Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As explained in Halachah 3.

I.e., to offer incense, kindle the menorah, or to bow.

According to its simple meaning, the prooftext cited below refers only to Aaron. Nevertheless, through the Biblical exegesis, the Sifra interprets it as referring to all priests (Kessef Mishneh).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 68) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 184) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam explains that this mitzvah is an expression of honor and reverence toward the Temple.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's interpretation of the verse, for seemingly, "within the curtain" refers to the Holy of Holies. On the surface, the opposite would be more appropriate: "The Holy Chamber" could be interpreted as referring to the entire Temple and "within the curtain" to the Holy of Holies. He explains the verse as follows: Were the verse to have mentioned "the Holy Chamber" alone, we would have thought that it refers only to the Holy of Holies and not to the Temple at large. Since, however, the verse adds "within the curtain," we understand that it refers to the Holy of Holies" and "the Holy Chamber" refers to the entire Sanctuary.

There is, however, a difference in the punishments for which one is liable for the violation of the two aspects of this commandment, as the Rambam states in Halachah 4.

Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim, ch. 4.

With regard to the priests' prostrating themselves, see Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:11. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the priests were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary to prostrate themselves at all times. Instead, they would enter only at a specific time, when the service of the morning was completed.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 165) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 151) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

If, however, he is not involved in the Temple service, he is not required to remain in the Temple.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the prooftext the Rambam cites was directed to Aaron's sons and applied only at the time of the death of Nadav and Avihu at the dedication of the Sanctuary. In other instances, there is no prohibition for an ordinary priest to leave the Temple. The prohibition applies to the High Priest alone. The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Sifra which - as interpreted by the Ramban - serves as support for the Rambam's ruling.

The Ra'avad amplifies his difference of opinion with the Rambam, maintaining that the ordinary priest should certainly leave the Temple to participate in the funeral of a close relative. Indeed, he is forced to become impure to take part in the burial. Indeed, since he cannot complete the service, what value is there in him remaining?

The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that were he to depart from the Temple, it would be demeaning to the service that he had performed. The implication would be that it was not of serious importance to him. Also, there is a practical dimension; if he would depart, there might not be anyone to see that the service is in fact completed.

See Halachah 9 for a definition of this term. See also Hilchot Evel 4:6, 9, for particulars with regard to the state of aninut, acute mourning.

The Rambam's statements are taken from Zevachim 17b. The Talmud there offers another derivation. Significantly, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., the Rambam uses that derivation and not the one mentioned here.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.

See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:7.

Aaron asked this rhetorical question to Moses after serving in the Sanctuary, but not partaking of the offerings, on the day his sons died.

As explained in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 12:15, since a person who was in a state of acute mourning was forbidden to partake of holy objects, it is possible that he diverted his attention from his hands and touched a source of impurity unknowingly. Nevertheless, this is only a safeguard and applies only with regard to partaking of food and not to touching it.

[It must be emphasized that there is a difference in the versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1). Some versions of the text follow the ruling here, but others state that it is forbidden for a person to touch sacred food.]

A person's mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. One must mourn for his or her spouse according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Evel 2:1).

I.e., the person died beforehand and the priest heard the report within 30 days of his death. In that instance, he is required to observe a full week of shivah mourning (Hilchot Evel 7:1).

I.e., unearths his grave for the sake of reburying him in another place.

Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:9. There it is explained that our Sages did not wish to enforce their decree in a situation that would lead to the violation of a transgression punishable by karet.

See Mo'ed Kattan 15b which states that this is derived from the term shelamim ("peace-offerings"). That name implies that these offerings may only be brought when a person is at peace with himself.

A physical ailment similar to leprosy which causes one to become ritually impure.

I.e., the Temple Mount; see Chapter 3, Halachah 2, which explains these concepts.

See Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 7, for a definition of this term.

Mo'ed Kattan 15b explains this question as follows: During the 40 years between the sin of the spies and the entry of the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, they were considered as if they were under a ban of ostracism from God. Nevertheless, their sacrifices were offered. Hence one might conclude that even though a person is under a ban of ostracism, his sacrifices may be offered. That conclusion is not accepted unquestionably, however, because it is possible to make a distinction between one who is ostracized by God (as the Jews were in the desert) and one ostracized by man. It is possible that the latter situation is more severe.

They may not, however, enter the Temple themselves to take part in the offering.

The Kessef Mishneh raises a question for it is necessary to perform semichah (leaning on the sacrificial animal with all one's strength; see Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3) on sacrifices. Since these individuals may not enter the Temple Courtyard, because of their impurity, they cannot perform semichah. Hence, seemingly, the sacrifices should not be offered. The Kessef Mishneh states that perhaps the Rambam is speaking only of certain sacrifices where semichah is not required.

Unless he has already immersed himself. See Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:1.

For as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 2:3, 5-6, the Paschal sacrifice should be sacrificed only on behalf of individuals who are fit to partake of it and a person who is ritually impure and an uncircumcised person are forbidden to do so.

I.e., he must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon him, and he must immerse in the mikveh.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 31) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 362) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11 which states:

The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert [was divided into] three areas:

the camp of Israel... the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50] states: "They shall camp around the Sanctuary;", and the camp of the Shechinah [which included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards.

Correspondingly, for [future] generations: [The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel. [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites. And [the area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah.

See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8).

The verse implies that he must abide in a place where others do not dwell.

The Sifra understands this to be an example of the principle of Biblical exegesis: A subject (a person impure because of tzara'at) was included in a general category (impure people) and then was singled out to teach us a new law (that he must dwell separate from all others). This does not only teach us about this instance, but about the entire category (that there are distinctions in the extent people with impurity must distance themselves).

For in no other instance is an impure person required to depart from the camp of the Israelites. See also Halachah 8.

Thus as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachot, there are differences in the extent people with various types of impurities are forced to distance themselves.

Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:12.

A physical affliction somewhat similar to gonorrhea that renders one ritually impure.

I.e., they experience vaginal bleeding at times other than their ordinary monthly cycle. This causes them to be considered ritually impure.

Women who are impure because of menstrual bleeding.

This - or a miscarriage - renders a woman as ritually impure.

Since there is an added dimension to the severity of their impurity, they must distance themselves in a more severe manner.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1.

See ibid. 6:5, 7:1, which explains that even if there is a stone - which itself never contracts ritual impurity - intervening between the person's body and the entity, the entity becomes impure.

See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:14.

Joseph had asked the Jewish people to bring his body from Egypt to be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Moses brought his body with him from Egypt, transporting it on the entire journey through the desert.

For that is where Moses had his personal dwelling.

The rampart surrounding the walls of the courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:3).

For through that act, the man also becomes ritually impure.

This is a Rabbinic restriction. According to Scriptural Law, these places are not on a different rung of holiness than the other portions of the Temple Mount. This and the restrictions mentioned in the next two halachot are also found in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:16-18.

When a person must immerse himself to ascend from ritual impurity, according to Scriptural Law, he does not achieve that status until nightfall. Nevertheless, since he has already immersed, our Sages relaxed this and several other of the prohibitions that they had placed upon such individuals.

A square courtyard outside the Temple Courtyard, as described in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-9.

For he is still impure, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

This term refers to a zav,, a zavah, a woman who gave birth or miscarried, or a convert, who even after immersing themselves in the mikveh, must bring a sacrifice before their purification process is complete. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1.

The Sifri brings proof that one who has not yet completed the purification process is in a different category than a person who has immersed himself from the fact that the former is permitted to partake of terumah, while the latter is not.

Zevachim 32b relates that this restriction was imposed by Yehoshefat, King of Judah.

The first eleven cubits of the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:11). This area begins "the camp of the Shechinah" into which all of those who are impure may not enter according to Scriptural Law.

And from this example, we extrapolate with regard to others in that category.

Even though she had already immersed herself. Hence, she and others in the same category may not enter an area which is reserved for those who are ritually pure. This is a Scriptural restriction.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 78) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 565) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Its violation is punishable by lashes.

Which, as mentioned above, parallels the camp of the Levites.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's interpretation of the verse reverses the order found in Pesachim 68a and the Sifri. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.

Significantly, in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4 where the Rambam lists those who are punished by lashes, he does not mention this instance.

See Hilchot Megilah 1:4 and Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 12:15 which explain that this term applies only to a city surrounded by a wall at the time when Joshua conquered the land. Even if the wall of such a city is destroyed, the city is still placed in that category. Moreover, if a city was not walled at the time of Joshua's conquest, even if it was walled afterwards, it is not placed in this category.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 10:7. Based on Tosafot (Berachot 5b), Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that these restrictions apply only during the era when the Jubilee year was observed.

I.e., he violated two negative commandments: he entered Jerusalem and he entered the Temple Mount. Therefore he is liable for two sets of lashes. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:8, based on the Tosefta to Keilim), the Rambam states these concepts slightly differently.

The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person afflicted with tzara'at enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for an addition set of lashes.

As mentioned in Halachot 5-6, this constitutes the violation of a Rabbinical commandment. The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for 120 lashes.

And thus violates a positive commandment, as indicated by Halachah 1.

For he does not violate a Scriptural prohibition.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that since the person is impure, his entry into the Temple Courtyard violates a Scriptural prohibition and is punishable by karet. The Kessef Mishneh cites a passage from Zevachim 17b which appears to support the Ra'avad's objection. To resolve the Rambam's ruling, the Kessef Mishneh, however, quotes Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14, where the Rambam distinguishes between an impure person who has immersed and one who has not done so as of yet. He also quotes other opinions in support of the distinction the Rambam makes.

A punishment instituted by the Rabbis for the violation of their decrees or positive commandments.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 77) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 363) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., the area encompassed by the Temple Courtyard.

I.e., the act is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes or a sin-offering for its violation.

Implying that entry into the Temple area is what is forbidden.

Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

Har HaMoriah explains that the Rambam quotes this verse rather than Numbers 19:13-20 which is more explicit, because the latter passage speaks only about one who became impure due to contact with a human corpse and the prohibition applies even when one became impure for other reasons.

See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:10-14 which describes the manner in which additions are made to the Temple Courtyard.

See Hilchot Nizirut 7:1-6 which describes this subject in detail. As stated in Hilchot Tumat Meit 3:3: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." Implied is that since a nazirite is forbidden to cut his hair according to Scriptural Law, when he contracts ritual impurity stemming from a human corpse that is only Rabbinic in origin, he should not cut his hair, because then the Rabbinic safeguard would lead to the violation of Scriptural Law. Note also the commentary to Hilchot Nizirut which explains that the Rambam is referring to ritual impurity that is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis.

A person or an object that touches a human corpse becomes a source of impurity that can cause other people or objects to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4-5).

The Ra'avad states however that a nazirite is not obligated to shave his head if he touched a utensil or a person that became impure due to contact with a corpse. Hence, he concludes, one should not be liable for entering the Temple after having contracted impurity in this manner. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the simple meaning of the passage in Nazir 54a appears to support the Ra'avad's understanding. Nevertheless, he cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) which could be interpreted as supporting the Rambam's ruling.

There are entities that are considered sources of impurity according to Rabbinic Law. They do not make a person impure to the extent that he is liable for entering the Temple.

See Sefer Taharah.

I.e., in a mikveh.

For as stated in Halachah 6, one who has immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity is still impure until nightfall of that day. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such a person is not liable for karet. The Radbaz cites the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14 which would seem to support the Ra'avad's ruling. It states that a person who was ritually impure, then immersed himself, and then partook of sacrificial foods before nightfall is liable for lashes, but is not liable for karet. Nevertheless, the Radbaz explains that a distinction can be made between these two situations.

Although he is required to observe the strictures of someone who is ritually impure, he is not liable for entering the Temple.

In Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:4, the Rambam describes the impurity caused by such situations.

In ibid.:5, the Rambam continues: "Even though according to the Oral Tradition [one is rendered impure for such matters], this is not Scriptural Law. For it is not explicitly stated in the Torah that one who becomes impure through contact with a human corpse becomes a source of impurity and one who touches him becomes impure to the first degree." In this instance, however, the Rambam is probably following his renown approach that any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah is considered as "from the Oral Tradition" even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai.

For the Rabbis instituted decrees to insure that the prohibitions established by the Oral Tradition were observed.

This is speaking about a situation where he brought the dead teeming animal into the Temple without touching it, since, as stated in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 4:1, a dead teeming animal imparts ritual impurity only when one touches it and not when one carries it. For if the person had touched it, he would become impure and be liable for karet entering the Temple in that state.

I.e., another source of impurity that imparts impurity through touch, but not when carried.

And thus serve as a source of impurity.

The verse concludes: "He will bear his iniquity." "Clean[ing] his garments" refers to immersing them to remove their impurity.

This expression implies that there is no Talmudic source for this ruling, but instead, it was derived by deduction.

Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 5:2. There the Rambam states that if a person touching the corpse touches any other utensil at the same time, that utensil is considered as if it touched the corpse itself.

I.e., the person touched the garments after he let go of the corpse.

Since the object brought into the Temple is not a source for ritual impurity, the person is not liable for karet. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even bringing an object that is not a source for ritual impurity into the Temple causes one to be liable for lashes. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view, explaining that there is a logical basis for his conclusion. Since the Torah was lenient with regard to utensils (and garments), absolving one from karet even when the utensil was a source of impurity, we can conclude that leniency would also be shown with regard to lashes.

I.e., he stands outside the Temple Courtyard and inserts only his hand. He is not given lashes, because his entire body has not entered the Temple Courtyard. Even the Rambam would agree that he is forbidden by Rabbinic decree to insert his hand. The Ra'avad is more stringent and rules that inserting part of one's body is equivalent to entering entirely. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling.

The Rambam's words imply that once he immersed himself, he is not liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for entering the Temple even if night has not yet fallen. Since his impurity is only Rabbinic in origin and he has immersed himself, he is not given punishment. See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTuma'ah 9:1.

Such entry is, nevertheless, forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., on foot through the gate. The Mishneh LiMelech emphasizes that if he remains in the Temple for the amount of time for which he is liable (see Halachah 22), he is liable for karet even if he entered through the rooftops.

For this also is not the usual way of entry.

I.e., in the Temple Courtyard.

An object for which one has no purpose is muktzeh and there is a Rabbinic prohibition against transporting it on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature are not applied in the Temple (Rashi, Eruvin 104b).

I.e., in the chambers that are considered as being separate entities from the Temple Courtyard.

So that it will not be touched.

See Hilchot Keilim 1:10. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:6.

I.e., if a priest would carry it out in his garment, he would be causing his garment to become impure. Hence, it was desirable to use a flat wooden utensil even if it takes time to find such a utensil (Eruvin, loc. cit.).

As stated in Halachah 12.

There is an unresolved question concerning whether such a person is liable in Sh'vuot 17a. Hence, the Rambam rules leniently (Kessef Mishneh).

If he departs in this manner, he is not liable for karet.

An adjustable guilt offering.

The Rambam is citing Sh'vuot 16b which quotes the description of the people's bowing in II Chronicles 7:3.

I.e., taking very short steps. As long as he does not stop for the amount of time mentioned in the previous halachah, he is not liable.

See Sh'vuot 17a. Hence we rule leniently.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied.

The Radbaz states that the words "in the Temple" are not an exclusion. Instead, in the era when offerings were brought on private altars, this law also applied to a priest bringing an offering on such an altar.

As stated in the conclusion of the last chapter, one is liable for karet for tarrying in the Temple Courtyard even if he does not perform service. Halachah 3 describes how it is possible to perform service without tarrying in the Temple Courtyard.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 278) include this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

In reference to terumah.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1. If he receives lashes from an earthly court, he is absolved of the punishment from above.

In Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6, the Rambam quotes the wording of Sanhedrin 81b: "The young priests would take him out...."

The Radbaz relates that if the priests did not interrupt him in the middle of his service and seize him, but instead, allowed him to complete his service and leave the Temple on his own initiative, they are not allowed to administer this punishment to him. All they can do is bring him to the court.

I.e., beyond the Women's Courtyard and the surrounding rampart, because a corpse is not allowed in these areas according to Rabbinic Law. Alternatively, because it is only a Rabbinic stricture, it was not imposed in such an instance.

The Radbaz elaborates in explaining why this punishment can be given. He explains that although there is no legal license for it, there are instances (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4), where he states that at times punishments are given with no legal basis. By serving in the Temple, the priests offer their tacit acquiescence to such action being taken.

For if he contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for karet as soon as he enters, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

In which instance, he is not liable for karet, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 4, for more particulars concerning this act.

And offering the limbs on the fire of the altar is part of the Temple service.

As explained in the notes to the previous chapter, until nightfall he is still considered as impure.

The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that according to the Rambam, a person who entered the Temple on the day he immersed is liable for karet for the entry alone. Thus why is it necessary to speak of a second obligation for karet. He explains that it could be speaking about a person who was standing outside the Temple Courtyard and moved limbs on the Altar using a long pole. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between karet and death at the hand of heaven, for karet is a more severe punishment.

See Sanhedrin 83b for an explanation for how this prohibition is derived from this prooftext. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 265) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Rambam adds this explanation to differentiate between a person who immersed in the mikveh, but must wait until sunset and one who has not completed his atonement process. The latter individuals are considered as pure, even though they may not enter the Temple.

I.e., a zav, zavah, or the like who must bring a sacrifice before becoming ritually pure.

The Kessef Mishneh questions this ruling, noting that in Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:2, the Rambam mentions one who serves despite the fact that his atonement process is not completed as among those who are liable for death at the hand of heaven and whose offense is punishable by lashes. This is also evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 11. The Ra'avad also quotes Talmudic sources that indicate that such a person is liable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the questions raised by the Ra'avad can be resolved, but the apparent contradiction in the Rambam's own rulings remains difficult.

I.e., a zav, zavah, and one afflicted with tzara'at.

To even one person.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:7), the Rambam explains that this term is used to refer to "a corpse that is hidden and not known about at all, to the extent that it is in the very depths." See also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Parah 3:2) which explains the term as follows: Just like mortal wisdom cannot fathom the extent of the depths, so, too, the existence of this corpse is not known to any mortal.

Hilchot Nizirut 6:18 describes this impurity as stemming from contact with a human corpse, about which "no one, not even one at the end of the world, knows about."

The Mishnah (Pesachim 80b) states this concept with regard to the Paschal sacrifice (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 4:2). The Rambam extrapolates that the law applies to all sacrifices.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's words imply that as an initial preference, such a priest should not sprinkle the blood. Only after the fact, it is acceptable. In Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:11, however, the Rambam rules that a person who becomes impure due to impurity [likened to] the depths may offer a sacrifice as an initial preference. The Kessef Mishneh explains that a distinction can be made between the two instances, because the Paschal sacrifice is an immediate obligation, while other sacrifices may be offered by other people at other times. Moreover, failure to offer the Paschal sacrifice is more severe, as indicated by the fact that it is punishable by karet.

I.e., the blood and the other portions of the sacrifices offered on the altar. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:34.

I.e., communal sacrifices that are offered at a fixed time should be offered even if there is impurity involved, as explained in the following halachot.

There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Yoma 7b and the Rambam accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The commentaries have noted that this could be understood as a contradiction to his ruling in Halachah 15. Nevertheless, there are other approaches to that passage which allow the two rulings to coexist.

I.e., offering a sacrifice involves the violation of certain Sabbath prohibitions. As the Rambam proceeds to state, sacrifices that must be brought at a set time may nevertheless be offered, but not those which do not have a set time.

I.e., the chavitin offering of the High Priest, the bull he brings on Yom Kippur, or the Paschal sacrifices.

For the fundamental concept was derived from the Biblical story (Numbers, ch. 9) concerning the people who approached Moses to offer the Paschal sacrifice and they were impure because of contact with a human corpse.

I.e., all of the communal sacrifices that are brought from the money collected for the communal sacrifices. There are certain atonement offerings, the bull offered when the people at large err with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, and the goat offered when they err with regard to the prohibition against idolatry. These, unlike the other communal sacrifices, are not offered at a specific time.

And if they are not offered at this time, they may not be offered afterwards (Kessef Mishneh).

With the exception of the Paschal offering, as explained in Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:8. For the Pesach sacrifice was ordained primarily for the purpose of the people partaking of it (Pesachim 7:5).

For the primary purpose of these sacrifices is for them to be offered on the altar.

Pesachim 76a mentions five communal sacrifices that are ordinarily eaten: the omer offering of barley, the two breads offered on Shavuot, the showbread, the communal peace offerings, and the goat offered on Rosh Chodesh.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks why a communal sacrifice would not be eaten if it was offered by an impure priest who did not touch it and did not cause it to become impure. He notes, however, that the Rambam's wording implies that such a sacrifice should not be eaten.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, ch. 19.

Half is not sufficient (Pesachim 79a).

This applies only with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, for it must be eaten by the people at large. With regard to the other communal sacrifices, it does not make any difference whether or not the people at large are impure.

As indicated by Halachah 14, this refers to the priests who were present in Jerusalem at the time the sacrifices had to be offered. If there were a majority of priests who were ritually pure, but they were not present in Jerusalem at the time when the sacrifice was to be offered, they are not counted in the reckoning.

I.e., with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, a person who is pure should not say: "Since I am pure, I should not share my sacrifice with those who are impure." Instead, the sacrifices should be offered and eaten together (see Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., if their entry would in some way contribute to the sacrifice being offered properly (Radbaz).

See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

As stated in Halachah 1 of this chapter.

They are, however, exempt from punishment if they partake of the Paschal sacrifice in this state of impurity if the majority of the people are ritually impure because of contact with a human corpse (Pesachim 95b).

Although this law also applies with regard to other communal sacrifices, the Paschal sacrifice is mentioned, because it is the only instance when there would be a large throng of people in the Temple Courtyard.

Needless to say, they are forbidden to do so (Radbaz), for the activities involved in the offering of the Paschal sacrifice are carried out only in the Temple Courtyard and not in the Sanctuary itself.

There is a question concerning this issue in Pesachim 95b. Hence, an earthly court may not punish them with lashes. The question of whether they would be liable for death at the hand of Heaven is also not resolved on this plane. Since the judgments of the heavenly court are dependent on the judgments of the earthly courts, it is possible to say that the judgment is held in abeyance there as well.

See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11 for a definition of this term.

As long as it is possible to offer the sacrifices in a state of purity, we do not offer them while impure.

For the reason stated in the following halachah.

And even from another watch (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rambam is explaining a difference of opinion between the Sages in Yoma 6b. One Sage maintains that the prohibition against ritual impurity is hutra, released entirely, with regard to communal sacrifices. The other opinion is that the prohibition is dichuya, i.e., as the Rambam explains, the prohibition continues to exist and must be respected to the fullest degree possible. Similar concepts also apply with regard to the Sabbath prohibitions being overridden by questions of life and death. See the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Shabbat 2:1.

As stated in Halachah 7.

The passage relates that after Moses communicated the command to offer the Paschal sacrifice, several individuals who were impure because of contact with a corpse came to him and asked for an opportunity to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Moses relayed their question to God Who answered that they - and all other individuals who are impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice must be offered may bring such a sacrifice a month later on Pesach Sheni. Implicit in that command is, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, that the license to offer a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni was granted only to individuals. If the majority of the Jewish people become impure, they must offer the Paschal sacrifice on the first Pesach in a state of impurity.

See Hilchot Korban Pesach 7:12.

Pesachim 77a explains the derivation of this concept as follows: With regard to the Pesach sacrifice, Numbers 9:2 states that it should be offered "at its appointed time," which our Sages interpret as meaning ...at its appointed time,' even on the Sabbath, even in a state of ritual impurity." Now since Numbers 29:39 uses the term "in their appointed time" in reference to other communal sacrifices, we understand that the same concepts apply to them as well.

King Chizkiya assumed the throne after the rule of Achaz, an idolatrous sinner. After years when the people had been led astray, Chizkiya inspired them to repent. He invited all the people to offer the Paschal sacrifice. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of priests had not purified themselves and also, the people were somewhat slow in responding. To enable the Paschal sacrifice to be offered by as many people as possible, he had a leap year declared, so as to give them an extra month.

I.e., one should not infer that the error was that they partook of the sacrifice while ritually impure (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., they delayed its offering by a month, by declaring a leap year.

Despite the addition of this month, the majority of the people who came to Jerusalem were ritually impure. Hence, the prohibitions against impurity had to be overridden (see Rav Yosef Corcus).

Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

For the preference is to offer the sacrifices in a state of ritual impurity.

Chapter 4, Halachah 14. Instead, the leap year should be declared earlier, indeed, preferably months before.

I.e., the minority who did, for the majority did not, as stated above (Kessef Mishneh).