Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

The term is defined in Halachah 6.

As stated in Leviticus 4:22-23.

lbid.:3.

I.e., instead of asking others, he considers the question involved himself, rules, and acts on his own ruling.

I.e., as opposed to an instance where he rules together with the Sanhedrin, see Halachah 4.

All of these specifications are mentioned at the conclusion of ch. 12 and explained in chs. 13 and 14.

As stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 2, since he acknowledged that transferring an article from one domain to another is a forbidden activity and ruled erroneously only with regard to throwing, he is considered to have nullified part of a prohibition and maintained part. Hence, he is liable.

E. g., he did not know that it was the Sabbath and threw an article from one domain to another in inadvertent violation of the prohibition.

In which instance, his ruling is of no consequence.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 2.

E. g., he erroneously ruled that the fat on the stomach was permitted, but then partook of it accidentally, thinking he was eating fat from another portion of the animal’s body.

He is not obligated to bring a she-goat or ewe like an ordinary individual, but rather is exempt entirely.

The distinction between an anointed priest and a nasi is only made in the passage concerning these offerings in the Book of Leviticus which deals with prohibitions other than the worship of false deities. The passage that deals with atoning for that prohibition in the Book of Numbers does not make such a distinction at all.

In the previous two halachot.

Although the anointed priest is not singled out with regard to bringing a different sacrifice for the inadvertent worship of false deities, our Sages established an equation between the two ways of securing atonement. Hence just as he is absolved from the responsibility of bringing a sacrifice for the commission of other transgressions in certain instances, so too, he is absolved from bringing a sacrifice for the worship of false deities in those situations (see Horiot 5b).

The commentaries debate whether this is speaking about an instance when he actually served on the Sanhedrin or just was aware of their ruling and was influenced by them when making his own ruling.

I.e., the majority of the nation did not transgress or there was another factor for which reason the court was not required to bring a sacrifice as explained at the conclusion of ch. 12.

See Halachah 3.

Because his ruling and his deed concerned a separate prohibition.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Horiot 7b leaves the High Priest’s liability in this instance as an unresolved question and, hence, queries why the Rambam requires him to bring a sacrifice. He suggests that perhaps the intent is that he brings it conditionally, stipulating “If I am liable, it is a sin-offering and if I am exempt, it is a free-will offering.” Others explain that Rabbenu Chananel followed a slightly different version of that Talmudic passage and according to his version, the question is not left unresolved. It is possible that the Rambam followed this version of the text.

As a private individual would.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 2.

Instead, he is bound by the same laws as apply to an ordinary individual. The only difference between them is the sacrifice brought.

Leviticus 4:22.

Horiot lib explains that this does not include the nesi’im who ruled in the Second Temple era, because they were in certain ways subservient to the Exilarch in Babylon.

See Hilchot Melachim 1:7-8 which explains that although kingship was endowed to David and his descendants forever, there can be halachic legitimacy to the rule of other kings over tribes other than the tribe of Judah.

I.e., each is considered as a king in his own right.

Used by Leviticus 4:3.

We have translated the term merubah babegadim, literally, “whose garments were increased,” according to its figurative meaning. As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1 and in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:12-14, according to Scriptural Law (Leviticus 21:10), the High Priest was to be initiated into his office by anointing him with the special anointment oil. Nevertheless, toward the conclusion of the First Temple era, King Josiah ordered the Holy Ark entombed in mazelike vaults beneath the Temple and the anointment oil was entombed together with it. From that time onward, the High Priest was installed in his office by wearing the garments appropriate to it. There are eight garments worn by the High Priest as opposed to four worn by an ordinary priest; hence, the term “whose garments were increased.”

As explained in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 6, a priest who has a disqualifying physical blemish may not serve in the Temple. The disqualifying blemishes are listed in chs. 7-8 of those halachot.

See ibid. 7:12. There the Rambam does not give a chronological age, but states that this refers to a priest whose hands are unsteady because of his advanced age.

I.e., the bull brought as atonement for his sins and the sins of his household; see Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.

The chavitan offering; see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18.

Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Chapter 13, Halachah 2.

A skin affliction similar, but not analogous, to leprosy that causes a person to become ritually impure.

The Rambam is referring to an historical event that is mentioned in the Bible (II Kings 15:5; II Chronicles 26:16-21) and discussed by the commentaries and the Talmud (Horiot 10a). King Azariah (Uzziah) became proud and sought to offer incense on the altar. He was reproached by the priests and afflicted by tzara’at by the hand of heaven. Because of his affliction, he was removed from his office and forced to seek asylum in a private place.

Note the contrast to the laws governing the anointed priest mentioned in Halachah 7.

As stated in Halachah 6, a High Priest does not ordinarily bring a provisional guilt-offering. Nevertheless, this instance is an exception, because the obligation results from an action performed before the person was appointed to this office. The Rambam does not mention a king in this instance, because a king must bring a provisional guilt-offering.

For he partook of both of them while an ordinary person. The fact that there was a significant amount of time between them is of no consequence.
This question does not apply with regard to a High Priest, because even after he is removed from his office, he must receive atonement as a High Priest, as stated in Halachah 7.