Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 1.

See ibid. 10:1.

In the Temple Courtyard, as opposed to the sin-offering of the goat described below whose blood is sprinkled in the Temple Building.

I.e., after the conclusion of the fast.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 8; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:15.

See ibid.:6. On one hand, this is the High Priest’s personal sacrifice. On the other hand, it has certain dimensions of a communal offering. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 13.

Leviticus 16:5.

Numbers 29:8

To distinguish it from the ram brought by the High Priest.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 49) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 185) count offering these sacrifices as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. In Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam brings proof that the entire service is considered as only one mitzvah from the fact that if the sacrifices were not offered in the proper order, the entire service is disqualified.

As was the practice from the time of the construction of the Sanctuary until the entombment of the anointing oil several years before the destruction of the First Temple. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:12.

As was the practice from the latter time onward, as explained in that source.

I.e., one the requirements for a High Priest to serve on Yom Kippur is that he must be married.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 1:1), the Rambam cites Yoma 2a which explains that this concept is derived from Leviticus 8:33-34: “You shall not leave the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days... As he did on this day, so too, God commanded that it be done to atone for you.” “To atone for you” refers to Yorn Kippur.

See the description of that chamber in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:1 which states that a man who engages in relations with a woman while she is in the niddah state becomes impure for seven days.

I.e., the first sacrifice offered that day.

The Chavitin offering, as stated in Hilchot K'kei HaMikdash 5:16.

The prohibition to rend his garments or let his hair grow long in mourning and the obligation to marry a virgin (see ibid. 5:6).

When, however, a High Priest will offer a Red Heifer, ashes are sprinkled on him for all seven days (Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:4).

Numbers 19:19 states that the purification process requires sprinkling of the ashes on these two days.

As stated in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 7:1,7, according to the fixed calendar we follow and even when the new months were consecrated through the testimony of witnesses our Sages tried to follow these guidelines the day before Y om Kippur never falls on the Sabbath.

For it is a Rabbinical decree not to sprinkle the ashes on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 23:8). Since we do not have any definite knowledge of his impurity, the Sages did not see the need to uproot their decree.

In the Second Temple era, this was necessary, because generally, the High Priests were unlearned people who had merely purchased the honor (Yoma 18a).

Seeing the animals will remind him of the service necessary to perfonn with each one of them.
Yoma, loc. cit., asks: Why aren’t goats also brought before him? It explains that the goats are brought as sin-offering and that will arouse unpleasant thoughts. It then asks: But a bull is also brought as a sin-offering? It answers that the bull is brought as a personal sin-offering for the High Priests and his priestly brethren and the sight of such an animal may lead to repentance. The goat, by contrast, is brought as an offering for the Jewish people as a whole and thus will not have such a direct influence.

Which would render him impure and thus unable to perform the Temple service.

Tzadok and Beitus were two of the foremost students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: “Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward,” they forsook Jewish practice, saying: “Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?” They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah. See also Hilchot Mamrim 3:3.

Although there were no Sadducees in the era of the Rambam, there were Karaites who followed similar deviant practices. See Hilchot Mamrim, op. cit.

The curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:2).

The covering of the Holy Ark.

I.e., in the Holy of Holies.

For, as stated above, the High Priesthood was sold at that time even though the purchasers were not paradigms of righteous conduct.

In this context, Yoma 19b states that one who suspects the worthy of improper conduct will be stricken physically.

Yoma 1:6 states that they would read Job, Ezra, Chronicles, and Daniel. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that these books are filled with stories that arouse one’s interest. The Jerusalem Talmud adds that they would read Psalms and Proverbs.

This was also the version in the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah (ibid.). Most versions state “young priests.”

One opinion in the Mishnah (Yoma 3:1) states that they would say: “The entire eastern horizon is bright until Chebron.”

Which is unacceptable.

This term refers to the eight garments worn by the High Priest throughout the year. See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:2.

They resemble the four garments worn by an ordinary priest, but are of a higher quality. See ibid.:3.

I.e., the special incense offering that is brought just on this holy day.

See Halachah 5.

The order of sacrificial service performed by the High Priest is described in greater detail in Chapter 4.

As mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, Chapter 3 and notes, there are other authorities who differ with the Rambam and maintain that the Menorah was not kindled during the day. They also define hatavah as cleaning, not as kindling. That is the thrust of the Ra’avad’s objections here. See also Kessef Mishneh.

The nature of these unique services is explained in greater detail at the conclusion of this chapter and in Chapter 3.

There was a mikveh on the top of Parveh's Chamber where the High Priest would immerse himself (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17).

For ordinary matters, a person need not have any specific intent while immersing to emerge from ritual impurity. Nevertheless; additional severity was ordained with regard to immersing for sacrificial service and one should specifically have in mind the impurity for which one is immersing. See Hillchot Mikveot 1:8; the Mishnah (Chagigah 2:6).

And thus immersing in a cold mikveh would be difficult.

In Hilchot Shabbat 21:1, the Rambam defines shvut as meaning a Rabbinic prohibition instituted either because the activity resembles a forbidden labor or as a safeguard lest one commit a forbidden labor. Such safeguards are unnecessary in the Temple, because the priests will be careful not to overstep the Torah’s prohibitions.
In Hilchot Shabbat 12:2, the Rambam states: “One who extinguishes glowing metal is not liable. If he intends to refine the metal, he is liable.” Since here there is no intent to refine the metal, there is no Scriptural prohibition involved, for one is liable for performing a forbidden labor on the Sabbath only when one does so intentionally.
Although ordinarily, this activity would involve a Rabbinic prohibition, our Sages did not enforce their safeguards in the Temple [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 3:6)]. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Shabbat.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:10.

For having a group of people following a person conveys honor upon him.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:5. Yoma 45a explains that gathering the coals would damage the fire-pan slightly and over time, it would have to be replaced. Hence rather than damage a golden one, the Sages took the financial needs of the Jewish people into consideration and did not require that a golden one be used each day.

To support the arm of the High Priest.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:6.

With regard to this confessional, see also Hilchot Teshuvah 1:3.

Each time he confessed, he would perform semichah on the animal to be slaughtered, pressing down upon it with all his strength.

The name Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 14:10, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 4:2), the Rambam explains that the term “sins” refer to inadvertent violation of God’s will, “transgressions,” to willful violations, and “committed iniquity,” to acts of rebellion against God.

Here God’s explicit name is also mentioned.

The pair of the goat sent to Azazel.

Who would imitate the High Priest and pronounce God's name unnecessarily, or even misuse it for nefarious mystic practices. In Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim, loc. cit., the Rambam states that the priests ceased reciting God's explicit name after the passing of Shimon HaTzaddik, one of the earlier High Priests in the Second Temple era.

In his Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. I, ch. 62, the Rarnbam writes that:
It was not known to all men how to pronounce it, and which way each of the letters should be vocalized, whether any of the letters would be pronounced with a dagesh, and which one would be... I think that when it says that the Sages would teach the four-letter name to their sons and disciples, this does not mean the pronunciation of the name alone..., but also its uniqueness and Divine secret.

Although the High Priest mentioned God’s four-letter name three times in each confessional, the people would prostrate themselves only once for each confessional. See Zohar, Vol. III, p. 67a.

When the High Priest would “call upon the name of God,” mentioning God’s explicit name, the people would respond by “ascribing greatness to our Lord,” by saying “Blessed be the name” (Yoma 66a).

I.e., saying “Blessed be the name....”

The term titharu, “you shall be purified,” follows God’s name in the verse. The High Priest, however, would recite it as words of assurance to the people observing the service in the Temple. The commentaries note that although this concept is included in the piyutim recited during the Musaf Service of Yom Kippur, it is not found in the Talmud or in a known Midrashic source. It is, however, stated in the Zohar, loc. cit.

This term refers to the bull brought when the Sanhedrin erred and the people performed a transgression as a result (Hilchot Shegagot 12:1) and the bull brought by the High Priest as a sin-offering to atone for a transgression that he perfonned (ibid 15:1).

With regard to the designation of which goat would be offered as a sin-offering in the Temple (the one “for God”) and which would be sent to Azazel, Leviticus 16:8 states: “And Aaron shall place lots on the goats: one lot for God and one lot for Azazel.”

Yoma 3:10 states that they were made from boxwood.

A High Priest named hen Gamla made this innovation (Yoma 37a).

Rashi (Yoma 39a) states that it was considered a favorable omen for the lot that states “for God” to be held by the High Priest in his right hand. The Sages feared that the High Priest would try to feel the lots with his hands and determine which one had God’s name written on it so that he could please the people by lifting it up with his right hand. Hence, they had the box made too small to allow him to maneuver his hands in that manner.

For none of the sacred vessels were made of wood.

This term means “box” in Greek [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 3:10)].

The Temple Building was in the west and he would carry out the lottery in the east.

The altar was in the southern portion of the Temple Courtyard and the lottery was conducted slightly north of it.

It would not be respectful to position the goats with their rears to the west, because they would then be pointed to the Holy of Holies (see Kessef Mishneh).

His assistant; see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:16.

Who would oversee the priestly service on that particular day (see ibid.:3, 11).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 14, which explains details with regard to these two goats.

To dispel suspicion that he would try to lift the one which said “for God” in his right hand, as explained in note 4.

Enabling the segen to see which lot was held in which hand.

Proclaiming “a sin offering for HaShem” as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

For he is merely designating the animal for the sacrifice (Meiri).

I.e., wool dyed bright red [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 4:2)].

These bracketed additions are made on the basis of Yoma 41b, as suggested by the Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., over its neck.

There was an interval between the slaughter of these two animals in which the High Priest offered the incense and sprinkled the blood of the bull in the Temple Building.

I.e., in the First Temple era when the ark was positioned in the Holy of Holies. In the Second Temple era, he would sprinkle the blood towards the even hashtiah, the rock that was positioned in the western_ portion of the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot BeitHaBechirah 4:1.

The covering of the ark. The High Priest would try that the sprinklings be the height of that cover.

“Before” implies, not on the koporet itself, but in front of it.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 5:2), the Rambam explains that the first sprinkling is_alluded to by the words: “And he shall sprinkle with his finger.” “Seven times” refers to seven additional sprinklings.

The curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.

Yoma 56b sqi. tes that from the verse: Leviticus 16:16: “And so you shall do to the Tent of Meeting,” our Sages derived that the same sprinklings are perfonned on the parochet.

On its top.

Compare to Hilchat Ma’aseh HaKarbanat 5:8.

This is the portion of the altar that he encounters when he departs from the Temple Building (Hilchat Ma’aseh HaKarbanot 5:11).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

The person who would carry out this task was already designated on the previous day, for Leviticus 16:21 states that the goat should be sent “to the desert in the hands of a designated person.” See Chapter 5, Halachah 21.

For the above verse uses the term “person,” not priest (Yama 66b).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 6:5), the Rambam states that there was a distance of a Sabbath limit (2000 cubits, approximately a kilometer in contemporary measure) between each booth.

The two thousand cubits beyond which it is forbidden to walk on the Sabbath and the festivals (Hilchot Shabbat 27:1). The observers would not proceed beyond these limits.
The person taking the goat, by contrast, would proceed beyond these limits, because he was performing a sacred task.
As Yoma 6:4 states, there were ten booths between the Temple and the rocky peak from which the goat was pushed. When the extra Sabbath limit from the last booth was added, the total distance was approximately eleven kilometers.

See Halachah 4.

The Sages permitted him to walk a distance greater than the Sabbath limits so that he would not have to remain alone in the desert until nightfall. Nevertheless, once he returned to the last booth, he was not permitted to proceed any further.

The ones close to the desert would wave flags that. could be seen by those closer. They would wave flags that could be seen by others even closer. This process would continue until the flags could be seen by the people on the Temple Mount.

These services were performed while the person taking the goat to the desert was in the process of making his journey there, before the signal that he had completed his task.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:1.

Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessel Mishneh who explains that they were not actually offered on the pyre until later.

A location outside Jerusalem, as described in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:4.

lbid. 5:18.

This was known via the signals mentioned above.

Ibid. 7:5.

Hilchot K’lei Hamikdash 8:11.

The Tosefta (Chagigah 2:4) relates that there was a synagogue on the Temple Mount where people would pray on the Sabbath and festivals. In the Second Temple era, daily prayer had already been institutionalized and was observed in the Temple as well.

Leviticus, ch. 16, where the details of the service performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are mentioned.

Leviticus 23:26-32. This passage is located close enough to the previous one that the High Priest will be able to roll the Torah scroll to it without a significant delay.

Numbers 29:7-11.

For as stated in Gitlin 60b (see Hilchot Tefilah 12:5), passages of the Written Law should not be read by heart. Nevertheless, an exception was made in this instance, because, there was no alternative as the Rambam explains.

For the delay would be an inconvenience to the congregation.

There is no difficulty, however, if two people read from two Torah scrolls as is the custom on festivals, when Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath, or the like. See Hilchot Tefilah 5:23.

See Hilchot Tefilah 12:5.

Yoma 7:1states that the High Priest recites eight blessings on the Torah reading. According to the reckoning here, there would be nine blessings. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma, op. cit.; Sotah 7:5), the Rambam does not mention the blessing for the deliverance of the Jewish people as a separate blessing. It is possible to explain that here he considers both of the blessings recited for the Torah reading as a single blessing.

He recites and concludes the first two of these blessings as one would in the daily Shemoneh Esreh prayers. He recites the third blessing according to the text recited in the daily Shemoneh Esreh, but concludes it differently, as the Rambam states.

I.e., in contrast to the following blessings where the text is improvised, each High Priest making up the version he recites. See Hilchot Ta’aniot 3:7, Hilchot Chagigah 3:4.