Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

A fingerbreadth is about 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah. There is no required measure according to Scriptural Law. The Rabbis chose a measure of two fingerbreadths, because this is the ordinary width of a High Priest’s forehead.

“Sanctified unto God.”

The standard published text of Sukkah 5a states that God’s name should be on the upper line and on the lower line. Apparently, the Rambam’s text of the Gemara followed a different version. Alternatively, the Rambam favored the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 4:1) which follows the version stated. There it is explained that although the wording is opposite that of the verse, it is like a king (God’s name) sitting on his throne (the word “sanctified”).

Shabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a quote Rabbi Etiezar bar Yossi as saying: “I saw it in Rome (where it had been taken after the Temple’s destruction) and the words were written in one line.”
Likutei Sichot, Vol. 26, p. 200ff., explains that the fact that despite Rabbi Eliezar’s testimony, the halachah is that the words should be written in two lines indicates that our Sages had received orally the tradition that this was the acceptable way of preparing the forehead plate. Accordingly, we must say that the reason the second view is accepted is not because of Rabbi Eliezar’s testimony, but because there was an oral tradition that it was acceptable.

Exodus 39:30 states: “They engraved on it writing, [like that of] a signet ring.” Now the letters of a signet ring project outward and so it was required that the letters of the forehead plate project outward. On the other hand, since the verse mentions writing, the letters could not be made using a mold (Kessef Mishneh; this rebuts the Ra’avad’s objection). See Gittin 20a.

Beeswax was used so that it would be firm enough to support the gold and prevent it from being pierced, but flexible enough to allow it to be shaped.

The Ra’avad (following the line of thinking found in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah) states that there was a third hole in the center of the forehead plate and a strand extending from it over the High Priest’s head. This would prevent the plate from slipping down. The Rambam (and his view is supported by the Ramban in his commentary to the Torah) maintains that only two holes were made. Apparently, the plate was held in place by the pressure generated by tying it tightly.

As stated in Exodus 39:22.

As ibid. 28:32 states: “Its opening for the head shall be folded over within it. Its opening shall have a border of weaver’s work.”

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s source for this statement. In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban also questions the Rambam’s view. The Radbaz explains that were it to have had an opening for the High Priest’s arms, there would have been no difference between it and the tunic.

It did not surround the High Priest on all sides, but instead hung down over the front and back of his body, with openings on either side. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s understanding and the Ramban supports it.
According to the Rambam’s conception, the cloak bore somewhat of a resemblance to the garments worn today as a tallit kattan (except that it was much longer than those garment). Indeed, for that reason, the Radbaz questions why there was no obligation to attach tzitzit to it. He explains that since the neck portion of the garment did not extend over the High Priests’ shoulders, it is not considered as a four-cornered garment.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 88) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 101) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

If, however, he tears them with an intent to mend the article, no prohibition is involved (Radbaz).

And as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 14, that term implies a strand made up of eight threads.

Eight threads from each type of fabric.

Pomegranates have a crown-like bud on their top and these spheres would not.

See Exodus 28:33-34.

Ibid.:5, 15; 39:2, 8.

I.e., four times seven.

The design embroidered on it could be seen from both sides.

In the previous halachah.

Half a cubit.

Note the comments of the Radbaz who infers that according to the Rambam, the breastplate would be woven while elongated and then folded. Others maintain that it should be sewn folded at the outset. The Urim and Tumim were placed between the folds of the breastplate. See Chapter 10, Halachah 10, for a description of them.

As stated in ibid. 28:15-16.

Ibid. 28:17-20:39:10-13.

As will be explained in the notes to Chapter 10, halachah 10, according to the Rambam, the stones of the breastplate were called the Urim and Tumim and, in the First Temple era, served as oracles.

Our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan’s Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term.

On the ruby itself (Shmot Rabbah, the conclusion of sec. 38). Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son writes that these inscriptions were made with smaller letters so that all the names would fit on the stone. The Radbaz suggests that they were embroidered into the breastplate.

On the jasper itself (ibid.).

“The tribes of God.”

See Exodus 28:22-24. These golden cords extend from the ephod and secure the breastplate from above as explained in the following halachot.

For the breastplate is placed above the heart (ibid.:30).

To secure the breastplate to the ephod from below, as stated in Halachah 11.

As Exodus 25:8 states, the belt was made in the same manner as the ephod itself.

See Halachah 5.

In contrast to the other priestly garments which are woven, these shoulder straps are sewn to the ephod.

Kiryat Sefer suggests that the stones were rectangular rather than square, for otherwise it would be difficult to fit six lines on a square stone.

A crypto-crystalline quartz, related to agate with alternating red and white bands. Here also, our translation is based on R. Aryeh Kaplan’s Living Torah. There are some other renditions of this term.

Jn this way, he can fulfill the charge (Exodus 28:12): “Aaron shall carry their names on his shoulders before God as a remembrance.”

The order the Rambam chooses - as reflected in the accompanying drawing [which is also included in his commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 7:5)] has attracted the attention of the commentaries. Although it follows the simple meaning of the verse, there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Sotah 36a-b and the Rambam’s view does not follow either of the opinions mentioned there. The Kessef Mishneh, however, offers a resolution that enables the Rambam’s understanding to conform to the Talmud’s text.

Psalms 81:1 writes Joseph’s name in this manner. The Radbaz states that the extra letter was added to Joseph’s name, because he was a king, and it was appropriate to include the first three letters of God’s name in his name.

The accompanying drawing is a copy of one included in the Mishneh Torah by the Rambam himself.

These are the same chains described in Halachah 8.

The accompanying drawing was copied from drawings by the Rambam that were included in the original manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah.

See Halachah 8.

Since the breastplate is tied firmly from above and from below, it will not be separated from the ephod.

The Radbaz implies from this wording that even if the two are not separated entirely, as long as they are moved slightly, the prohibition applies.

If, however, his intent is to readjust their connection, there is no prohibition against separating them.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 87) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 100) include the prohibition against separating the breastplate from the ephod among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the belt of the ephod was tied below the High Priest’s waist. The Radbaz explains that the belt is to be positioned below the breastplate on the same level as its top. The breastplate should lie on the High Priest’s heart. Nevertheless, he also explains that the Rambam’s wording has to be clarified, because as stated in the following chapter (Halachot 1-2), the sash is tied over the High Priest’s heart. The Radbaz therefore suggests that the sash was tied over the upper portion of the heart and the belt of the ephod slightly lower.

From Leviticus 6:2, one might presume that the tunic is put on first, because it states: “And the priest shall put his fitted [tunic] and he shall put on linen leggings.” Nevertheless, through the process of Biblical exegesis, Yoma 23b derives that nothing should be put on before the leggings.

The sash was 32 cubits long, so that it will obviously be wound around him several times.

By Zevachim 18b.

I.e., a place like the armpits or loins where flesh covers flesh leading to perspiration.

A renowned student of the Sage Hillel, who translated the Tanach into Aramaic.

See Megilah 3a which ascribes this translation to the prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi who accompanied the Jews back from the Babylonian exile to Jerusalem.

At elbow height.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 2. The order in which the ordinary priests put on the priestly garments is taken from Leviticus 8:13.

I.e., he puts on the first three garments in the same manner as an ordinary priest does.

Exodus 28:31.

The bracketed inclusion is necessary, because in front of his head, the turban was above the forehead plate, as the Rambam proceeds to state. The order in which the High Priest put on his priestly garments is taken from Leviticus 8:7-9.

See Halachah 6.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 33) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 99) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The wording in Sefer HaMitzvot implies that the fundamental mitzvah is for the priests to wear these gannents for their Temple service. Making the garments is merely a preparatory phase that enables that mitzvah to be fulfilled.

This refers to the garments of the High Priest.

This refers to the clothes of an ordinary priest.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 9:1.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 2:1), it appears that wearing any extra garment, not only an extra priestly garment, causes one to be liable.

We see this concept in several other contexts. When there is an extra entity, it is as if it and the entity that is required to be present is lacking. See Hilchot Shechitah 6:2.

The Rambam is not quoting a verse exactly. Similar phrases exist in Leviticus 6:3 and 16:4.

See Halachah 3.

One can infer that he is not obligated to wear tefillin. We apply the principle: One who is occupied in the observance of a mitzvah - the priestly service is exempt from another mitzvah, wearing tefillin.
The tefillin are not considered as an extra garment, because tefillin are not considered a garment (Kessef Mishneh).

Zevachim 19a questions whether these situations are acceptable and does not arrive at a conclusion. Accordingly, the Rambam rules that as an initial preference, one should be concerned with these matters, but the difficulty is not great enough to disqualify the service. For unless the Torah or our Sages explicitly ruled that a sacrifice is unacceptable, one cannot bring another one in its place, for it is possible that one will be committing the transgression of slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Shechitah 2:3). The slaughter of the animal might be placed in that category, because one is bringing it as a sacrifice under the conception that he is obligated to do so, when in fact that might not be so.
The Kessef Mishneh states that one may not bring a sacrifice and make a conditional stipulation: “If the previous sacrifice was unacceptable, may this be considered as my obligation and if the previous sacrifice was acceptable, this is a freewill offering.” There are some sacrifices e.g., sin offerings, guilt offerings, and communal offerings - where such a stipulation cannot be made. Hence, our Sages enforced uniformity and prevented conditional offerings in these instances.

The minimum size of a garment (see Hilchot Keilim 22:12; 23:7; et al).

It is too small to be considered as entity of consequence.

Since he is not tying a permanent knot, there is no prohibition against tying. Nor is there a prohibition against performing an act of healing on the Sabbath (as is prohibited in certain instances), because such prohibitions were not applied in the Temple.

For this is a transgression of the Sabbath laws and it does not aid the Temple service (Rashi, Eruvin 103b).

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:17.

For in this instance, even if the article is not significant, an interposition invalidates the service. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, claiming that it is a contradiction to his ruling in the previous halachah. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s position, explaining that in the previous halachah, the garment was not considered a garment because of its size. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is not ~considered an interposition. As long as it intervenes, it disqualifies service regardless of its size.

Kiddushin 31a relates that the Sages sought to purchase the stones for the High Priest’s breastplate in the era of the Second Temple.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam considers the term Urim and Tumim as referring to the stones of the High Priest's breastplate. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sotah 9:20). The Ra’avad and others differ and interpret it as referring to the script of mystic names of God that were placed in the folds of breastplate.

For the stones were an integral part of the structure of the breastplate.

The spirit of prophecy.

Yoma 13 21b explains that this is one of the five differences between the holiness of the First Temple and that of the Second Temple.

I.e., in the era of the First Temple.

As in the classic example of Chanah’s prayer (I Samuel 1:13), which is accepted as the paradigm for our Shemoneh Esreh prayers.

For the verse is referring to Joshua whose position was that of a king.

I.e., a person upon whom the future of the entire Jewish people depended.

See I Samuel 22:18.

Instead, it also contained sky-blue wool, scarlet wool, red wool, as related in Chapter 9, Halachah 9.

See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:4-5 with regard to the preparations a person would make for the spirit of prophecy to rest upon him.

This excludes a challal, a son born to a priest from a forbidden relationship, and a priest who has a disqualifying physical blemish. They are not liable for this severe punishment.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 73) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 152) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note also the parallels in Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:4.

I.e., ascends the steps to the Temple building or enters that structure. See also Halachah 15 and notes.

If he entered this area while intoxicated, but did not perform service, he is only liable for lashes, as stated in Halachah 15. Similar concepts apply if he drank intoxicating beverages while in this area (Halachah 16).

The services for which he is liable are described in Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

He may, however, be punished by a mortal court with lashes and thus freed from the more severe spiritual punishment. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2.

A liquid measure equal to 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish. [It is reputed that the wines of the Talmudic era were very strong and drinking even this small amount could cause intoxication.]

And thus has had time to ferment and reach an alcoholic content sufficient enough to cause intoxication.

Since he paused while drinking it, its intoxicating effect will be less.

Even if one drank the entire quantity, since it was diluted, it will have a lesser effect.

Since its alcoholic content will not be that high, one is not liable. There is, nevertheless, a prohibition against serving in the Temple even when having drunk such wine (Kessef Mishneh).

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that although serving in the Temple in such a condition is forbidden, the priest is not liable for such severe punishment, nor is his service disqualified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of Keritot 13b that substantiate the Rambam’s position.

One of the opinions in Keritot 13b derives this concept from the literal meaning of Leviticus 10:9, translated above as: “Do not drink intoxicating wine,” i.e., it interprets the term vesheicher according to its simple meaning, i.e., an alcoholic beverage other than wine. There is another opinion in that source that interprets vesheicher as an adjective (which we have translated as “intoxicating”) describing the manner in which one drinks wine. Apparently, the Rambam does not see the two interpretations as mutually exclusive. See Kessef Mishneh. See also Halachah 15.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., where the Rambam links the two prohibitions in the same negative commandment. One is not, however, liable for death for delivering a ruling while intoxicated. Note the discussion of this matter by the Ramban and Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot.

One of the eight forbidden teeming animals mentioned in Leviticus 11:29-30. A frog is not one of those animals.

I.e., a directive for actual practice.

Note the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 7:5) which quotes an opinion stating that it is permitted to rule in cases involving financial law when slightly intoxicated.

A Talmudic measure equivalent to a kilometer. If he rode rather than walked, he must ride three mil (Eruvin 64b).

Who serve in the Temple that week. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3, 11.

As stated in that source, on each particular day, there was a clan whose members would perform the Temple service for that day.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the intent of Ta’anit 17a (the Rambam’s source) is not the night before the priests serve in the Temple, but the night afterwards. They are forbidden because it is possible that they will have to continue offering the limbs and fat-tails of the animals at night if they were not able to offer them during the day.
The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s interpretation, explaining that there is no need to prohibit the priests from drinking wine the entire night for this reason. It is sufficient for them to be abstinent until these limbs have been offered.

Were it not for the reason mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah, this law would apply even in the present era. This is a decree, enacted lest the Temple be rebuilt and the priests be required to serve at their appointed time.

Lest he be drinking on a day forbidden for him.

I.e., his lack of knowledge of his watch and clan.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the reason why there is no decree against the priests drinking wine in the present age. He rejects the Rambam’s view, because with Mashiach’s coming, the lineage of the priests will be established according to the spirit of prophecy (see Hilchot Melachim 12:3) and the priests will immediately be called upon to begin their service in the Temple. Instead, the rationale is that because of the length of the exile, we do not expect that the Temple will be built instantaneously. [This is also the view of Rashi (Ta’anit 17a)]. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s view, noting that according to the Rambam, we may offer sacrifices even if the Temple is not rebuilt (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) and furthermore, the establishment of the priest’s lineage even through the spirit of prophecy will not take only one day.

See Halachah 11 for a definition of this term.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 163) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 149) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the objections of the Ramban to the inclusion of this charge as one of the mitzvot and the resolutions offered by Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot.

The law that applies if he does not perform service is explained in Halachah 15.

As stated in Halachah 1.

The prooftext for this prohibition from the Torah (Leviticus 10:6), “Do not let [the hair of] your heads grow long,” is not sufficient, because that could be interpreted as merely granting license for Aaron’s sons to conduct themselves in this manner. Other mourners must rend their garments and let their hair grow and they were not required to. The verse from Ezekiel teaches that the charge applies at all times and is not specific to that situation (Kessef Mishneh; Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.).

I.e., the equation of their service to that of intoxicated priests is not complete. The Rambam’s view is not accepted by all authorities. There are some who maintain that such a priest’s service is also disqualified. See the Ramban’s gloss to Sefer HaMitzvot.

The Ra’avad differs and, from the verse in Ezekiel cited above, understands that all priests are prohibited against growing their hair long and must take haircuts once in 30 days. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s position. See the following halachah and notes.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 5:6 where the Rambam explains the restrictions incumbent on the High Priest in greater detail. As he states there, these prohibitions apply to a High Priest even outside of the Temple and even when he is not in mourning.

See ibid. 5:7.

Hilchot Nizirut 3:2. Thus we can assume that growing one’s hair long encompasses a 30 day period.

Implied is that if a priest does not desire to serve, he is not required to cut his hair (Kessef Mishneh).

This does not refer to the priestly garments, for the priestly garments are not washed (Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 8:5). Instead, the intent is the priest’s personal garments. As a mark of respect, he should ascend to the Temple in freshly laundered clothes (Yeri’ot Shlomo).

Note a parallel decree in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 7:19. See also Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 6:11.

Although doing so is usually forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov, loc. cit. Here leniency was granted, because he is considered to have been held back from cutting his hair before the festival by forces beyond his control.

And not during the festival.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 164) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 150) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In this instance as well, the Ramban objects to the inclusion of this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot.

This ruling appears in direct contradiction to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 8:4 where the Rambam writes: "If [the priestly garments] were muddy, torn, longer than his appropriate measure... and a priest performed service while wearing them, his service is invalid." Among the resolutions offered is that in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, the Rambam is speaking about clothes that remain torn (therefore, even after the fact, the service is invalid), while here he was speaking about torn garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains, here the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made when one rends his garments in mourning (which can be mended) as indicated in the following halachah, and there, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many places.

This expression indicates a conclusion which the Rambam reached through the process of deduction and not derived from any specific source.

The Ra’avad agrees that this law applies to a priest that ascends the altar in these unkempt states, but differs with regard to a priest who proceeds further and ascends the steps of the Temple. He maintains that entering that area in these unkempt states is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. The Kessef Mishneh offers an explanation that justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

I.e., as a conscious transgression.

The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of the Rambam’s source, the Sifra to Parshat Shemini. The Kessef Mishneh and others offer support for the Rambam’s interpretation.

As explained in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, ch. 7, the other areas of the Temple Mount have a lesser degree of holiness.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., which speaks of the command to fear the Temple.

Or a Levite as will be explained.

Rambam LeAm gives the example of the prophet Samuel who was a Nazirite and hence, allowed his hair to grow long. Nevertheless, he combed it until it was attractive and hence, he was allowed to remain in the Sanctuary of Shiloh.