Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Samuel and David (Ta’anit 27a).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ta’anit 4:2), the Rambam writes: “Their intent and their goal was involvement in Divine service and prayer. They were not occupied with their own concerns. Their minds and their thoughts were on the sacrifices.”

Ma’amad literally means “standing,” because they would stand over the sacrifice or stand in prayer, as stated in Halachah 5. The term also has the connotation ofdignified position.

So that they would have the energy to make their Sabbath preparations.

This would weaken them exceedingly (ibid.).

Neilah means “closing.” Hilchot Tefilah 1:7 states that the Men of the Great Assembly ordained “a prayer after the afternoon service [to be recited] close to sunset on fast days only to increase supplication and pleading due to the fast. This is called the neilah service, as if to say the gates of heaven are being closed.” Since the men of the ma’amad were observing an ordained fast, they would recite this service as well.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that there was not an extra service ordained especially for the men of the ma’amad. If the Mishnah spoke of Musaf, the additional service, in this context, the intent was a day like Rosh Chodesh when Musaf would be recited by the entire Jewish people. The Radbaz supports the Rambam’s opinion, explaining that during this prayer service they would pray that the sacrifices be accepted and that Jews in situations of danger be saved.

They would not bless the people in the afternoon service, because generally, it was suspected that a priest might be intoxicated in the afternoon and it is improper to bless the people in such a state. Hence, our Sages forbade the recitation of the priestly blessing in the afternoon service at all times. They allowed it to be recited in the Neilah service, because the Neilah service is only recited on a fast day. In later generations, it became customary to recite the priestly blessing (or in the Ashkenazic community, the passage Eloheinu V’Elohei Avoseinu) in the afternoon service, because at present, it is customary to recite the afternoon service late on a fast day. Hence, it resembles the Neilah service and will not be confused with an ordinary afternoon service. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taanit 4:1), Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 14:1-2.

The Ra’avad differs here as well and states that there is no extra service and, hence, no extra Torah reading, except on a day when Musaf is recited.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:2), the Rambam explains that this subject was chosen, because the ultimate fulfillment of existence is the service of sacrificial worship, as implied by Ta’anit 27b: “Were it not for the sacrifices, the heavens and the earth would not be maintained.”

On each day, they would read the passage associated with that and the following day of creation.

I.e., three aliyot were given out for each reading. If the passage was large—i.e., it contained eight verses—two aliyot were given in it and the third aliyah was given for the second passage that accompanied it.

I.e., read from the Torah or recite the readings by heart [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:4)].

Since they would recite the Hallel prayers that day. As Taanit 4:4 states: Whenever Hallel was recited [and the Musaf service was not recited (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah)], there was no ma'amad. The rationale is that since the recitation of Hallel took time, no further obligations were imposed on the men of the ma'amad.

I.e., on the intermediate days of the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh.

For they were occupied with the sacrifice of the Musaf service.

See the following halachah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:5), the Rambam refers to Nechemiah 10:35 which speaks of casting lots for the wood offering. Implied is that different families were allotted the responsibility for bringing wood for the altar and were given different days to bring that wood. On that day, in addition to the wood, they would bring other sacrifices, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

For bringing wood is considered equivalent to bringing a sacrifice and the day on which a person brings a sacrifice is considered as his private festival.

And certainly on Friday (Rambam LeAm).

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:17, 12.

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.

As mentioned in the notes to the previous chapter, the Radbaz explains that this is implied by the very Hebrew term used for linen sheish, for that term also means “six.” See Halachah 14.

The Torah (Exodus 39:29) mentions the use of woolen fabrics only with regard to the sash of the High Priest, but through the process of Biblical exegesis, our Sages (Yoma 12b) also derived that the sash of an ordinary priest also contains these fabrics.

Although the combination of these fabrics violates the prohibition against shaatnez (see Hilchot Kilayim, ch. 12), the positive commandment of wearing the Priestly Garments overrides the negative commandment of shaatnez. Nevertheless, this applies only when it is a mitzvah to wear them, i.e., when involved in the Temple service. Otherwise, it is forbidden to wear them (Hilchot Kilayim 10:3).

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, these garments were not all golden. Nevertheless, they are called golden because certain garments were golden.

Exodus 28:39.

Exodus 28:4.

Ibid.:40.

The Kessef Mishneh cites the Ramban who states that the headgear of both the ordinary priests and the High Priests were turbans. This is also indicated by Halachah 18 which speaks of their length. The turban of the High Priest, however, was round, while those of the ordinary priests were cone-shaped like hats. Other authorities (Rashi and the Ra’avad) differ and maintain that the ordinary priests wore hats and not turbans.

With regard to this point as well, the Kessef Mishneh cites the Ramban who states that the letters kuf and gimmel can be interchanged. Thus migba’at parallels mikva’at that relates to the word kova, hat.

More particularly, they are the garments that he would wear when he performed the service unique to Yom Kippur. For he would also wear his golden garments on that day and carry out the service that was also performed on other days while wearing them. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:1.

I.e., even the sash was made from linen alone. On this day, it was not of shaatnez.

To perform the sacrificial service of Yom Kippur.

To remove from the Holy of Holies the ladle that had carried the incense.

A maneh is 100 silver pieces. Thus these were very expensive garments, made of fine fabric. The commentaries note that Yoma 35a states that the garments the High Priest would wear in the morning were more valuable than those he would wear in the evening and question why the Rambam does not mention this point. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 3:7) which states that the only difference between the two was their cut.

I.e., funds from terumat halishkah, the Temple treasury collected to purchase the communal sacrifices and all their needs. See Halachah 7 and Hilchot Shekalim 4:2.

Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary to Zevachim 18b.

The commentaries have drawn attention to an apparent contradiction in the Rambam’s words, for in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 1:14, he rules that, after the fact, when a priest performs service in torn garments, although he is liable to die at the hand of heaven, his service is acceptable. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking about clothes that remain torn. Hence, it is as if he is no longer wearing that garment. In Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, by contrast, he is speaking about torn garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains (in his gloss there), the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made when one rends his garments in mourning which can be mended. Here, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many places.

I.e., they should reach slightly above the ground, extending until above the priest's heel (Halachah 17). If they drag along the ground, they are disqualified. That is the intent of the phrase "too long" mentioned later (Kessef Mishneh).

It is as if the material hoisted up by the sash was cut off (Zevachim 18b).

It is as if he performed the service without wearing priestly garments at all.

For there should be no expressions of poverty in a place of wealth (Zevachim 88b).

I.e., the golden garments.

Although this is not stated explicitly, it is deduced from a comparison to the white garments (Yoma 12b).

These were not used for the Menorah. The rationale is that since the sash contains wool, it will not serve as an effective wick (see Shabbat 20b,21a). And it is improper to use the leggings for that purpose since the priest wore them on his lower body (Tifferet Yisrael, Sukkah 5:3).

See the conclusion of Hilchot Lulav where this rejoicing is described. Significantly, however, there the Rambam does not connect the rejoicing with the water libation.

The Kessef Mishneh asks why the Rambam does not mention the hats of the ordinary priests. He offers two possible resolutions:
a) their fabric was thin and not suitable for wicks at all;
b) they were in fact used for the Menorah.

In contrast to the lamps for the water libation rejoicing which took place only during the Sukkot holiday.

I.e., generally, we think of the community purchasing these items by using funds from the Temple treasury. If, however, an individual donates these substances to the Temple treasury they also become communal property and then can be used for whatever purpose the community desires.

I.e., a set with four garments: leggings, a tunic, a sash, and a hat.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 5:6), the Rambam speaks of 24 lockers. Rambam LeAm suggests that each watch had one large locker which in tum had four compartments.

Having the garments sorted individually made it easier for the priests to put on the garments in the proper order: first, the leggings, then, the tunic, the sash, and the hat [see Chapter 10, Halachah 1; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:3)].

The Chamber of the High Priest. See Chapter 5, Halachah 7.
Har HaMoriah writes that since the Talmud does not mention that there was a locker for the High Priest’s garments, we can assume there was none and that he would leave them in his chamber.

Tosafot, Yoma 69a, suggests that as an initial preference, a priest should not benefit from them. In practice, however, that is not possible, because “the Torah was not given to the ministering angels” and it is impossible for the priests to remove the priestly garments immediately after their Temple service was completed (Kiddushin 54b). Hence they were consecrated with the stipulation that the priests would derive personal benefit from them.

A prohibited mixture of fabrics. During the Temple service, however, it may be worn, because then it is a mitzvah to do so and the observance of a positive mitzvah supersedes the observance of a prohibition. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the sash may be worn throughout the day, as long as the priest is in the Temple.
Rav Yosef Corcus mentions that the ephod and the breastplate of the High Priest also involved a forbidden mixture of fabrics. He explains, however, that according to the Rambam, the prohibition against mixed fabrics does not apply to them, because they are not worn to provide the body with warmth, and if a garment is worn for a purpose other than that, this prohibition does not apply (Hilchot Kilayim 10:19).

See Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at 1:4 where the Rambam defines patuch as a color mixed with white. See also Hilchot Tzitzit 2:1.

There are some who interpret the term as referring to a purplish dye. Others explain that it is mixture of several dyes of thread. See Ra’avad and Kessef Mishneh.

See Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:2 where the Rambam writes that this dye is produced from a seed that has a small gnat in it that produces a scarlet color.

I.e., one strand made up of six thinner threads.

Often translated as twisted.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:1). The boxes were indented slightly, like small pockets.

For as mentioned in Halachah 4, the priests’ garments should be made to fit to their measure, neither too long, nor too short. Compare to the description of the clothes of Torah scholars in Hilchot De’ot 5:9.

To tighten them around the priest’s waist.

As explained in Halachah 2, according to the Rambam, the difference was the manner in which they wrapped the turbans. The actual cloth was the same.

A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah.