Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The commentaries, basing themselves on the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 2:5), explain that this figure was derived as follows:
Exodus 27:18 states: “The length of the courtyard shall be 100 cubits and its width, 50 by 50.” This verse can obviously not be understood literally, for area has only two coordinates. Hence, the Sages explained that rather than refer to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the verse describes a measure related to the future Sanctuaries. The Temple Mount measured a total of 50 x 100 x 50 cubits in area, i.e., a total of 250,000 sq. cubits.
The Piskei Tosafot (Middot 5) relate that the total area of the Temple Mount was greater than 250,000 sq. cubits. However, only the latter figure was consecrated.

With the exception of the wall on the eastern side, the walls on all sides were very high. We know that their gates were 20 cubits high and the walls themselves were even higher. In modem terms, that would mean at least 10 meters (32.5 feet high).

Tumat Ohel refers to ritual impurity contracted by being under the same tent or structure as a corpse. Even though the corpse is buried, ritual impurity can be contracted unless there is a vacant space between the corpse and the earth above it. To prevent the possibility of impurity from a grave under the Temple courtyard, the entire earth below was hollowed out. See Parah 3:3.

Though the Mishnah (Parah, loc. cit.) states that the earth beneath the Temple was hollowed out, it does not mention the construction of arches. However, since the Mishnah (ibid.:6) states that arches supported the ramp leading from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, we may assume that a similar technique was used in this instance (Kessef Mishneh). See also the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

With the exception of the Temple Courtyard.

Rashi (Pesachim 13a) explains that this roof was built to protect the visitors to the Temple from rain.

Middot 1:3 relates that this gate was called Kaiphonus. The Shiltei Giborim explains that this means “garden” in Greek. The name was given because a rose garden was planted outside this gate.

This gate was called the Gate of Shushan, and the image of the city of Shushan was engraved upon it. This was done at the command of King Cyrus of Persia, who gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt.

It was called the Tadi gate, meaning “hiddenness.” This gate was used when someone was forced to leave the Temple, but he did not want to publicize the circumstances (Middot 1:9, 2:2). Its construction differed from that of the other gates. Rather than have an ordinary lintel, it had two stones leaning against each other (ibid.:3).

These were the gates most frequently used to enter the Temple Mount. They were named after the prophetess Chuldah. In the time of the First Temple, she stood before these gates and urged the people to repent.
The tractate Sofrim 19:12 relates that there were two additional gates to the Temple Mount: one for mourners and one for grooms. The Jewish people would sit between these two gates waiting to console the mourners and join in the celebration of the grooms. The Kaftor ViPerach states that these gates were on the east, to the north of the gate of Shushan. They were called the “gates of mercy.” Today, that term is used to refer to the two gates on the east side of the Temple Mount, which can be seen from the Mount of Olives and are permanently shut.

This was the standard size of the gates in the Temple complex.

In contrast to the gateway to the Entrance Hall, which had no doors.

Made of wooden shafts arranged in a crisscross pattern.
An Overview of the Temple Mount
A - The Wall Surrounding the Temple
B - The Eastern Gate (The Gate of Shushan)
C - The Chulda Gates
D - The Lattice-work Partition
E - The Gateway through the Partition and the Chayl
F - The Chayl
G - The Gate to the Women’s Courtyard
H - The Women’s Courtyard
I - The Gates of Nicanor
J - The Temple Courtyard
K - The Temple Building
L - The Gates of Mercy
M - The Chamber of the Hearth
N -The Todi Gate
0 - The Kaiphonus Gate

Rabbenu Asher explains that this structure was constructed to allow the articles to be carried on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was made 10 handbreadths high. The Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall and, therefore, could not be considered a public domain. Nonetheless, its size exceeded the limits placed by the Sages, and without this partition, there would have been a Rabbinic prohibition against carrying on the Sabbath.
The Tosafot Yom Tov (Middot 2:3) objects to this reasoning, explaining that the Rabbinic prohibitions regarding the Sabbath were generally relaxed within the Temple premises. Instead, he offers the hypothesis that this partition served to delineate the point beyond which gentiles were not allowed to proceed.

Middot 2:3 states: “The Chayl, ten cubits.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 1:4), the Rambam describes the Chayl as a rampart. He, therefore, interprets this statement as referring to its height. In contrast, Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura does not define the Chayl as a wall. Rather, he refers to it as an empty space, 10 cubits wide.

In this halachah, the Rambam does not mention the Women’s Courtyard (See Halachah 7), because he intends to list the dividers which circumscribe an area of the Temple Mount on all four sides. The Women’s Courtyard had the same dimensions as the Temple Courtyard on the north and south. Hence, it was not mentioned in this place.

See Halachot 12 and 13 where the Rambam details the space allocation of the Temple Courtyard.

This statement raises a number of problems: Three mishnayot in the tractate of Middot mention the number of gates to the Temple Courtyard:
Mishnah 1:1 states: “The Levites [stood guard] in twenty one places: five at the five gates of the Temple Courtyard….”
Mishnah 1:4 states: “There were seven gates to the Temple Courtyard….”
Mishnah 2:6 states: “Thirteen prostrations were carried out there. Abba Yossi ben Chanan declared: ‘[These were instituted] because of the thirteen gates…’”
It is difficult to conceive that the Mishnah would contradict itself within the same tractate. The apparent discrepancies can be explained as follows: The Sages do not disagree about the number of entrances to the Temple Courtyard. They did, however, debate the question of which entrance met the legal criteria for a gate. Guards were required to stand watch over every entrance that was considered a gate.
Similarly, although a person who is ritually impure may not enter the Temple premises, it is not clear whether he would be obligated to bring a sin offering if he came in through an entrance which is not considered a gate. See Chapter 8, Halachah 8, and Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p.212-217.

These gates were:
a) the gate of the spark. A two-floor structure with an entrance to the chayl.
b) the gate of the offerings. The most sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, were slaughtered on the north side of the courtyard, and were brought in through this gate.
c) the gate to the Chamber of the Hearth. See Halachah 10.

The Gate of Nicanor. It was most commonally used to enter the Temple Courtyard. The notes to the following halachah offers an explanation of that name.

This was the standard size of the gates on the Temple Mount.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 11 and 19.

As mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 6, the Temple was built on an incline and had steps leading from the Women’s Courtyard to the gate of Nicanor. Hence, the gate leading to the Women’s Courtyard was referred to as the lower gate, and the gate of Nicanor, the Upper Gate. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 7, Mishnah 6.

In honor of the noble person who donated its doors.
Yoma 38a relates that Nicanor journeyed to Alexandria to ask the skilled bronze workers there to fashion these gates. When the gates were finished, he set sail with them to return to Eretz Yisrael.
At sea, a violent storm almost capsized the vessel. After other measures failed, the crew members decided to jettison some of the ship’s cargo to reduce its weight. Immediately, they tossed one of the heavy bronzed gates to the waves.
The danger did not cease, and the crew wanted to cast the second gate overboard as well. Hearing this, Nicanor protested and declared that he would have to be thrown into the sea before the gate. Directly after he made that statement, the storm subsided and the ship was able to proceed.
Throughout the remainder of the journey, Nicanor was overcome with remorse. Why, he thought, hadn’t he defended the first gate as well? How great was his joy when the ship docked at Acre and the gate emerged from under its hull.
When the financial situation of the Jewish people improved, they replaced all the Temple’s bronze gates with gold-covered gates. Nevertheless, they allowed Nicanor’s gates to remain in memory of the miracles which occurred. The Sages declared: “Their bronze shined like gold.”

As mentioned above (Halachah 2), the main entrance to the Temple Mount was on the South. Therefore, more space was left in this direction, and more Temple functions were carried out on that side.

In deference to the Holy of Holies, no mundane business was carried on behind it. Hence, less space was left there than in the other directions.
According to most opinions, what is commonly called the Wailing Wall at which we worship today, is the western wall which surrounded the Temple Mount (Kaftor Viperach).

The Tosafot Yom Tov calculated the distances between the Temple Courtyard and the walls as follows:
Between the Courtyard and the southern wall, 250 cubits, between the Courtyard and the eastern wall, 213 cubits, between the Courtyard and the northern wall, 115 cubits, between the Courtyard and the western wall, 100 cubits.

The reason for this name is explained in Halachah 9 and notes.

Except for certain unique circumstances, people entered the Temple through this area.

The chambers were inside the walls of the Courtyard, and not on the outside.

The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) bases the latter statement on the prophecy of Ezekiel (46:21-22): “Then he took me out into the outer courtyard…. Behold, there was a chamber in each comer of the courtyard. At the four comers, there were roofless chambers….”

The chamber to the left upon entering the Women’s Courtyard.

Numbers 6:18 commands: “The Nazirite shall shave off the crown of hair on his head before the Tent of Meeting. He shall take the hair... and place it in the fire under the peace offering.” Nazir 45a explains that, in deference to the presence of the Shechinah, the shaving was not carried out before the Sanctuary itself, but rather in this chamber, while the door to the Sanctuary was open. See also Hilchot Nizirut 8:2-3.

The chamber to the right upon entering.

Leviticus 21:16-24 lists the physical deformities which disqualified a priest for Temple service and the relevant regulations. See also Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, Chapter 6.

Just as the choicest animals should be chosen for the sacrifices, so too, the wood used to burn them should be of the highest quality (Hilchot Jssurei Mizbeiach, 6:1-2).

The chamber on the right side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.

It contained a mikveh in which those seeking purification from tzara’at immersed themselves as part of their process of regaining ritual purity. See Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah, Chapter 4.

The chamber on the left side before the entrance to the Temple Courtyard.

Its name mentioned oil rather than wine, because a sacrifice is acceptable if a wine libation is lacking. In contrast, all meal offerings are invalidated if they lack oil (Yeriat Shlomo).

Women were not allowed to enter the Temple Courtyard except to perform certain rituals in connection with sacrifices which they had brought. However, they were permitted to enter this outer courtyard and therefore, it was named accordingly.

The Mishnah (Middot 2:5) relates that these balconies were a later addition to the Temple structure.
On the festival of Sukkot, the entire Jewish nation would gather in this courtyard to watch the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations (the festivities associated with the water libation). Though the men and the women were seated in separate sections, the closeness between them aroused a certain dimension of frivolity which was not appropriate to the holiness of the occasion. To avoid such circumstances, these balconies were constructed. See also Sukkot 51b.

Although the Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries explain that half of the Chamber of the Hearth was positioned within the Temple Courtyard, and half on the outside, the diagrams drawn by the Rambam depict it as being positioned entirely outside the Courtyard’s walls.

To the right upon entering the Temple Courtyard.

As a roof.

On which the priests slept at night (Tamid 1:1).

Because the priests kindled a fire there to keep warm.

Each morning, the priests entered the Courtyard through this entrance to prepare it for the morning sacrifices.

A priest who became impure at night and therefore, could not participate in the Temple services would leave through this exit

Middot 1:5 describes the chambers as resembling “bedrooms opening out to a large hallway.”

Thus they were considered extensions of the Temple Courtyard. This distinction is significant with regard to the prohibition against eating the sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity outside the Temple Courtyard.

According to the interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh mentioned above, this statement is quite clear. Two chambers were situated inside the Temple Courtyard, and two were on the outside. However, according to the Rambam, the entire structure was situated outside the Temple Courtyard. If so, how could two structures be consecrated?
This difficulty can be resolved as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aser Sheni 3:4) states that chambers which are built on ground that was not consecrated, but which open up to the Temple Courtyard, are considered as consecrated. Should they open up to the outside, they are not sacred. According to the Rambam’s diagram, the two southern chambers of the Chamber of the Hearth faced the Temple Courtyard, while the two northern chambers faced the chayl. Hence, the southern chambers alone were consecrated.
Note the accompanying diagram which was copied from the Rambam’s drawings in his Commentary to the Mishnah.
See also Chapter 6, Halachah 8.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam defines “marking posts” as “a lattice divider, sometimes made of reeds, sometimes made of wood. and at other times, made of other building materials.” They were placed on the ceiling of this structure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid, loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that the priests only slept in the part of the chamber which was not consecrated. Hence, these marking posts were useful in clarifying this matter to them.

The chamber to the right when facing the Temple Courtyard.

Here the lambs to be offered as daily sacrifices were inspected to see if they had any disqualifying blemishes. The lambs were kept in this chamber before they were sacrificed. In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:9, the Rambam writes that at least six lambs were always kept in this chamber.

The chamber to the left when facing the Temple Courtyard.

Here, the Showbread offered each Sabbath on the Golden Table was baked.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 15.

The Greeks who occupied Jerusalem before the Maccabean revolt defiled the altar by offering sacrifices to idols upon it.
Tamid 3:3 mentions that there was a Chamber of Seals within the Chamber of the Hearth. There, the priests would authorize the sale of the wine and meal offerings. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Middot 1:5), the Rambam explains that this chamber was used for that purpose in addition to the entombment of the altar’s stones.

As explained in the following halachah.

Tamid 1:1 relates that the priests slept in the Chamber of the Hearth. “If one of them had a seminal emission [in his sleep,] he would descend to the mikveh.”
The emission of semen renders a man ritually impure (Leviticus 15:16). Thus, a priest who had a nocturnal emission may not enter the Temple premises or take part in its services. The process of ritual purification involves immersion in a mikveh and waiting until nightfall. In the morning, the priest left the Temple premises through the gate leading to the chayl (Tamid, loc. cit.).

An intricate chain of underground passageways was located under the Temple Mount, including this stairwell leading to a natural reservoir of water where a mikveh was constructed.
This halachah raises a question. As mentioned above, in this condition, the priests were not able to enter the Temple premises. If so, how could they enter these passageways which passed under consecrated ground?
The commentaries answer (see Chapter 8, Halachah 7) that since these underground passageways did not open to the Temple Courtyard itself, they were not consecrated. See Pesachim 86a.

The fire that the priests kindled at night, from which the entire chamber derived its name. See Tamid 3:3.

I.e., a toilet.

Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura wrote that no one ever entered this toilet while it was occupied by another person.
There are additional references to the Chamber of the Hearth and to the stairwell leading to the mikveh in Chapter 8, Halachot 5-7.

This measure did not include the width of the courtyard’s walls.

As explained above, Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

The washbasin and the steps leading to the Entrance Hall (See Chapter 6, Halachah 4) were located here.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

When they were not directly involved with the Temple services.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

As explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 19, an Israelite was only allowed beyond this region for four reasons:
a) to perform semichah on an animal he had brought as a sacrifice;
b) to offer the confessional prayers that accompany the sacrifices;
c) to slaughter a sacrificial animal;
d) to wave the peace offerings.
The source for this halachah and those following is the fifth chapter of the tractate of Middot. It must be noted that the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah does not have a fifth chapter. Rather, all these mishnayot are included as mishnah 8 of Chapter 3.
See the diagram of the Temple Courtyard at the conclusion of this chapter.

The Rambam describes the breakdown of this figure in this and the following three halachot.

In this instance as well, the width of the courtyard’s walls are not included in the total measure.

This area included eight posts permanently affixed to the floor of the Courtyard. The posts were made of a short stone pillar in which was embedded a post of cedar wood. Each post had three iron hooks from which the sacrifices were suspended (Middot 3:5).

Also, at this time, the limbs of the animal which was suspended on these hooks were cut off, and given to the priests to bring to the altar.

Middot 5:2 states as follows:
The ramp and the altar took up 62 cubits. From the altar to the rings, there were eight cubits. The area of the rings was 24 cubits wide. There were four cubits between the rings and the tables, and four cubits from the tables to the short pillars. From the short pillars to the wall of the Courtyard were eight cubits. The remainder [of the 135 cubits] was taken up by the short pillars and by the space between the ramp and [the Courtyard’s northern] wall.
The Rambam’s interpretation of the mishnah divides the 25 remaining cubits equally between the area of the pillars, the butchering area mentioned in the previous halachah, and the space between the ramp and the southern wall. The Rambam also combined the two measurements given for the space of the tables into one figure (Kessef Mishneh).

As mentioned on several occasions above, an effort was made to use gold for all utensils in the Temple. However, marble was sometimes used, because it is a poorer conductor of heat. In this case as well, marble tables were used lest the heat cause the meat to spoil.

This statement is somewhat difficult. Tamid 4:2 states that a sacrificial animal’s internal organs, except for its stomach, were washed on these tables. It does not mention the washing of the meat at all. The Rambam states that the internal organs were washed in the Washing Chamber (see Halachah 17) and that these tables were used for washing the meat. The commentaries question the source for the Rambam’s statements (Ra’avad). Kin’at Eliyahu emphasizes that the Rambam’s wording indicates that here we are not speaking about meat offered on the altar, but meat cooked and eaten by the priests.

As a preliminary stage in the process of salting meat, the meat must be washed to remove all surface blood.

See Shekalim 3:4.
Tosafot (Yoma 16b) notes that Yoma 30b describes the tables as being placed between the pillars. Two possible explanations are offered:
a) there were two sets of tables: one between the pillars, and one to their left;
b) even though there was a small gap between the pillars and the tables, the expression “between the tables” could be used.

These rings were permanently affixed to the floor of the Temple Courtyard, at the request of Yochanan, the High Priest. The feet of an animal brought as a sacrifice were placed inside the rings to hold the animal in place while it was being slaughtered. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah 5:2. Note Rashi, Sukkah 56a for a different interpretation of the rings’ use.)
A Complete Picture of the Temple Courtyard
(Based on Diagrams Attributed to the Rambam which Accompany Rav Kapach’s Edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah)
1 - The Women’s Courtyard
2 - The Chamber in which the Lesser Sanhedrin was Sealed
3 - The Chamber of the Nazirites
4 - The Chamber of the lepers
5 - The Chamber of the Oils
6 - The Chamber of the Woodshed
7 - The Gate of Niconor
8 - The Chamber of Pinchas, the Clothes-butler
9 - The Chamber of the Bakers of the Choviton
10 - The Chamber of Salt
11 - Parve’s Chamber
12 - The Washing Chamber
13 - The Courtyard of the Israelites
14 - The Chamber of Hewn Stone
15 - The Chamber of Wood
16a - The Chamber of the Bowl
16b - The Duchon Dividing the Priestly Courtyard from the Courtyard of the Israelites
17 - The Priestly Courtyard
18 - The Tables
19 - The Short Pillars
20 - The Gateway to the Entrance Hall
21 - The Temple Building
22 - The Entrance Hall
23 - Bait HaChaliphoth
24 - The Great Gate (the Gate of the Temple)
25 - The Golden Altar
26 - The Entrance to the Temple through which the Priests would enter Each Morning
27 - The Menorah
28 - The Table for the Showbread
29 - The Curtain Dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies
30 - The Holy Ark
31 - The Holy of Holies
32 - The Washbasin
33 - The House of Avitinas
34 - The Gate to the Chamber of the Hearth
35 - The Chamber of the Hearth
36 - The Chamber where the Showbread was Baked
37 - The Chamber of the Lambs
38 - The Chamber Leading to the Mikva
39 - The Chamber where the Stones of the Altar were Entombed
40 - The Gate of the Offerings
41 - The Gate of the Spark
42 - The Gate of the Firewood
43 - The Gate of the First-born Offerings
44 - The Gate for the Water
45 - The Ramp Leading to the Altar
46 - The Altar
47 - The Area of the Rings

There were 24 rings. There is a debate in Middot 3:5 whether there were six rows of four rings, or four rows of six. Though the Rambam does not specify which opinion he follows, his diagrams which accompany his Commentary to the Mishnah apparently tend toward the former opinion.

As mentioned in Halachah 16, the sacrifices of the most sacred order had to be slaughtered in the northern portion of the courtyard. The rings included in that region were therefore used for this purpose. The sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness could be slaughtered any place within the Temple courtyard. When many people brought their sacrifices at the same time, for example on the festivals, the priests took advantage of this leniency.
Note the accompanying diagram.

See Middot 3:5.

Sec Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

See the notes to Halachah 14 of this chapter.

The wall on the right upon entering.

More specifically, the base of the altar.

That measurement can be broken down as follows:
the space between the pillars and the northern wall 8 cubits,
the area of the pillars 12.5 cubits,
the area of the tables 8 cubits,
the area of the rings 24 cubits,
the space between the rings and the altar 8 cubits.

See Halachah 12.

Leviticus 1:11 declares that the burnt offerings are to be slaughtered "on the north side of the altar." Similar instructions were given in regard to sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings.
This definition of “the northern portion” of the Temple Courtyard follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah Hanasi (Zevachim 20a).

See Middot 5:3, 4 and 1:4.

These chambers were not situated parallel to each other.

The side of the Temple Courtyard to the left when facing the Temple building.

This chamber was named after a Gentile magician who dug an tunnel under the Temple Courtyard to observe the services. He was discovered and killed on the spot (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Middot 5:3).

The Rambam writes in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:11:
It is a positive commandment to salt all sacrifices before they are brought up to the altar, as in Leviticus 2:13: “You shall offer salt on all your sacrifices.”
In Halachah 13 there, he continues:
They placed salt [on the sacrifices] in three places: in the Chamber of Salt, on the ramp [leading to the altar,] and on the top of the altar.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that salt for all the Temple’s needs was stored in this chamber.

The hides of the sacrifices were given to the priests for their private use. They were treated with salt to preserve them.
There is a difficulty with this halachah. In Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the hides were salted in the Chamber of Salt. The Lechem Mishneh resolves that difficulty by explaining that although the salt was stored in the Chamber of Salt, the actual salting of the hides was carried out in Parve’s Chamber.

On Yom Kippur, the High Priest immersed himself in the mikveh five times. Except for the first immersion, all were carried out in this mikveh (Yoma 3:3).

As meqtioned previously in Halachah 14, there is a slight difficulty with this statement. Tamid 4:2 states that the internal organs were washed on the tables, except for the lower digestive organs. They were not washed in the open since it was not proper to spill out their contents before the Temple building. However, the Rambam goes beyond that source and states that all internal organs were washed in this chamber.

Allowing access to the mikveh located there.

The name “Chamber of Wood” is somewhat problematic. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, it is forbidden to build a chamber of wood in the Temple Courtyard. The commentaries explain that the chamber itself was not made of wood. However, it was given that name either because it was used to store wood or because it had wooden paneling.

Only kings from the House of David were allowed to sit in the Temple Courtyard (Yoma 25a).

This name was given because of the seats of hewn stone upon which the Sanhedrin were seated. Two reasons are given for the placement of Israel’s highest court in the Temple Courtyard. Firstly, to a large extent, they were involved with judging cases related to the priesthood (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 6:11).
Secondly, the holiness of the Temple inspired their decisions and provided them with additional insight. Once the Sanhedrin was forced to leave this site, it was not granted the authority to judge capital cases.

Considered as part of the Temple Courtyard.

Commenting on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the chamber was situated entirely within the Courtyard. Nevertheless, half is considered unconsecrated because one entrance opened to the outside. In Chapter 6, Halachah 7, the Rambam states that even if a chamber is built within the Courtyard, if it opens to the outside, it is not considered consecrated. The Chamber of Hewn Stone had two entrances, one leading into the Temple Courtyard and one leading outside. Therefore, half was consecrated and half was not.
Nevertheless, there are unresolved difficulties concerning this Halachah. Among them:
a) How was it possible for all the judges and the students who would attend the sessions of the Sanhedrin to sit in so small an area?
b) Which entrance leading from the Courtyard is referred to? It was not mentioned among the seven gates mentioned in Halachah 5:4, nor even among the 13 gates listed in Middot 2:6.

Seven days before Yom Kippur, the High Priest left his own home and adjourned to this chamber, where he busied himself, preparing for the service of that holy day (Yoma 2a).
Yoma 8b (note Rashi’s commentary) explains that the name Parhedrin meant “officer of the king.” This name was given to this chamber in the days of the Second Temple when the High Priests would purchase this office from the king at a high price.
These “High Priests” were not righteous and as a sign of Divine retribution, they would die within a year of assuming office. Upon their death, the position would be sold again. To emphasize that these “High Priests” received the position through bribery and not through merit, they were referred to as “the officers of the king.”

Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explains that one roof was placed over all three buildings. However, the Rambam’s diagrams do not appear to subscribe to this idea.

See Middot 1:4.

The clothes-butler was responsible for weaving and knitting the priestly garments (Hilchot Klai HaMikdash 7:20).
According to the commentaries (Shekalim 5:1), the first person entrusted with this task in the second Temple was named Pinchas. Hence, all his successors were called by that name.

This term refers to a meal offering, prepared in a frying pan. The product resembled pancakes. This offering was prepared every day in this chamber and brought by the High Priest, as commanded in Leviticus 6:13-15.

This concept is explained in this and the following four halachot.
There is a homiletic aspect to the placement of the. Temple on the incline of a mountain. A Jew must realize that his advance in holy matters resembles the climbing of a mountain.
When ascending a mountain it is difficult to remain in one position. One must either climb further upward or descend. Similarly, a Jew must always strive to advance in his spiritual service. Otherwise, he is likely to fall to a lower level.

As explained in the commentary to Chapter 5, Halachah 6, a distance of approximately 213 cubits separated between the exterior wall surrounding the Temple Mount and the Eastern Wall of the Temple Courtyard. The Women’s Courtyard was 135 cubits long. A thick wall surrounded it, leaving approximately 68 cubits between that wall and the exterior wall.
According to the Rambam’s diagrams, see Chapter 5, Halachah 6, the ratio of space between the chayl and the exterior wall, and the space between the chayl and the Women’s Courtyard, was approximately 3:1. Thus, the distance mentioned here was approximately 51 cubits.

Thus, he ascended six cubits when climbing these steps. This was the size of all the steps in the Temple complex, except for the step dividing the Courtyard of the Israelites from the Priestly Courtyard. Note the accompanying diagram on the next page.

135 cubits.

The steps leading to the Temple Courtyard did not take up the entire width of the Courtyard, and the area on both sides was on the same level as the remainder of the Courtyard.

Seven and a half cubits.

Middot 2:5 relates that the steps were semicircular in shape. In the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations, during the holiday of Sukkot, the Levites stood on these steps, sang, and played music.

A distance of eleven cubits.

This step departed from the standard height of half a cubit, and served as a demarcation between the two regions.

On which the Levites would stand and chant while sacrifices were being offered, as described in Halachah 6.

Thus, the height of the platform was 3 x 1/2, for a total height of one and a half cubits.

The Priestly Courtyard was eleven cubits long. However, one and a half cubits were taken up by the Levites’ platform.

32 cubits in length. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12.

22 cubits in length,

See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

The Kessef Mishneh questions this statement. It appears to contradict two explicit statements of the Mishnah. Middot 2:3 states: “All the steps there [in the Temple complex] were half a cubit high and half a cubit wide, except for the steps of the Entrance Hall.”
Similarly, Middot 2:6 states: “Twelve steps [led to the Entrance Hall]. They were halfa cubit high and a cubit wide.”
However, Yoma 16a quotes the latter mishnah, using the same text as the Rambam uses in this halachah.

The commentaries explain that the differing heights of the various sections of the Temple Mount reflected their levels of holiness. Each level which was more sacred was actually physically higher than the preceding level. Since, as stated in the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 5, the Entrance Hall and the two inner chambers of the Sanctuary were considered one integral unit, there was no difference in altitude between them.

The 22 cubits can be broken down as follows:
The steps leading to the Woman’s Courtyard, 6 cubits
The steps leading to the Temple Courtyard, 7.5 cubits
The steps leading to the Priestly Courtyard, 2.5 cubits
The steps leading to the Entrance Hall, 6 cubits

The standard height of the gates in the Temple complex.

Five gates were placed in a straight line:
the Eastern Gate,
the gate to the chayl,
the gate to the Women’s Courtyard,
the Gate of Nicanor, and
the Gate of the Entrance Hall.
Thus, had the Temple been built on flat ground, one would have been able to see through all the gates at once. However, because the person would be looking through the gates on an upward incline, he would only be able to see the steps leading to the Entrance Hall.

All the other walls to the Temple Mount were very high. However, the eastern wall was only six cubits higher than the gate (Tifferet Yisrael, Middot 2:4).

The Parah Adumah [Red Heifer] was necessary to purify those who had come in contact with a human corpse. Regarding its slaughter, Numbers 19:3-4 commands: "He shall take it outside the camp and... take from the blood of the heifer and sprinkle it opposite the front of the Tent of Meeting." Similarly, in later generations, the Parah Adumah had to be sacrificed outside the Temple premises, but in view of the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives.

The Mount of Olives is situated directly behind the Temple Mount, with the Kidron Valley in between. The priest stood on the Mount of Olives looking toward the Temple.

As mentioned above, the mountain rose seven and a half cubits at this point. Thus, there was ample room to create storage chambers in the wall.

The Sages explain that a harp and a lyre were similar in appearance, but the lyre had more strings.

The Levites chanted Psalms while the daily communal sacrifices were offered and accompanied these songs with music. Also, on special occasions like the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations, they played music for the people. See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 3:2.

The Har HaMoriah noted that in a number of places the Talmud states that this platform was used by the Levites in the manner described above (e.g., Yoma 20a and 53a, Arichin 13b). Nevertheless, the platform was also used for other purposes. Chagigah 16a and Rosh Hashanah 31b relate that the priests stood on this platform when they blessed the people. Indeed, the Hebrew name for the platform, Duchan, has become synonymous with the priestly blessing. (It must be noted that in Hilchot Nesiat Kapaim 14:14, the Rambam writes that the priests would stand on the steps before the Entrance Hall when they blessed the people.)

In this and the following two halachot, the Rambam defines which structures of the Temple Courtyard share the sanctity of the area. This determination is significant with regard to three matters:
a) Sacrifices of the highest holy order of sanctity must be eaten within the Temple Courtyard.
b) Sacrifices of lesser degree of sanctity must be slaughtered within the Temple Courtyard.
c) Entry to the Temple Courtyard is forbidden when ritually impure.
See the Rambam’s Commentary to Ma’aser Sheni 3:8.

And does not share the sanctity of the Courtyard.

And shares that level of holiness.

Pesachim 86a explains that an exception to the latter principle was made regarding the upper storey of the Temple building itself.
I Chronicles 28:11 states: “Then David gave Solomon his son the design of the Entrance Hall, its houses, its treasure stores, its upper storeys, its inner chambers, and the place for the ark,” implying that the upper storey shared the same level of holiness as the remainder of the Temple building.

Sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal peace offerings.

Leviticus 6:6 requires the guilt offering to be eaten “in a sacred place,” I.e. within the Temple courtyard. The same ruling applies to the other sacrifices of similar status.

For example, individual peace offerings, thanksgiving offerings, or the Passover sacrifice.

Leviticus 3:8 states that individual peace offerings must be slaughtered “before the tent of meeting.” In the Temple, that phrase refers to the Temple Courtyard. The same ruling applies to other sacrifices of similar status (Zevachim 55a).

Among the chambers included in this category were those on the southern side of the Chamber of the Hearth. Though the latter was positioned outside the Temple Courtyard, these chambers were open to it. See Chapter 5, Halachah 10.

Zevachim 56a explains that these chambers are by nature unconsecrated. However, the Torah made an exception in regard to the consumption of these sacrifices.

Though there is no Scriptural prohibition against entering these chambers while ritually impure, the Sages forbade such an act.

There is not even a Rabbinic prohibition against one who is ritually impure ascending to them.

As mentioned above, many underground passageways were constructed on the Temple Mount.

And all the laws applying to the Courtyard apply to them.

Therefore, a ritually impure individual may enter them, as described in Chapter 5, Halachah 11.

I.e., the apertures in the wall.

I.e., the upper surface.

The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh question these statements. Pesachim 86a states that the wall’s upper surface is only considered an extension of the Courtyard when it is on the same level as the Courtyard (as the roofs of the chambers mentioned in Halachah 7.) If the wall is higher than the Courtyard, it is not considered consecrated.
The following explanation may be offered for the decision rendered by the Rambam: Rashi (Pesachim, loc. cit.) relates that the chayl was the major wall around the inner Temple complex and the wall of the Courtyard itself was not high. Since the Temple was built on an incline, it was possible that the latter wall would be on the same level as the floor of the Courtyard, even though the Courtyard wall was raised above the ground in front of it.
However, the Rambam himself definitely cannot accept such an interpretation. He already stated (Chapter 5, Halachah 3) that the chayl was only 10 cubits high. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it would be.the major wall surrounding the inner Temple complex. That likelihood is further reduced by the fact that the chayl was set off from the Temple Courtyard by a considerable distance, especially on the northern and southern sides. See also Tosafot Yom Tov, Middot 2:3.
The above three halachot also apply to the city of Jerusalem as a whole. As stated above, the sacrifices of the most holy order could only be eaten within the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, a limitation was placed on where the sacrifices of lesser sanctity could be eaten. One could only partake of those offerings within the confines of the city of Jerusalem, and the definition of the city’s limits were therefore of consequence. The particular decisions regarding the Courtyard’s chambers, underground passageways, and upper surfaces of the wall, refer to the counterparts of these structures at the city’s outer wall.

This decision can only be made by the Supreme Sanhedrin, the court of 71 judges who were seated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

And thus, extend the area in which sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten.

And thus, extend the area to which the three mitzvot mentioned in the notes to Halachah 7 apply.

Tosafot (Zevachim 33a) explains that since the design for the Temple was conveyed by Ruach HaKodesh, Divine inspiration, even the Sanhedrin could not add to the limits of the Courtyard unless they could find a verse in the Tanach to support their decision. The passage cited in Zevachim and similarly, Sukkot 51 b, reinforce the position of the Tosafot. However, the Yeriot Shlomo and other commentaries question whether the Rambam accepts that principle.

The Or Sameiach cites allusions from the Tanach which appear to limit the size of the Courtyard to the Temple Mount Isaiah 2:3, Zechariah 8:3, and other prophets frequently referred to “the mountain of God,” implying that the Temple could only be situated on that peak.

Here, no restrictions are placed. Indeed, the Midrash relates that in the Messianic age, Jerusalem will encompass all of Eretz Yisrael, extending until Damascus.

As the Rambam explains, the construction of the Temple and the establishment of its limits must conform to the pattern followed in the construction of the Shechinah’s first resting place, the Sanctuary in the desert. See Sh’vuot 14a, b. Therefore, the expansion cannot take place unless the conditions mentioned by the R. ambam are met.

Moses was the master of all prophets.

The stones of the breastplate of the High Priest. They served as oracles, and were consulted on all matters of national importance. See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1.
Tosafot (Sh’vuot 15a) questions the necessity for the Urim V’Tumim to be used in the establishment of the Courtyard’s limits. Aharon, the High Priest, did not don the Urim V’Tumim until after the Sanctuary was constructed and its limits established. Since these requirements were set on the basis of the pattern followed when dedicating the Sanctuary, the Urim V’Tumim should not be required for dedicating future Sanctuaries.
Among the answers given to that question are that until Aharon’s installation as High Priest, Moses served in that capacity and wore all the priestly garments (Ritbah).

Some authorities maintain that the Sanhedrin was established before the Sanctuary was built. Other opinions maintain that the Sanhedrin was only established later. Nevertheless, Moses’ participation is considered equivalent to that of the Sanhedrin.

The commentaries explain that Deuteronomy 33:5: “And he was a king in Yeshurun,” refers to Moses.

The entire procession described by the Rambam is described in detail in Sh’vuot 15a-l6a.
The source for these practices is the description of the dedication of Jerusalem in Nechemiah 12:27-44. There, it is related that:
At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, they sought Levites… to bring them to Jerusalem to carry out the dedication with joy and thanksgiving, with songs, with cymbals, with harps, and with lyres…. Then, I asked the princes of Judah to ascend the wall, and I brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings…. They ascended to the wall by the stairs of the city of David…. They offered great sacrifices that day, for God had made them rejoice with great joy…. and the joy of Jerusalem was heard from far away.

A thanksgiving offering includes three elements: the leavened breads, an animal which is sacrificed and loaves of unleavened bread.
Sh’vuot, loc. cit., explains that the leavened breads were chosen because Nechemiah’s description of Jerusalem’s dedication relates that he “brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings.” That phrase alludes to the leavened breads of the thanksgiving offerings which rose, and thus, were more substantial than the unleavened breads.

The bracketed addition was made on the basis of Rashi’s commentary, Sh’vuot 16b.

Sh’vuot, loc. cit. relates that the leaders of the people, the Sanhedrin, followed the thanksgiving offerings when Ezra and Nechemiah dedicated the city of Jerusalem.
This halachah is taken from the Mishnah, Sh’vuot 2:2. Many versions of that mishnah, including the one quoted in the Talmud, add the phrase: “And all of Israel followed after them.” However, the Rambam’s version of the text omits that phrase. Hence, it is also not included in this halachah.

Similarly, in Nechemiah’s narrative, the two offerings were separated.

Psalm 30 is called “the song of the dedication of the House.” Hence, it is appropriate for this occasion.
Sh’vuot, loc. cit., also relates that other Psalms, including 3, 91, and 100, were recited.

This procedure was carried out at Nechemiah’s dedication of Jerusalem. The prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi participated in that dedication, and advised Nechemiah of the procedure to follow.

There is no record of this practice ever being carried out. Rather, the Temple Courtyard remained the same size from the time it was dedicated by Ezra.

Leviticus 2:1-3 states: “When a man offers a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour…. the priest shall bum the memorial part of it on the Altar…. and the remnant of the meal offering shall be Aharon’s and his sons. It is of the sacrifices of the highest order of holiness.” Hence it must be eaten in the Temple Courtyard.

Ri Migash, the Rambam’s teacher, commenting on Sh’vuot, loc. cit., emphasizes that eating the offerings are not merely signs that the consecration of the city or the Courtyard had been carried out, but rather, the consecration becomes effective by eating of these offerings. The Rambam’s statements here appear to be based on that principle.

The expression used “not thoroughly consecrated” is somewhat problematic. The Maharit explains that this expression can be understood within the context of the Mishnah’s statements (Sh’vuot, loc. cit.): “[With regard to] any place [in the Temple Courtyard] which was not consecrated with all of these [i.e., a king, a prophet, etc.], one who enters [while ritually impure] is not liable [for a sin offering].”
Generally, throughout the Talmud, such an expression implies that though a sin offering is not required, the act is forbidden. Similarly, in this context, a consecration which lacks all the elements listed previously in the Mishnah is not totally effective. Therefore, entering the portion of the Courtyard consecrated in this manner does not obligate an impure individual to bring a sacrifice. Nevertheless, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against entering that area.

As described in the passage from Nechemiah quoted above

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

Although the dedication procedure carried out by Ezra and Nechemiah was merely a testimonial act, having no Halachic significance, we are forced to say that the testimonial was carried out in precise detail as if the city was actually being consecrated. Therefore, the description of their procedure can demonstrate the process necessary to actually dedicate the city.

Since all sacrifices were offered there, we must conclude that it was indeed consecrated.

This concept is the subject of a debate in the Talmud (Sh’vuot 16a, Makkot 19a, Megillah 10a) and is discussed by the Rambam in the following two halachot.

See the commentary to Chapter 2, Halachah 4 which explains that the exiles who returned from Babylon built an Altar before they completed the construction of the Second Temple. The prophets assured them that “all sacrifices could be offered on that Altar, even though the Temple itself was not [built] there [yet.]” The construction of the Temple took another twenty two years to complete.
Even in later generations, our spiritual leaders have desired to offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount. In the Middle Ages, the Sage, Rabbi Chayim (according to other sources, Rabbi Yechiel) of Paris made Aliyah and settled in Jerusalem. He was prepared to offer sacrifices on the Temple site and refrained from doing so only after his colleagues explained that sacrifices could not be offered because they were unaware of the proper location, size, and dimensions of the Altar.

Twenty two years passed between the time that the exiles return to Jerusalem and the completion of the Second Temple. During that time, all the sacrifices were offered and eaten even though the walls of the Temple and the Courtyard were not built.

The second tithe. After the first tithe was separated, a second tithe also had to be set aside. In four years out of the seven year agricultural cycle, Ma'aser Sheni was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. See Deuteronomy 22-26. Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni.

This statement is extremely problematic. In Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 2:1, the Rambam himself writes that “Ma’aser Sheni is only eaten in Jerusalem while the Temple is standing.” Though some authorities have explained that the statement in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah refers to the time when the Altar is standing, there is no indication in the Rambam’s words to that effect. Furthermore, there are other inconsistencies between the Rambam’s statements here and in Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni.
Even according to the Rambam’s statements here, we are now prohibited from eating Ma’aser Sheni in Jerusalem. We are all ritually impure, and Ma’aser Sheni must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

As stated above in Halachot 14 and 15.

In Hilchot Terumah (1:5), the Rambam states:
Every [place] which those ascending from Egypt took possession of was consecrated in the initial consecration. When [the Jewish people) were exiled, that sanctity was nullified. The first consecration… sanctified the land for that time, but not for eternity.

See the commentary to Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

Megillah 28a.

Support for this statement can be brought from God’s response to King Solomon, II Chronicles 7:15: “For now, I have chosen and sanctified this house, that My Name be there for eternity, and My eyes and My heart will be there forever.”
Similarly, Sh’vuot 16b states that the Temple was consecrated forever.
Nevertheless, that statement is not accepted by all Halachic authorities. Both Rashi and the Tosafot interpret the Talmud’s statements in Sh’vuot in a manner which indicates that they do not accept its simple meaning.
Similarly, commenting on this and the above halachot, the Ra’avad writes:
This is [the Rambam’s] opinion. I am not aware of his source… According to the opinion in the Talmud which states that it was not originally consecrated for eternity, no differentiation was made between the Temple, Jerusalem, and the remainder of Eretz Yisrael…
Even R. Yossi who maintains that the second consecration consecrated the land for eternity made that statement only with regard to the remainder of Bretz Yisrael and not with regard to the Temple and Jerusalem.
Ezra knew that ultimately [the status] of the Temple and Jerusalem would ultimately change and that they would be eternally consecrated by God’s glory [in the Messianic age]. Hence, he did not consecrate it when consecrating the remainder of Eretz Yisrael.
The above was revealed to me, [as it is said:] “The secrets of God [are conveyed] to those who fear Him.”

In contrast, lands that were conquered by only a certain portion of the Jewish community, for example, Syria, were not bound by these laws.

After the Babylonians conquered Bretz Yisrael and exiled the people, the sanctity of the land was nullified. There was no obligation to keep any of the agricultural laws that apply in Eretz Yisrael during the seventy years of the Babylonian exile.

Chazzakah is a manifestation of ownership. It is accepted by Torah law as one of the certain formal acts of contract which acknowledge the transfer of property from one person to another.

The Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions:
a) On what basis is Chazzakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?
b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a Chazzakah. If so, why is Ezra’s Chazzakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the Chazzakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?
These questions can be explained as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) interprets Genesis 15:18: “I have given this land to your seed” to mean that from Abraham’s time onward Eretz Yisrael became the property of the Jewish people. Though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See Bava Batra 119b.
Despite this claim of ownership, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael came about only after the Jewish people entered the land, after the redemption from Egypt. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (see Numbers 32:29, Deuteronomy 3:21, etc.). Since God made the consecration of the land dependent on its conquest by Israel, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify that holiness.
In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over the land which had been given to them as an eternal inheritance. Since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership is also eternal. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 15, 102-109.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 21) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot, incumbent on both men and women.

As explained in Halachot 7-9, the fulfillment of this mitzvah is not limited to the time when the Temple stood, but is applicable even at present.

This clause is quoted from Yevamot 6a, b. Tosafot explain that such a clarification is necessary, lest the Jewish people worship the Temple per se, bowing down to the physical building or showing it other signs of reverence.

The source for these statements is the Mishnah (Berachot 9:6). The Talmud accepts these as signs of reverence without even questioning the source for these practices.

When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He told him (Exodus 3:5): “Remove your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy.” Similarly, on the Temple Mount, shoes had to be removed.
The Minchat Chinuch states that one may wear shoes on the Temple Mount if they are not made of leather.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot, loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the word, afundaso, as “a garment which one will wear against his flesh to collect sweat, so that his sweat will not spoil his dress clothing.”

Tosafot, in Bava Metzia 26a, explain that only the public display of money is prohibited. One may carry money discreetly in his pockets.

Berachot 62b explains that this concept may be inferred from the prohibition against wearing shoes. If wearing shoes which generally is not considered an act of disrespect is forbidden, then surely spitting is not allowed.

The Har HaMoriah explains that this law was derived from Berachot 24b, which recommended this course of action to someone who has to spit in the midst of the Amidah prayers.

Berachot, loc. cit., also considers this as a lack of respect.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the latter concept is derived from Megillah 28b, where a similar statement is made in reference to a person’s entering a synagogue.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Middot 2:2. By quoting that mishnah here, he implies that these practices are also an expression of deference to the Temple (Rambam LeAm).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: “For example, one who enters through the gate of Shushan, [the eastern gate,] should not tum toward the Chuldah gates, [the southern gates,] but rather toward the Tadi gate, [the northern gate].”

Tosafot Yom Tov explains that this does not necessarily mean that one would exit from the gate in the opposite direction. Rather, one would continue circling towards the right, even though it would be shorter to leave by turning towards the left.

Tifferet Yisrael (Middot, loc. cit.) explains that this distinction was made so that all who see him would be aroused to pray for his welfare. See also Shabbat 67a.

Magen Avraham 651:21 states that from these statements, it appears that only a person who suffered one of the fates listed would circle to the left. Generally, a left-handed person must give his left hand prominence, as others do the right. In this instance, however, he would circle to the right even though it is his weaker side.

Under certain circumstances, the court would place a person who did not follow its directives under a ban of ostracism, restricting the business and social relations he could have with other Jews. See Hilchot Talmud Torah, chs. 6-7.

The Mishnah (Middot, loc. cit.) relates that Rabbi Meir maintained that the people would answer: “May the One Who dwells in this House cause them to have a change of heart and accept you.” Rabbi Yossi explained that such an expression makes it appear that the court was unfair in its judgment and suggests the phrase quoted by the Rambam.

Yoma 53a explains that one must leave the Temple service facing in the same direction as when he entered.

One need not walk backwards the entire way. However, it is also improper to turn one’s back to the Temple.

At which point he may walk in an ordinary manner.

In order to allow the priests to serve in the Temple throughout the year in an organized manner, the prophets organized a rotation system, dividing the entire priestly family into 24 watches. Each watch would serve for a week and perform all the sacrificial functions required. The following week they would be replaced by a new watch according to the order of rotation. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, Chapter 4, Halachah 3.

This refers to the Anshei Ma’amad, who represented the entire Jewish people. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam describes their function as follows:
It is impossible for a person’s offering to be sacrificed unless he is present. The communal offerings are the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people, [and hence, their presence should be required. Nevertheless,] since it is impossible for the entire Jewish people to be present in the Temple Courtyard while sacrifices are being offered, the first prophets established a practice of choosing worthy and God-fearing men... to serve as the representatives of all of Israel, and to be present at the sacrifices... They were divided into 24 watches.
See also Ta’anit 4:2.

After accompanying the sacrifices with songs and music.

After the conclusion of the Amidah prayer, one retreats backwards three steps as “a servant departs from his master’s presence.” (Yoma 53b). See also Hilchot Tefillah 5:10.
The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 123:1) explain that since the prayers were instituted to replace the sacrifices, one should conclude his prayers in the same manner as the priests departed from their service.

Rashi, commenting on Berachot 54a, explains that this also applies to someone standing outside the Temple Mount. See also Halachah 8.

On this statement, the Ra’avad comments: “And not as common people conduct themselves.”

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and in Chapter 5, Halachah 12, there were divisions in the Temple Courtyard for the priests and for the Israelites.

The Targum Yonatan renders Leviticus 19:30: “And you shall revere My Sanctuary” as “Walk to My Sanctuary with fear.” See also Ecclesiastics 4:17: “Guard your feet when you walk to the House of God.”

See Rashi, Avot 6:3.

The Mishneh LiMelech states that this prohibition appears to have its source in the Torah itself.
In Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 21, the Rambam includes this prohibition as one expression of reverence for the Temple.

Rashi (Yoma 25a) explains that this prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 18:5: “For the Lord has chosen him… to stand and to serve in the name of the Lord.”
Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) question whether the priests are permitted to sit in the courtyard when they partake of the sacrifices of the most holy order. From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that he does not permit such leniency.

The narrative in II Samuel relates that after sitting, David stated: “Who am I, O Lord, God, and what is my house that You have brought me this far.” At the moment when he was granted this great honor, he displayed humility.

Who sat.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, and Chapter 6, Halachah 7.

The Rambam uses the expressions “our sins,” rather than “the sins of our ancestors,” for all Israel, in every generation and every place, is one communal body.
The usage of the term “our” also implies a deeper concept. Our Sages declared: “Whoever does not witness the rebuilding of the Temple in his days must consider as if it was destroyed in his days.”
The exile and the Temple’s destruction were caused by the sins of the Jewish people. As soon as sin, the cause for the exile, is eradicated, the effect, the exile, will cease. Similarly, our Sages declared: “If Israel repents, she will immediately be redeemed.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 6.

As stated above, even when the Temple is destroyed, one may not act frivolously directly opposite the gate to the Courtyard. However, when the Temple was standing, that prohibition was extended, and included any place within sight of Jerusalem. (Meiri, Berachot 61b.)

Berachot, loc. cit., explains that Mt. Scopus is the most distant point from which one can see the Temple site.

I.e., even at present, when the Temple is destroyed. It must be noted that with slight emendations, the following laws are all quoted as Halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 3.

Most of the Rabbis explain that there is no prohibition if the toilet is surrounded by a wall. However, the Rambam’s phraseology does not imply such license. Therefore, some authorities recommend that, if possible, one should. construct his home with the toilet facing the north or south.

Most authorities follow the opinion of the Tosafot (Berachot 5b) who explain that this prohibition only applies when sleeping with one’s wife. However, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies even when sleeping alone and strongly urges that this ruling be accepted.

The Halachic authorities question whether the Rambam’s intention is to stress the directions of east and west or the direction of the Temple itself The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:5) states that, regardless of where one is located, one should not face the west, because “the Shechinah is in the west.” On the other hand, certain authorities emphasize that according to the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 6lb), the location of Jerusalem is the determining factor.

The Rabbis explain that although it is preferable to follow the Rambam’s view, one may position his bed between the east and the west if there is no other alternative.

Less severe restrictions are placed on urinating than on defecating. However, from the point where one can see the Temple site, Mt. Scopus, one should also control oneself in this regard.

The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254), explains that this prohibition also stems from the command to revere the Sanctuary. A building or utensil that cannot be copied is obviously unique and special, and emphasis on its uniqueness will lead to reverence.

Based on Avodah Zarah 43a, it would appear that the prohibition forbids constructing a building following the Temple’s measurements exactly, but making a model in miniature would be permitted.

The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 254) analyzes this prohibition in depth and raises a number of issues, including the following:
a) The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 43a) explains that the source for this prohibition is the command against making images, as the Torah commands (Exodus 20:20): “Do not make with Me gods of silver...” If so, on the surface, it would have been more appropriate for the Rambam to mention this concept within the laws of Avodah Zarah (worship of false gods) rather than in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah. Indeed, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 141:8, discuss these prohibitions in that context.
b) As explained above, the structure of the Second Temple differed from the First and the dimensions of the Third Temple will not resemble those of the Second in their entirety. Thus, we must understand: Which structure are we forbidden to copy, that of the First or the Second Temple? Does the prohibition apply only when the Temple is standing, or does it apply to all three structures?
The Minchat Chinuch himself, tends towards the opinion that at present there is no prohibition to duplicate the previous structures of the Temple. Only in the era of the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, will this prohibition apply.
The text, Ma’asai LiMelech, explains that the Rambam’s source for this prohibition is not the abovementioned Talmudic portion, but rather the obligation of awe and reverence referred to previously. It is not respectful to duplicate the Temple or its structures and use them for mundane purposes.

Despite the fact that the Entrance Hall had walls on all four sides. Nevertheless, since its gate was large, 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide, and open at all times, it resembled a porch.

The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) states that this prohibition does not extend beyond the Temple Courtyard. One may make a copy of the chayl, the rampart surrounding the Courtyard, or another similar structure.

The Minchat Chinuch questions if these two utensils were mentioned only as examples, and the same prohibition applies to the other sacred utensils, or if the Rambam meant them exclusively. He concludes that we may not make a replica of any utensil whose exact dimensions are known to us.
He also emphasizes that the prohibition against making a replica of the Menorah applies even if the goblets, bulbs, and flowers are omitted, since the Menorah is acceptable without them when made from other metals (Chapter 3, Halachah 4).

Indeed, it is customary to make Chanukah lamps in the shape of the Menorah.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 18, the sacred utensils must be made of metal. Hence, there is no prohibition against making a replica from other substances.

With these statements, the Rambam introduces the following twelve halachot, which discuss various gradations of holiness. These statements are based on the Tosefta, Keilim 1:10 and Zevachim 116b.

See Numbers 2:1-31, which describes the division of the twelve tribes into the camps of Judah, Reuven, Ephraim, and Dan.

The Levites would dwell in a separate encampment, between the camp of Israel and the Courtyard of the Sanctuary. The particular encampment of each Levite family is described in Numbers, Chapter 3.

No one was permitted to dwell in this region. People would enter only to participate in the service of the Sanctuary.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 14.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 15.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 18.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 16.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 17.

Parrallels to these divisions did not exist in the encampment in the desert. They were instituted when the First Temple was constructed.

The Rambam adds the word “entire” to the phrasing of this law in his source, Kelim 1:6. Rambam LeAm suggests that this addition was made to include all three divisions of Eretz Yisrael: the Galilee, in the north; Judah, in the south; and Trans-Jordan, on the eastern side of the Jordan River.

The barley offering that is to be brought on the day following the holiday of Pesach. See Leviticus 23:9-15.

Ibid., 16-20.

The Bikkurim, which were to be brought between Shavuot and Sukkot. See Exodus 23:16, 19.
Rambam LeAm notes that the Rambam reverses the order of the Mishnah, which mentions the first fruits before the two breads. A possible explanation for the change is that it is proper to bring the first fruits only after the two loaves have been offered.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam cites the verses from which the obligation to bring these offerings from Eretz Yisrael is derived:
In regard to the Omer, it is written (Leviticus 23:10): “When you come into the land which I am giving you and reap its harvest....”
In regard to the two loaves, it is written (ibid.:17): “You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread….”
In regard to the first fruits, it is written (Deuteronomy 26:2): “you shall take the first of all fruit of the earth, which you shall bring from the land that the Lord, your God, gives you….”
It must be noted that the status of Trans-Jordan is a source of disagreement among the Rabbis, regarding these offerings. The Rambam writes (Hilchot Bikkurim) that the obligation to bring the first fruits from Trans-Jordan is Rabbinic in origin. Similarly, Rabbenu Nissim (Nedarim 22a) questions whether, according to the Torah, the Omer offering could be brought from Trans-Jordan.

These ten gradations are listed in this and the following nine Halachot.
The Rambam’s statements are based on Kellim 1:6-7. Most commentaries on the Mishnah explain that the ten gradations described are “within Eretz Yisrael’ and do not include the distinction between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora.”

In their commentaries to the Mishnah, Rabbenu Shimshon and Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura explain that only the cities which were surrounded by a wall at the time of Joshua’s conquest of Eretz Yisrael are included in this category.
Also, see Arichin 32a.

Regarding one afflicted by tzara’at, the Torah commands (Leviticus 13:46): “He shall dwell alone, he will live outside the camp.” Therefore, he was forced to leave any city (Commentary to the Mishnah, Keilim, loc. cit.).

The Ra’avad disagrees with the Rambam and states that under no circumstances may a corpse be buried in a city. The dispute between these authorities concerns the interpretation of the Mishnah, Keilim, loc. cit.

It was customary in Talmudic times for the internal affairs of a city to be managed by a committee of seven of its prominent citizens.

Generally, Halachah places many restrictions on the disinterring of graves. However, should the inhabitants of a city feel that the placement of a grave causes difficulties to the entire population, because of questions of ritual impurity, a corpse may be disinterred.

The Tosefta (Bava Batra 1:7) and the tractate of Semachot, Chapter 14, substantiate this statement, noting that the graves of King David and Chuldah, the prophetess, were situated within Jerusalem.

Without requiring such a consensus. The Rambam mentions these rulings only in regard to walled cities. The Har HaMoriah notes that the sources mentioned above make no distinctions and appear to apply these rulings to all cities, whether enclosed by a wall or not.

The obligation to eat the sacrifices of lesser sanctity within the confines of Jerusalem is derived from the verse (Deuteronomy 15:20): “You shall eat it (the offering of a firstborn animal) before the Lord... in the place which the Lord shall choose.” Zevachim 56b explains that this verse refers to all sacrifices of this category, and that the phrase “in the place the Lord shall choose” refers to Jerusalem.

After the first tithe was separated, a second tithe had to also be set aside. In four years of the seven year agricultural cycle, it must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:25-26): “And you shall go up to the place which God chooses... and you shall eat there before the Lord....”

The above statements were a continuation of the Mishnayot in Keilim. The following are based primarily on Bava Kama 82b. See also Tosefta, Nega’im, Chapter 6 and Avot D’Rabbi Nattan, Chapter 35.
Most restrictions listed by the Rambam were instituted to protect against contracting ritual impurity. The Radbaz (Responsum 633) explains that since we are all now ritually impure and Gentiles dwell within the holy city, these rulings no longer apply. Nevertheless, there are certain practices, particularly those regarding burial, that are kept by certain communities.

As stated at the end of the halachah, Jerusalem was not included in the division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes. Therefore, no one is considered to be an outright owner of the land on which he is living. Thus, a home cannot be rented to others.
Yoma 12b, the source for this law goes further and explains that one may not charge for providing guests with accommodation. Even during the three pilgrimage festivals, the Sages forbade charging the festive pilgrims for their accommodation. However, they did allow the hosts to take the pelts of the sacrifices that were offered.

This term refers to a ger toshav, a Gentile who has accepted the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah's Descendants, but who has not converted to Judaism. See Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7, the Rambam explains that the expression “resident alien” is used because we may allow this Gentile to live in Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, such permission cannot be granted in Jerusalem.

The Maharit (Responsum 37) explains that even a king or a prophet should not be buried within Jerusalem. David and Chuldah were originally buried outside the city. The city then grew larger and included their graves. However, as a token of respect, they were not disinterred.

Rashi (Bava Kama, loc. cit.) explains that the gardens may be weeded and the weeds left at the sides to rot. Alternatively, they may be fertilized with foul smelling manure. To avoid these possibilities, planting gardens were forbidden within the holy city.

Rashi (ibid.) explains that the rose petals were used in preparing the incense offering. Therefore, an exception was made in this case.

Leviticus 11:29 lists eight species of crawling animals which cause ritual impurity when touching their dead bodies. Such animals are likely to be found in garbage dumps. Therefore, garbage should be discarded outside of Jerusalem.

The construction of these balconies may lead to an increase of ritual impurity. If a corpse is located under such a balcony, any person or object beneath the balcony is considered ritually impure. If the balcony had not been built, people and objects could not become impure unless they came in direct physical contact with the corpse. Therefore, we may not construct them (Rashi, loc. cit.).

The smoke will discolor the city’s walls.

Chickens feed on the bodies of the eight crawling species mentioned above. Therefore, they might bring the body of one of these animals into contact with a person or article which is ritually pure.

Outside of Jerusalem, an Israelite need not be so careful about ritual purity, because he has no opportunity to eat the sacrifices or other foods which require ritual purity. However, a priest may eat Terumah, which requires ritual purity, outside of Jerusalem as well. Therefore, he must take additional precautions upon himself.

Leviticus 25:29-30 relates: “A man who sells a residential home in a walled city may redeem it within a year after it was sold... If it is not redeemed within the year... it shall become the permanent property of the buyer. It shall not be released in the Jubilee.” Since, as stated above, Jerusalem cannot be considered anyone’s private property, this law does not apply.

Leviticus 14:33-54 states: “I shall place the mark of the curse of tzara’at in houses in the land you will inherit.” Since Jerusalem is not given as an inheritance, none of these rulings apply to it.

Deuteronomy 13:13-19 describes the laws applying to a city in which the majority of its inhabitants have accepted idol worship. The Torah states that these laws apply to “one of your cities.” Since that term does not properly describe Jerusalem, which can never become permanently “ours,” these laws do not apply to it.

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 describes the laws which apply when a corpse is found in a field between two cities. The city closest to the corpse must take a calf (Eglah in Hebrew) and breaks its neck (Oref in Hebrew) as an act of atonement. The Torah describes that these laws apply to "the land which the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance." That expression excludes Jerusalem.

There is a slight difficulty with this statement.
The base of the altar did not surround the Altar on all sides. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.) Most commentaries explain that this step was taken because a slight strip of land extended from the tribal portion of Judah into the Temple Courtyard. The base would have been positioned on this strip. By leaving this space empty, the entire structure of the Altar remained in the tribal portion of Benjamin.
If, as the Rambam declares, Jerusalem was not divided into tribal portions, there would seem to be no reason to leave this empty space. Tosafot (Yoma 12a) notes this difficulty and explains that the portion of the base was not omitted because of the above reason, but due to a prophetic decree which transcends our comprehension.

As mentioned in Halachah 11, the city of Jerusalem corresponds to the camp of the Israelites, while the Temple Mount corresponds to the camp of the Levites.

The term zav, refers to a person afflicted with a venereal condition resembling gonorrhea. Leviticus 15:1-15 explains that such a person is ritually impure himself and can cause other people and objects to contract impurity. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, Chapter 2, Halachah l.