Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5, Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6, Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 5
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 6
Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 7
(ה) מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה אָזְנוֹ כְּפוּלָה לִשְׁתַּיִם, אַפִלּוּ הַגְּדִי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אָזְנָיו לִהְיוֹתָן נוֹטוֹת וּכְפוּלוֹת. וּבִלְבָד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לָהּ שְׁנֵי סְחוּסִין; אֲבָל אִם אֵין לָהּ אֶלָא סְחוּס אֶחָד, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוּף אֶחָד שֶׁנִּכְפַּל – כָּשֵׁר.
(ב) מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו, אוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נִרְאֶה בָּהֶן שִׁנּוּי כְּלָל, מֵחֲמַת שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מַיִם קְבוּעִים כְּנֶגֶד רְאוֹתָיו. (ג) מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בְּעֵינָיו אוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן רְאִיָּה בְּרוּרָה, מֵחֲמַת שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ סַנְוֵרִים קְבוּעִים. (ד) מִי שֶׁבְּעֵינוֹ כְּמוֹ עֵנָב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא רוֹאֶה. (ה) מִי שֶׁיָּצָא בְּשַׂר יָתֵר בְּעֵינוֹ, עַד שֶׁחִפָּה מְעַט מִן הַשָּׁחוֹר שֶׁל עַיִן. (ו) מִי שֶׁנִּמְשַׁךְ הַלֹּבֶן שֶׁל עַיִן וְנִכְנַס מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט בַּשָּׁחוֹר, עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַשָּׁחוֹר מְעֹרָב בַּלָּבָן. וְזֶה הוּא "תְּבַלֻּל" (ויקרא כא, כ) הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה; אֲבָל אִם יָצָא מִן הַשָּׁחוֹר לְתוֹךְ הַלָּבָן - אֵינוֹ מוּם, שֶׁאֵין מוּמִין בַּלָּבָן. (ז) מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה נְקֻדָּה לְבָנָה בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׁחוֹר. וְזֶה הוּא "דַּק" (שם) הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. וְהוּא, שֶׁתִּהְיֶה צָפָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַשָּׁחוֹר; אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיְתָה צָפָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשֻׁקַעַת בַּשָּׁחוֹר - אֵינוֹ מוּם. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה נְקֻדָּה שְׁחוֹרָה בְּתוֹךְ הַלָּבָן, אַפִלּוּ צָפָה - אֵינוֹ מוּם, שֶׁאֵין מוּמִים בַּלָּבָן. (ח) הָיְתָה נְקֻדָּה שְׁחוֹרָה שׁוֹקַעַת בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׁחוֹר, אַף זֶה נִקְרָא "דַּק". אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה צָפָה, הוֹאִיל וְהִיא שְׁחוֹרָה בַּשָּׁחוֹר - אֵינוֹ מוּם.
(ב) מִי שֶׁנִּסְדַּק חָטְמוֹ. (ג) מִי שֶׁנִּפְגַם חָטְמוֹ.
(א) מִי שֶׁנִּמְעַךְ הַגִּיד שֶׁלּוֹ. (ב) אוֹ נִכְתַּת. (ג) אוֹ נִתַּק. (ד) אוֹ נִכְרַת. (ה) מִי שֶׁנִּמְעֲכוּ הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ, אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. (ו) אוֹ נִכְתְּתוּ, אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. (ז) אוֹ נִתְּקוּ, אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. (ח) אוֹ נִכְרְתוּ, אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן. (ט) מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָא בֵּיצָה אַחַת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כִּיסִין. (י) מִי שֶׁשְּׁנֵי בֵּיצָיו בְּכִיס אֶחָד. (יא) הַטֻמְטוּם. (יב) הָאַנְדְּרֹגִּינוֹס.
d) one whose arm-bone is broken,20 provided it is apparent; e) one whose leg-bone is broken, provided it is apparent. Even if it is not apparent when he stands, if it is apparent when he walks, it is a blemish; f) one whose legs are swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, they are swollen because of the wind, it is not considered a blemish.טשִׁשָּׁה בַּיָּדַיִם וּבָרַגְלַיִם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן:
(א) הַפִּסֵּחַ. (ב) מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יְרֵכוֹ. וְהוּא "שָׂרוּעַ" (ויקרא כא, יח; ויקרא כב, כג) הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה. (ג) מִי שֶׁאַחַת מִיַּרְכּוֹתָיו גְּבוֹהָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. (ד) מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם יָדוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכָּר. (ה) מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עֶצֶם רַגְלוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכָּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכָּר כְּשֶׁעוֹמֵד, אִם נִכָּר כְּשֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ - הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. (ו) מִי שֶׁרַגְלָיו מְבֻלָּמוֹת מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן וּבְרִיָּתָן; אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְבֻלָּמוֹת מֵחֲמַת הָרוּחַ, אֵינוֹ מוּם.
a) an elderly man who has reached the stage that he quivers and trembles when he stands; b) a person who is sick and trembles because of his illness and the weakening of his strength. A treifah28 is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.29 Similarly, one born through Caesarian section is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.30 יבוְעוֹד יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלוֹשָׁה מוּמִין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: (א) הַזָּקֵן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִהְיוֹת רוֹתֵת וְרוֹעֵד כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד. (ב) הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁהוּא רוֹעֵד מִפְּנֵי חָלְיוֹ וְכִשְׁלוֹן כּוֹחוֹ. אֲבָל הַטְּרֵפָה כָּשֵׁר בָּאָדָם, וּפָסוּל בַּבְּהֵמָה. וְכֵן יוֹצֵא דֹּפֶן כָּשֵׁר בָּאָדָם וּפָסוּל בַּבְּהֵמָה.
Quiz Yourself On Biat Hamikdash Chapter 5
Quiz Yourself On Biat Hamikdash Chapter 6
Quiz Yourself On Biat Hamikdash Chapter 7
The Rambam emphasizes that this mitzvah applies to a priest, because an animal offered as a sacrifice may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Such a person need not sanctify his hands and feet. This explanation is reinforced by some of the versions of Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 24) which state “A priest alone is obligated…,” i.e., a priest and not a non-priest.
Through washing them from the basin in the Temple Courtyard, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 106) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
If he does not perform service in the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable even if he enters without sanctifying his hands and feet (Rav Yosef Corcus).
With the latter addition, the Rambam excludes the extra sanctifications performed by the High Priest on Y om Kippur before and after the changes of his garments. If he does not sanctify his hands and feet at this time, he does not invalidate his service, as stated in Halachah 7.
Nevertheless, as explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:3, he is not liable for lashes, because he has only violated a positive commandment, not a negative commandment.
The text of the Mishneh Torah does not quote the verse exactly.
Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 10:4.
On the following day, he must sanctify his hands and feet again, even if he did not sleep at night, as stated in Halachah 8.
See Halachah 5.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this requirement is derived from the obligation to sanctify one’s hands and feet if one diverts attention, for it is likely that while sleeping, one did divert his attention.
See Halachah 5 with regard to defecation.
There is an unresolved question concerning this point in Zevachim 20b. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh).
In the other three instances mentioned above, if he serves without sanctifying his hands and feet, his service is invalid (Kessef Mishneh).
There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if a ritually pure person who enters the Temple Courtyard without intending to perform service is obligated to immerse himself or not.
See the conclusion of Halachah 6.
Even if he actually remained outside for a short time.
This refers, not to ritual impurity prescribed by Scriptural Law, but instead, to certain states of ritual impurity ordained by our Sages that affect the hands alone. See Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah, ch. 8.
See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 9:9.
See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:2 for a description of these changes of clothing, immersions, and sanctifications.
He does, however, violate a positive commandment, because he does not perform the Yom Kippur service as prescribed (Yoma 30b).
They are obligations of the High Priest (Aaron), but not an ordinary priest (his sons).
I.e., he was continually involved in the Temple service.
At daybreak.
Which is carried out at dawn (Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 2:11-12).
Halachically, depending on the different opinions, dawn is between 72 minutes and two hours before sunrise. Sunrise is the time when the priest should sanctify his hands. Nevertheless, in this instance, he has no alternative, since he is sanctifying them for that day’s service and that service is performed before dawn.
See the description of this utensil in the conclusion of ch. 4 of Hilchot Heit HaBechirah.
I.e., one that is not consecrated.
The sanctification must be performed within the Temple Courtyard, for that is where the basin is located. Even though the sanctification need not be performed with water from the basin, it must be performed in the area where it is located (Zevachim 22a).
There were several mikvaot on the Temple Mount.
86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah; 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish. The Ra’avad states - and the Kessef Mishneh explains that this is also the Rambam’s intent - that if one uses a small utensil, he must take the water from the basin.
As stated in Hilchot Mikvaot 7:1, if the appearance of water has changed, e.g., one poured wine or juice into it and changed its color, it is not acceptable for immersion.
Since a cow will drink it, it is considered as water and not as earth. Compare to ibid. 7:3, 8:9. 11:2.
A mikveh must be 40 se'ah in volume.
Zevachim 21b cites Exodus 40:32 which states “And Moses, Aaron, and his sons will wash from it.” “His sons” is plural indicating at least two, thus reaching a total of four. The Rambam, here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 2) substitutes Pinchas for Moses. The Kessef Mishneh questions that explanation on two counts: Firstly, at the time, the basin was first used, Aaron’s older sons, Nadav and Avihu, were still alive. Moreover, the priesthood had not been granted to Pinchas as of yet. Rav Yosef Corcus tries to support the Rambam’s understanding, explaining that according to certain views, Moses did not serve as a priest when Aaron did, only in the seven days of preparation.
Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:18.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid 1:4), the Rambam explains that each night the basin would be submerged in, a muchani, a large container which held a reservoir of water. This container was not a sacred utensil and hence the water it contained was not disqualified overnight. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., for a description of this container.
See I Kings 7:23-26. This was a circular copper tank, ten cubits in diameter and five cubits deep.
As II Chronicles 4:6 states, the priests would use it as a mikveh.
A mountain spring slightly south of Jerusalem. It was 32 cubits higher than the Temple Mount. Hence the water would naturally flow through a conduit built from it to the Temple.
Usually, water contained in a utensil is not acceptable for immersion. Nevertheless, since water from a flowing spring passed through this tank, its water was acceptable [the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:8)].
I.e., because it was connected to a flowing spring.
I.e., a colleague would pour water over them; alternatively, the priest would stand under a tap.
See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:5 which states that one would wash until the wrist.
As explained in Hilchot Mikvaot, ch. 2, no significant substance may intervene between the flesh of the person immersing and the waters of the mikveh. That chapter details those substances that are considered as significant and hence, as intervening, and those which are not.
In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim, loc. cit.), he offers another rationale: that one is not allowed to sit in the Temple.
And lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated.
Zevachim 24a relates that since both the Temple utensils and the ground of the Temple Courtyard have been sanctified, an equation is established between them. Just as there can be no intervening substance between a priest’s hand and a sacred utensil, so too, there may be no intervening substance between his feet and the Temple Courtyard.
I.e., the stones of the Temple or the Temple Courtyard.
This is derived from Leviticus 4:5: “And the priest shall take.” Implied is that the taking must be performed by the priest’s body without any intermediary (Zevachim, loc. cit.).
Indeed, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that “Whenever the word “hand” is mentioned [with regard to the Temple service], the intent is the right hand.”
The above is referring to a right-handed person. A left-handed priest is disqualified from serving in the Temple, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
For there is no explicit prohibition that he violates. Instead, it is an extension of a positive commandment (Kessef Mishneh).
For then, the support provided by the second foot is not of consequence.
For then it is significant.
This is a general principle, applying in other situations as well (see Shabbat 93b).
As long as it is not fixed in the ground, the stone can be considered as a separate entity and therefore, it could be considered as an intervening substance between the priest and the earth.
There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Zevachim 24a. Hence, the Rambam does not rule stringently. See also the commentaries to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:10.
From the repetition of verses in Leviticus concerning this issue, the Sifra derives that the prohibition encompasses both types of blemishes.
The curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 69) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 277) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In his gloss to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban differs. He maintains that although there is a prohibition against a blemished priest serving in the Temple as the Rambam proceeds to explain, there is no Scriptural prohibition against merely entering this portion of the Temple area. The Megilat Esther supports the Rambam’s view.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that from Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4, it appears that lashes are given only if the priest enters the building of the Temple, not this portion of the courtyard.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 70) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 275) also consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As indicated by the following halachah, according to the Rambam, this prohibition refers to a priest with a permanent blemish.
Although the prooftext refers specifically to the daily offering, the Sifra explains that the repetition of verses indicates that the prohibition encompasses all sacrifices.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 71) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 276) also consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Ramban differs and maintains that there is only one negative commandment against a priest with a blemish serving in the Temple and it includes both instances, a permanent blemish and a temporary blemish.
See Leviticus 21:19.
Ibid.:20.
Ibid.:18-21.
In his commentary to the Torah, the Ramban takes a slightly different approach, maintaining that those blemishes mentioned in the Torah outline the general categories of blemishes.
There are also blemishes that disqualify an animal, but do not disqualify a human, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, ch. 2. See the gloss of the Radbaz there. There it is explained that it appears that the Rambam’s intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are “not appropriate to be found in a human.” Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified.
These are described in Chapter 7.
These are described in Chapter 8.
See the conclusion of ch. 8.
If he serves intentionally.
The commentaries note that there appears to be a contradiction between this statement and the Torah’s explicit statements. The Torah mentions exceptionally long eye-brows and crushed testicles as blemishes. These blemishes apply to a human and not to an animal. Nevertheless, it appears that they are also included by the statement (ibid.:23): “He shall not desecrate My sacred offerings.”
Even blemishes that are ordinarily covered by a person’s clothes are considered as apparent.
A person who will not live more than 12 months.
This applies even when there was no transgression in the priest remaining uncircumcised, e.g., an instance when two of his brothers died because of circumcision (Rashi, Sanhedrin 83a).
This term also has the connotation of an idolater.
Rashi (ibid. 84a) states that since the warning is dependent on a verse from the Prophets and not from the Torah itself, the person is not liable for lashes. The Rambam’s view is based on Zevachim 18b which maintains that the prohibition was taught by the Oral Tradition. Ezekiel merely provided a support. The Rambam, however, mentions the verse from Ezekiel because of the connection to the non-priest so that there will be a link to an explicit prohibition from the Torah.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
As a non-priest is (ibid.).
E.g., he married a divorcee or another woman forbidden to the priesthood. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, chs. 17-19 where these prohibitions are detailed.
These laws have parallels in the present era as well. Such a priest may not recite the Priestly Blessing [Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 128:40)].
Since the vow is not being taken dependent on his own discretion, but on that of other people, it cannot be nullified. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:8.
Which is forbidden to a priest, as stated in Hilchot Evel, ch. 1.
For this prohibition is merely a Rabbinic safeguard.
A challal is a priest conceived in relations forbidden to a priest or the son of a challal. None of the mitzvot of the priesthood apply to him.
Challal, “desecrated,” and chayl, “legion,” share two of the same root letters. Hence the above concept can be derived (Kiddushin 66b).
The presence of the Sanhedrin in this chamber is discussed in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 and Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:11-12.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 20:2.
Located in the Women’s Courtyard; see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:8.
For worm-eaten wood is undesirable. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:2.
See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.
I.e., its substance has been diminished.
I.e., if one would run his nail over the lobe of this person’s ear, like one runs his nail over a ritual slaughterer’s knife, the progress of his nail would be held back by the blemish. See Rashi, Bechorot 37b.
A small bean about the size of a lentil (ibid.).
I.e., it appears as if he has two ears, one inside the other.
Although the Rambam’s version of the source for this ruling, Bechorot 6:9 differs from the standard printed text of the Mishnah, the interpretation of both versions is the same.
I.e., its substance has been diminished.
As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:18.
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3).
Due to a retinal infection (ibid.:2).
This refers to the term chilazon nachash mentioned in the Mishnah (ibid.).
If, however, the cartilage between the nostrils is perforated and it is not visible externally, it is not considered as a blemish [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4)].
Because the swelling comes from an external factor.
Our translation is taken from Rashi’s commentary (Bechorot 40a).
This is the meaning of the term meroach eshef in Leviticus 21:20.
This refers to the inner sacs within the larger scrotum.
More details regarding the individuals in the latter two categories are found in Hilchot Ishut 2:25-26; Hilchot Nizirut 2:11; et al. See also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:3.
As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:18.
Leviticus 21:18; 22:23. The Rambam’s interpretation is based on the Sifra. Rashi in his commentary to the Torah explains the term differently.
As explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 21:19.
Leviticus 21:19; 22:22; Deuteronomy 28:27.
A moist skin eruption reminiscent of the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues. Its external layer is moist, but its internal layer is dry and it is also very distasteful in appearance.
E.g., an arm or a leg (Bechorot 40b).
The laws pertaining to animals with these three blemishes are slightly different than those pertaining to animals with other blemishes. See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 2:6.
A man or an animal that has a physical infirmity that will cause him to die within twelve months. See Chapter 6, Halachah 7.
See Hilchot Issurei Mizheiach 3:1.
See Ibid.:4.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.