Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

This order is significant, because as stated in the following chapter, if the High Priest does not perform the services that must be perfonned while wearing his linen garments in the correct order, they are disqualified and must be performed again in order.

As stated in Hilchat Temidim UMusafim 6:1, usually, the lottery and the removal of the ashes was held shortly before dawn. On Yorn Kippur, they were perfonned earlier in order to allow the High Priest to carry out his service as soon as possible.

See ibid., ch. 4, for a description of this lottery.
These initial tasks were performed by ordinary priests. Although in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, the Rambam states that “all the... services performed on this day... are performed by a... High Priest,” these services are not included, because they are merely preparations for service and not acts of service themselves (Kessef Mishneh).

Hilchat Temidim UMusafim, ch. 2.

For the sake of modesty.

In contrast to the subsequent immersions, this one was performed in a mikveh outside the Temple Courtyard (Yama 3:3).

The windpipe and the gullet. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:9.
As stated there: “Superior slaughter involves cutting both of them.... [After the fact,] if one cut the majority... the majority of both of them for an animal or a beast, the slaughter is acceptable.”

Once the windpipe and the gullet are slit, completing the remainder of the slaughter is not an absolute necessity. Hence it need not be performed by the High Priest.

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, ch. 6.

This and the subsequent immersions were performed in the mikveh located above the Chamber of Parve (Yoma 3:6).

I.e., the bull was standing with its head facing the altar and its rear toward the northern wall of the Temple Courtyard, but its head was turned to the west. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 1:7. It was positioned in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard, because all sacrifices of the most sacred order must be slaughtered in the northern portion.

Performing the ritual act of semichah which precedes the slaughter of a sacrifice.

Mentioning the name Y-H-V-H, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

For there will be an interim of time - during which the High Priest brings the incense into the Holy of Holies between the slaughter of the bull and the offering of its blood.

In his notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 4:3), Rav Kappach translates the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a projection resembling a bench that was made from stone.

The western side of the altar is the side closest to the entrance to the Temple Building.

The ladle in which the incense was held. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:4-5.

For in addition to being ground together with the remainder of the incense, this incense was ground a second time on the day before Yom Kippur (Keritot 6b; Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 2:3).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 28; with regard to particular laws governing the taking of the handful of incense.

I.e., the handful of incense he holds should not be so small that he can clasp his hand closed firmly, nor be so large that his fingers are removed from his palm, but large enough that they will be held over the hand slightly.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:18.

The Kessef Mishneh questions whether carrying a sacrificial substance with one’s left hand disqualifies it according to Scriptural Law or only according to Rabbinic decree. He suggests that carrying sacrificial blood is unacceptable according to Scriptural Law, but carrying incense is only forbidden by Rabbinic decree and here, because of the extenuating circumstances, they did not institute such a decree.

This curtain was folded over and hung up with hooks to allow the High Priest easy access (Yoma 52b). The Rambam mentions one curtain and not two, because he is speaking about the era of the First Temple. In the era of the Second Temple, there were two curtains and the High Priest would proceed between them. See ibid. 54a.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1.

This would cause the cloud of incense to rise slowly (Yoma 52b).

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:8.

As an act of respect so that he will not tum his rear to the Ark. See Hilchot Heit HaBechirah 7:4.

A High Priest who was not righteous would die within the year after performing the service in the Holy of Holies. For this reason, there was a continuous change in those who held this position in the Second Temple Era. If they were particularly unworthy or if they did not offer the incense in the proper manner, they would die immediately [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 5:1)].

Yoma 52b, the Rambam’s source adds the words “from each other.” They are also included in the Avodah prayers in most machzorim.

The wayfarers pray that their journeys not be interrupted by rain. While this might be to their individual benefit, it was not desirous for the people as a whole.

Leviticus 16:17 states: “And no person should be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to atone.”

I.e., in each instance, the people must withdraw one level further than the place where the service bringing atonement was performed.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:3.

As described in Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

The commentaries (the Kessef Mishneh here who quotes the Rashba; the Radbaz in his gloss to Hilchot Ma’aseh HaK.orbanot 5:14) have questioned the Rambam’s statements here because they appear contradictory and also because they appear to follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezar (Yoma 5:4) which is a minority view. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva Eiger quotes an ancient Tosafot (see also Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah) that resolves the Rambam’s ruling. According to that text, the verse (Leviticus 16:18): “he shall go out to the altar” means that he must go out past the altar. Since he departed from the south side of the Holy of Holies, he will be standing on the southeastern comer of the altar.

Although the same Hebrew term haza’ah is used as before, in this instance, the High Priest applies the blood directly to the altar’s comers with his finger rather than sprinkling it from afar.

With his hand; he did not actually walk around the altar.

Extending his hand there first. Since one must always circle to the right, the first comer he will encounter will be the northeastern one.

Since he is extending his hand outward, the blood will not drip down his finger.

Otherwise, since he would be holding his hand upright to administer the blood, the blood would drip down his finger and soil his sleeve.

The side of the altar he encounters when leaving the Temple Building.

This is a unique act, for in only one other instance is semichah performed on a communal offering (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:10).

For as mentioned above, there were High Priests who died in the midst of the Yorn Kippur service because of their sins.

In contrast, after the fact, if he performs the services that must be performed while wearing his golden gannents in an improper sequence, they are not disqualified.

In contrast, after the fact, the service of the High Priest is not disqualified if he performs the tasks performed outside the Temple Building - e.g., the lottery for the goats, the confessions, and the like in an improper order.
Based on Rashi’s commentary to Yoma 60a, there are some who suggest that the text of the Mishneh Torah should be amended to read “further within than the Temple Building” i.e., referring to the tasks performed within the Holy of Holies alone. The Meiri, the Tosafot Yom Tov (in his gloss to Yoma 5:6), and others, however, understand the Rambam as speaking about both the tasks performed in the Sanctuary and those performed in the Holy of Holies. This interpretation is borne out by the later halachot in this chapter.

And he must perform all the services again.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 49), the Rambam uses this law as a proof of his contention that all of the special services performed by the High Priest on Yorn Kippur are considered as a single positive commandment.

And new incense must be taken afterwards.

And thus based on the statements of the previous halachah, one might assume that the fact that these two tasks were not performed in the proper order is not significant.

And another goat must be slaughtered after the presentation of the blood of the bull.

And another ram and goat must be sacrificed afterwards. Although the ram and the goat are sacrificed in the Temple Courtyard, since they should be sacrificed after the special services of the day, they are unacceptable if sacrificed beforehand.

Based on Halachah 2, we must interpret this as referring to a situation where the High Priest already started presenting the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, stopped, slaughtered the goat, and then began presenting its blood.

I.e., he should not complete presenting the blood of the goat.

Completing the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies.

Since the blood of the bull was already sprinkled in the Holy of Holies, the blood of the goat is not disqualified entirely. The first sprinklings of its blood on the parochet are, however, unacceptable.

With regard to the blood of the bull, see Halachah 8.

I.e., slaughter another goat and bring its blood. There is no need to slaughter another bull and offer its blood again (Rav Yosef Corcus).

None of the original sprinklings are acceptable.

He does not, however, have to reenter the Holy of Holies and perform the sprinklings there again. For as explained in the conclusion of the following halachah, each set of sprinklings represents a separate phase of atonement.

I.e., on the Parochet.
The bracketed additions are necessary for the Golden Altar is also located in the Sanctuary.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 2, for these applications, the blood of the bull had already been mixed with the blood of the goat.

Slaughtering another bull and another goat; see Halachah 2.

For Leviticus 16:20 states: “When he finished atoning for the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting, and the Altar,” indicating that each of these represents a separate phase (Yoma 61a).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaK.orbanot 19:4.

Including those on the outer altar.

The commentaries have questioned the wording of this phrase based on Halachah 2, which states that if the incense offering is offered before the slaughter of the bull it is of no consequence. Rabbenu Y ehoshua, one of the Rambam’s descendants, explains that since the first bull was slaughtered before the offering of the incense, the incense should be offered before the slaughter of the second bull. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus differ and maintain that “before” is simply a printing mistake and the text should read “after.”

Beginning with the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies.

As Leviticus 16:28 states: “The one who bums it [the bull] must wash his clothes and immerse his flesh in the water.” See also Hilchot Parah Adumah 5:4.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 8. The body of the bull whose blood was spilled is burnt in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:3).

This is speaking about a situation where the High Priest completed the sprinkling of the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, but before he completed the sprinklings on the Parochet, the blood of the goat became mixed with it. For, as stated in Halachah 2, if the goat was slaughtered before the presentation of the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, the entire procedure is disqualified (Kessef Mishneh, quoting Rav Yosef Corcus).

We assume that in every sprinkling there will be some of the blood of the bull. The fact that the blood of the goat is also mixed together with it is not significant (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Conversely, we assume that in every sprinkling there will be some of the blood of the goat. The fact that the blood of the bull is also mixed together with it is not significant.

I.e., he had already sprinkled the blood of the bull once upward and six times downward.

This is also speaking about an instance where the blood of the bull was already sprinkled in the Holy of Holies for the same reason mentioned in note 26.

If the first cup contains the blood of the bull, the first two sprinklings will have been carried out in order. The fact that he sprinkled the blood of the bull again is not significant. And if the second cup contained the blood of the bull, the last two sprinklings will have been carried out in order, the fact that he sprinkled the blood of the goat first is not significant.

Although the previous halachot gave us means to correct the situation when the cups of blood became mixed together, in those instances, there was no alternative to perform the sprinklings as required. In this instance, however, there is a way to perform the sprinklings properly.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 2:21.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 11:9, this sacrifice enables the priests to receive atonement for the willful violation of the prohibitions against entering the Temple in a state of impurity and partaking of sacrificial foods in a state of impurity.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1.

I.e., the goats for which the lottery was made.

Yoma 62b notes that the Torah (Leviticus 16:5,7,8) uses the phrase “the two goats” three times and on that basis, infers that the goats should be alike in these three matters.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 6:1), the Rambam writes that the fact that afterwards, the Torah uses the term “the goat,” instead of” the one,” implies that any goat is acceptable.

I.e., the one that remains from the first pair is used, together with the one chosen in the second lottery. Although there is an opinion in the Talmud (Yoma, foe. cit.), which maintains that both goats in the new pair should be used, the Rambam does not accept it. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 6:1), he explains that his decision is based on the principle that “Living animals are never permanently disqualified” (Zevachim 59a). See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23, 6:1; Hilchat Shegagot 3:8, et al, where this principle is mentioned.
Significantly, in his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (which forms the body of the standard published text of that work), the Rambam favored the view that animals can be permanently disqualified. According to that view, once the remaining goat of the first pair was disqualified because its pair died - it can never become acceptable again.
In his notes to that mishnah, Rav Kappach explained that originally the Rambam accepted the opinion of Rabbi Y ochanan, because usually, in differences of opinion between him and Rav (who follows the opposing view), Rabbi Yochanan’s view is followed. Nevertheless, his final opinion follows that of Rav, because this case is considered exceptional, because the Talmud considers Rav’s view as substantiated by the wording of the mishnah. See also the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot, loc.cit.

Since it was consecrated it can no longer be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed. Nevertheless, it cannot be offered for the purpose for which it was consecrated since the goat from the original pair will be used instead. Hence, the advice offered by the Rambam is followed.

In contrast, sin-offerings brought by private persons can be consigned to death, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1-3.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

Since they were originally designated for the offering, they should be given priority.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 1-2.

I.e., as stated in Leviticus 21:28 and Hilchot Shechitah 12:1-2, it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other. Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:8 explains that accordingly, if an animal was slaughtered on a particular day, it is forbidden to offer its mother or its offspring as a sacrifice on that day. Now how could an animal other than a sacrifice be slaughtered on Yom Kippur? When a person was sick and required meat, as the Rambam explains.

An animal that will die within twelve months.

And an animal that is treifah is not considered as alive in a halachic sense. The commentaries note that the Rambam’s interpretation of the Biblical phrase does not have an apparent source in prior Rabbinic literature. The law the Rambam mentions is found in Chullin 11 b, but another reason is given. The Mishneh LiMelech explains that the rationale given by the Rambam is more inclusive than that given by the Talmud. For according to the rationale given by the Talmud, the goat would be disqualified only if it was treifah at the time of the lottery, while according to the Rambam, even if the animal becomes treifah after the lottery, it is disqualified.

Generally, we follow the principle (Shabbat 94a; Hilchot Shabbat 20:4): “A living animal carries itself.” Hence there would be no prohibition in carrying the goat. Nevertheless, if the goat is so sick that it cannot walk, that prohibition would apply. Although the prohibitions against carrying and transferring an object from one domain to another are the same on Yorn Kippur as on the Sabbath, the Sabbath is mentioned, for one might think that the license is granted only on Yorn Kippur - because it is one of the services of that day and not on the Sabbath (Keritot 14a).

Although as mentioned in the following halachah (and in Chapter 3, Halachah 7), the person who takes the goat to Azazel should be designated on the previous day, if that is not possible, anyone can take his place. We do not designate a replacement beforehand (as is done for the High Priest), because this is an unlikely occurrence.

Even though, generally, it is forbidden to enter the Temple in a state of ritual impurity.

Yoma 67b states that the Torah would not have sent the goat out to be a spiritual obstacle for others. For a traveler through the desert might encounter one of its limbs and desire to benefit from it.

And a tent must have a roof (Zevachim 40a).

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:1 which state that it must be dedicated by the afternoon incense offering.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 2:2-4 for a description of the different herbs and spices included in the incense offering.

At the hand of heaven for not offering the incense offering.

At the hand of heaven. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:1-4.

I.e., he did not know that it was forbidden to enter without service.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this is an extension of the law stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 19:8.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13: for a description of the improper thoughts that can disqualify sacrificial service.

This is a question that is left unresolved by Yoma 48b. Hence the Rambam rules stringently. He does not state that there is doubt regarding the ruling as he does in the instances mentioned in the following halachot, because it is preferable for him to scoop out new coals (Kessef Mishneh).

All of these are questions left unresolved by Yoma 47b-49a.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the manner in which the handful of incense is taken parallels the manner in which a handful of flour is taken for the meal offerings (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:13. Thus the proper manner for the High Priest to gather the incense is for him to stretch out his hand and his fingers, laying the back of his hand against the incense. He should press down so his hand sinks into the incense. He should then clo. se his fingers so the incense is collected in his palms.

Monies and materials were often consecrated for the improvement of the Temple.

A perutah is a small copper coin of minimal value. Anything less is not considered as financially significant in most halachic contexts. See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, which deals with this subject.

Offered on Shavuot.

Who is not permitted to partake of these substances.

The prohibition against misappropriating consecrated articles is derived from Leviticus 5:14-16. These verses speak about misappropriating entities “consecrated unto God.” Since the sacrificial entities mentioned in this halachah may be eaten by man, they are not included in this category.

For example, sacrificial meat that was kept overnight or which became impure (Me’ilah 1:1).

Implied by the Rambam’s words - and stated explicitly in his source, Me’ilah, op. cit. - is that if there was no time when a sacrifice was permitted to be eaten, the prohibition against misappropriating consecrated objects does apply to it.

I.e., the process for receiving atonement for misappropriating consecrated articles is stated in the passage from Leviticus cited above. Nevertheless, that passage does not contain a charge explicitly forbidding such an activity. The Rambam is pointing out the source for such a charge in the Torah. The R’avad differs and cites another verse. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s approach.

I.e., all of the meat of the animal is offered on the altar’s pyre.

In Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 1:11 and Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:9, the Rambam rules that there is never an instance when a person receives lashes and is also liable financially. Thus, if the person transgressed voluntarily and is liable for lashes, he is freed of financial responsibility. If, however, he is not liable for lashes, e.g., he was not given a warning, he must make financial restitution (Har HaMoriah, based on Ketubot 32b, 34b)

I.e., one fifth of the new total, as stated in Halachah 5. If the object was worth four zuzim, he must bring five.

The obligation to bring this guilt-offering is also mentioned in Hilchot Shegagot 9:8.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 118) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 127) count the process for receiving atonement for prohibition against misappropriating consecrated articles as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, in Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam does not speak of bringing the guilt-offering as part of this mitzvah.

Bava Kama 111a.

I.e., the guilt-offering.

The Ra’avad notes that the Rambam’s wording does not follow the wording of his apparent source, Bava Kama, op. cit. Nevertheless, the difference between the two is merely semantic. Both agree on the halachic ramifications (Rav Yosef Corcus). See also the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah 8:13.

There is a difference of opinion in the Mishnah (Keritot 5:2) concerning whether one is obligated to bring a conditional guilt-offering when he is in doubt whether he violated one of these trangressions. The Rambam accepts the opinion of the Sages who maintain that one is liable for a conditional guilt-offering only when he is in doubt whether he violated a transgression for which he would be liable for a sin-offering.

Hilchot Arachin 4:5; Hilchot Terumo! 10:26; Hilchot Ma’aserot 5:1. See also Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5.

Several of these articles are mentioned in the third chapter of the tractate of Me’ilah.

For this is required only when the transgression is of Scriptural origin.

With regard to animals consecrated for the improvement of the Temple, see Halachah 12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 113-114) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 483-484) include these two commandments among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., needless to say one is liable for working with an ox and shearing a sheep. The Rambam (based on Bechorot 25a) is emphasizing that even when one performs an activity that provides little benefit, one can be liable.

See Halachah 10.

See the notes to Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:12 which cites the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 13:4) which differentiates between “the width of a sit” and “the full length of a sit.” As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:7, “the width of a sit” is two thirds of a zeret, i.e., three handbreadths.

See Hilchot Shabbat, op. cit..

For lashes are not given unless a prohibition has definitely been violated.

Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach 1:10.

I.e., even though it was redeemed, it does not become ordinary property entirely.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach, op. cit., it is actually forbidden to consecrate such an animal as a sacrifice. According to Scriptural Law, the sanctity of a sacrificial animal is not imparted to it. See also the conclusion of Chapter 2 which focuses on an apparent contradiction in the Rambam’s rulings.

This leniency is granted because, as stated above, the sanctity of a sacrificial animal was never imparted to them.

Their consecration is not dependent on man’s activity, but comes from above, as it were.

For this is considered as benefiting from the animal which, like performing work, is forbidden. There is an added forbidden dimension to mating such an animal. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Kilayim 9:11: “When an animal has been sanctified, but disqualified [due to a blemish, and then redeemed] even though it is one animal, the Torah considers it as two bodies.... Accordingly, a person who... mates such an ox is liable for lashes because of the prohibition against [mating] mixed species.”

One may not, however, use a shearing tool, lest it appear that he is shearing [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 3:3; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 308:3)].

When an animal contracts a physical blemish, an expert must be consulted to determine whether the blemish is permanent in nature. The hair may be removed to clear the area so that he will be able to see the blemish without any impediment.

This refers to an animal consecrated as a peace-offering or a thanksgiving-offering. The other types of offerings are mentioned in the continuation of the halachah. As evident from the conclusion of the halachah, we are speaking about hair that fell off or was removed before the animal contracted a blemish.

When an animal contracts a physical blemish, an expert must be consulted to determine whether the blemish is permanent in nature. The hair may be removed to clear the area so that he will be able to see the blemish without any impediment. The removal of the hair is permitted even as an initial preference [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah].

Hence the owner will be in no rush to offer it.

For it can be assumed that they will hasten to bring the sacrifice to attain atonement

Bechorot 24b debates this matter without reaching a resolution. On one hand, the primary reason for bringing a burnt-offering is not to attain atonement. Nevertheless, this sacrifice is the means to attain atonement for failing to observe a positive commandment.

If, however, it was pulled off intentionally, it is forbidden to benefit from it.

For the bodies of these sacrificial animals are consecrated even after they have contracted a disqualifying blemish.

But not cut off with a utensil (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

But instead, leaves it hanging with the animal’s other wool, so that it will not appear that he is making a blemish on the animal (Rashi, Bechorot 24b).

The punishment given for violating the decrees of our Sages.

Since the mother was not consecrated, there is no prohibition in benefiting from it. The only difficulty is benefiting from the fetus that was consecrated.

Temurah 11b.

It is acceptable by all that these activities may not be performed with the limb that was consecrated.

Nevertheless, as an initial preference, it is forbidden to perform either of these activities.