pure and is part of the watch which is serving, he should be given the meat to eat.

A blemished priest cannot perform service in the Temple even in such a situation.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and states that the sacrifice should be given to any priest to offer even though that priest is impure and the right to partake of the sacrifice and use the hide should be given to the priests of that watch who have physical blemishes. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam’s intent is that a priest with physical blemishes should receive the meat. The hide, however, belongs to the priests who offered it.

His mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, or wife died that day.

Hence he can appoint an agent.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:6. The High Priest may offer sacrifices while in a state of acute mourning, but may not partake of them. Other priests are not allowed to offer sacrifices in this state.

The Radbaz implies that the division was a creative one and that each week, the head of the watch would make a division according to his perception of the needs of the Temple service for that week.

By the High Court of 71 judges as stated in Halachah 15.

Described in Chapter 1, in particular, Halachot 7 and 9.

The eight garments described in Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2. An ordinary priest wears four priestly garments and the High Priest, eight.

As was the case in the latter years of the First Temple and throughout the Second Temple period (see Chapter 1, Halachah 8).

The term marbeh begadim, literally, “increased [his] garments,” is used to described this initiation, because he is garbed with the eight garments of the High Priest as opposed to the four of an ordinary priest.

The Radbaz explains that the paradigm for this was set by the initiation of Aaron in the High Priesthood at the time of the dedication of the Sanctuary. Although Aaron was anointed on the first day, Moses served as a High Priest for the first seven days (Radbaz).

Implied is that the initial preference is for him not to perform service. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the obligation to be initiated for seven days before serving applies only with regard to the Yom Kippur service, but not with regard to other matters.

Thus including only a High Priest who was anointed.

See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 15, for a description of the details of this sacrifice.

Sanhedrin 16a derives this from the advice Yisro gives to Moses (Exodus 18:22): “Any great matter (hadavar hagadol) will be brought to you.” Implied is that matters that involve gadlus (greatness) - including the appointment 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.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, 13.

A Greek term meaning “general officer.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:2), the Rambam states that there should never be fewer than two people appointed to take care of communal matters.

Horiot 13a interprets this as a composite of two Aramaic terms meaning “appointed over all.” See also the Targum to Numbers 3:32 which uses this term to translate nasi, “prince.” The Radbaz notes that the word emir in Arabic means “officer.”

I.e., there were seven keys to the Temple Courtyard and each one had one key (Tosefta, Shekalim). In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:5, the Rambam states that the keys to the Sanctuary were entrusted to the elders of the clan. Perhaps the intent is that the elders of the clan were in fact the amerkalin (Ma’aseh Roke’ach). Based on the following halachah, that would seem unlikely (Kin’at Eliyahu). See also Chapter 7, Halachah 3, which speaks about a priest appointed to lock the gates of the Temple. Perhaps the intent is that the keys belonged to the amerkalin and each night, they would entrust them to others.

I.e., those that could be used for the Temple or its service itself should be used for that purpose and not redeemed.

Horiot 13a states that he is given precedence with regard to providing him with his livelihood (and by extension, redeeming him from captivity and returning his lost article). Seemingly, this order also applies - albeit with certain exceptions - with regard to establishing a hierarchy of honor.

The Ritba (in his gloss to Makkot 11a) questions the source of the Rambam's ruling, Horiot, loc. cit. For seemingly, until the oil of anointment was entombed, there were only anointed High Priests and there were none initiated by wearing the priestly garments. And after it was entombed, there were no longer any anointed High Priests. And yet, the passage in Horiot appears to imply that they were contemporaries.
The Ritba offers a resolution, explaining that, in the era of the First Temple, if a High Priest that was anointed was forced to be absent from the Temple for an extended period, e.g., he became ill or was taken captive, a substitute was appointed to serve as a High Priest in his place. He was not anointed, because there may never be two anointed High Priests at the same time, but instead, was initiated in his office by wearing the garments of the High Priesthood.

A priest who experiences a seminal emission becomes impure and is therefore disqualified from offering sacrifices or performing any other service in the Temple until he regains ritual purity.

For the one disqualified because of a seminal emission is fit for service after he becomes pure, while a blemished priest will never become fit. Even if the blemish can be healed, until it is healed, he is unfit.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

Nazir 47b states that with regard to providing one with his livelihood, the priest appointed to lead the nation in war receives precedence over the segan, because the nation as a whole is dependent on him.

The priest appointed to lead the nation in war is not counted, because he is not involved in the Temple service. Nor are those disqualified because of blemishes or impurity counted, because they do not exist at all times. Similarly, only one level of High Priest is counted, because generally, there was either an anointed High Priest or one installed through wearing the garments. Usually, both did not exist together. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., any male. Although females are fit to inherit in certain circumstances, they should not be given any positions -of authority among the Jewish people. See Hilchot Melachim 1:5.

The order of inheritance is listed in Hilchot Nachalot, ch. l.

Hilchot Melachim 1:7 states that he must be equivalent to his predecessor in both wisdom and the fear of God in order to inherit the position. The commentaries suggest emending the text here to follow that reading, because the fear of God is the very foundation of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people. Anyone who lacks that quality can never be a competent leader, as the Rambam states there: “[However,] under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge.”

In the above source, the Rambam states: “He should be granted his father’s position and given instruction.” In that vein, Ketubot 103b describes how Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi instructed that his son Gamliel be given his position, even though his knowledge was not as great as his father’s.
If, however, a son is not comparable to his father in the fear of heaven, he should not be given his position at all. The Kessef Mishneh cites the interpretation of Leviticus 16:32 which describes the High Priest as one “who was anointed to fill the place of his ancestor.” Torat Kohanim (Tzav) comments: “Should he be anointed even though he does not ‘fill the place’ [i.e., does not equal the level of his] ancestors? No; the Torah states ‘fill the place.’ If he is not equal to his father, the position should be granted to someone else.”

See Sifri, Shoftim.
This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam’s decision has frequently been challenged.
Maharshdam (Yoreh De’ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states “Torah cannot be inherited.”
However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De’ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov 6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to Rabbinical positions.
The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer’s lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that Rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted a son his father’s position by inheritance,
In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father’s position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father’s position at all, it may be given to another person.

The Radbaz maintains that this ruling has to do with the unique function this priest serves. Since he leads the nation in war, it is a life or death question and the most capable person is chosen whether he is the heir or not.
In a responsum (Orach Chayim 12), the Chatam Sofer takes the opposite perspective, explaining the distinction between this and other positions which are inherited as follows: The kingship and other similar positions are appointments associated with leadership. Hence if the heir is fundamentally capable, he inherits his father’s position. The priest who leads the nation in war, by contrast, is an appointment based on holiness. That is not transferred by inheritance. Indeed, the High Priesthood would not be transferred by inheritance were there not a specific verse commanding us. to do so.

There is no obligation either way.

While he leads them in war, he wears the eight garments of the High Priest (see Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Although he was anointed, he is not given the status of a High Priest and wears the garments of an ordinary priest.

This is a principle applied in several contexts of Torah law. See Menachot 11:7; Hilchot Tefilah 3:16; Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16.

Once he is removed from his position, he should not be reinstated. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:9.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:4. Although a case involving a question of capital punishment for a High Priest is judged by a court of 71 judges [rather than the usual 23 (ibid.:1)], we do not say that as a measure of respect for his position, he should be judged by a court of 23 judges. For if he is held liable, he will be lashed in their presence and this will be a public dishonor [Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:1)].

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that this comes as a result of the holiness with which the High Priest is endowed. It is a microcosm of God’s holiness and hence, like His holiness cannot be nullified.

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.