Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 22) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 388) list this as one of the 613 commandments.

The Kessef Mishneh mentions another reason for guarding the Temple: to prevent those who are forbidden to enter from entering.
The place where both the Mishnah and the Rambam describe the watch which the priests and the Levites kept over the Temple has aroused the attention of the commentaries: The Mishnah repeats its description of the watch in two places: at the beginning of the tractate of Tamid, which relates the order of the priests’ service, and the beginning of the tractate of Middot, which defines the structure of the Temple. The Rambam describes this mitzvah in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, which describes the construction of the Temple, but not the details of the priests’ service.
On this basis, the commentaries explain, we can understand two dimensions implicit in this mitzvah:
a) The priests’ responsibility to prevent those forbidden to enter from entering; and
b) The responsibility incumbent on the entire Jewish people to construct and maintain the Temple in the most fitting manner.
Since the presence of guards enhances the glory of the Sanctuary, the mitzvah of guarding the Sanctuary can be seen as an aspect of its very structure. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 13, p. 56-65.

In his commentary to Tamid, the Ra’avad states that the priests and Levites also stood watch during the day. The Minchat Chinuch mentions that view, explaining that the Rambam explained that the reason for the priestly watch was to show deference to the Temple during the day as well. Just as a palace of an earthly king is guarded both at day and at night, so too, it is proper to keep watch over the Temple in this manner.
Nevertheless, the Tifferet Yisrael (Middot 1:1) explains that since the priests were involved in the Temple service throughout the entire day, that in itself is a clear sign of honor and respect to the Temple, and no further measures were necessary.
This view is supported by the commentary of the Rabbenu Asher at the beginning of the tractate of Tamid. He explains that the reason for keeping watch over the Temple was to have our attention focused on it at all times. That purpose is surely accomplished by the Temple service, and hence, watchmen are not required then.
Accordingly, it appears that the watch would be maintained until the service in the Temple began, with the removal of the Altar’s ashes at dawn. Thus, we can understand the last halachah of this chapter, which deals with the preparation of the Sanctuary for the service of the following day, as describing the final aspects of the nightly watch. See Likkutei Sichot, loc. cit.

The places where the priests and Levites kept watch are described in Halachot 4-9.

This verse begins: “And the Lord said to Aaron,” thus, indicating the responsibility of Aaron and his sons, the priests, to keep watch over the Sanctuary.

Indicating that the Levites were also charged with that responsibility.

A Levite.

Priests.

Thus, this verse indicates that the task was shared by the Priests and Levites together (Tamid 26a). It must be noted that, in order to emphasize the concept he wishes to communicate, the Rambam does not quote the latter verse exactly.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 67) and the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 331) list this as one of the 613 commandments.

See Menachot 36b.

According to the simple meaning “inside” and “outside” refer to the Temple Courtyard. The Levites stood guard outside the Courtyard and the priests, inside. However, the Minchat Chinuch renders “inside” as within a building, and “outside” as in the open.

Tamid 27a explains the derivation of this practice from I Chronicles (26:17-18), which states:
To the east there were six Levites, to the north, four…, to the south, four…, towards Assupin, two and two. At Parber to the west, there were four at the winding stairway and two at the Parber.
Thus, there were a total of twenty-four guard positions. Even though this verse describes the watch over the Sanctuary constructed in David’s time, and not the Temple itself, the same basic pattern was followed in the later structure.

As described in the following three Halachot.
Although the above verse specifically mentions Levites, the priests are sometimes (e.g., Ezekiel 44:15) referred to as Levites (Tamid, loc. cit.).
Tamid 26a offers two different explanations why the priests would be placed in three different positions. The first explains that the command to keep watch over the Sanctuary was originally given to Aaroh and his sons, a total of three individuals. The second notes that the command to guard the Temple mentions the words “keep watch,” three times in the same verse.

As described in Halachot 8 arid 9.

See Tamid 1:1, Middot 1:1.

This structure was located on the south side of the Temple Courtyard, adjacent to the Water Gate.

This was the westernmost gate on the northern side of the Temple Courtyard. See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

The 5, reason Halachah why 4. these were two-floor structures can be explained in terms of the Rambam’s words above, Chapter 6, Halachah 7. There, the Rambam writes that the roofs and upper floors of the structures in the Temple Courtyard re not consecrated. This is very significant, for had they have been consecrated, it would have been forbidden for the priests to sit or lie there, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 6.

According to Tamid 27a, the term, “young priests,” refers to youth who were too young to participate in the Temple services. According to the Ra’avad, these youth were not even thirteen years of age.
The Mishneh LiMelech rejects that opinion, declaring that this Mitzvah would not be entrusted to children that young. He explains that until the age of twenty, priests were not granted the opportunity to take part in the Temple services. Thus, the “young priests” were youth below that age, but past majority. See also the Minchat Chinuch.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 10 and 11.

As mentioned above, half of the Chamber of the Hearth was considered consecrated, while half was not. According to the principle that one could not lie or sit in the consecrated areas of the Courtyard, it would appear that only half of the chamber was surrounded by these projections.

As mentioned in the commentary to Chapter 7, Halachah 4, there were 24 priestly watches. Each served in the Temple for a week.
Within these watches, there were further subdivisions. Each weekly watch was broken down into six daily watches for each day of the week. On the Sabbath, all the priests of that watch served together.

Tamid 26b explains that they slept on these protrusions, because it was disrespectful to bring beds into the Temple complex.

The gates to the Temple Courtyard were locked at night.

The Vilna Gaon renders this expression as “in their possession.” This change is made on the basis of Middot 1:9, which states that the keys to the Temple Courtyard were kept on a special ring in the Chamber of the Hearth.

From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that the priests would be permitted to sleep while on guard duty. This is difficult to accept, for the following reasons:
a) The purpose for posting guards around the Temple was to show respect. That objective is not fulfilled by sleeping.
b) Halachah 10, which quotes Middot 1:2, states that the guards would be punished for sleeping while on duty.
For these reasons, the Mishneh LiMelech explains that all of the guards were not required to remain awake the entire night. Rather, at any particular time, there would be one or two guards awake at each station and the others were permitted to sleep.

This refers to the four priestly garments which an ordinary priest was required to wear while serving in the Temple.

The priests could not place their priestly garments under their heads to serve as pillows, for they were forbidden to derive benefit from them. See Yoma 69a.
In his commentary to Tamid, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1, the Rambam explains that this prohibition was instituted because the priestly garments contained Sha’atnez, a mixture of linen and wool. Hence, though a priest was permitted to use them during the Temple service, once that service was concluded, he was forbidden to do so. See also the Kessef Mishneh.

Leviticus 15:16 explains that a man who has a seminal emission becomes ritually impure. To purify himself, he must immerse his entire body in a mikveh and wait until the end of the day.

Which lead to a natural mikveh positioned under the Temple Courtyard.

As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 7. This passageway passed below the Courtyard. However, since it opened up to the portion of the Chamber of the Hearth that was not consecrated, there was no prohibition in entering while ritually impure.

There was no prohibition against remaining in the non-consecrated portion of the Chamber of the Hearth. As stated in Chapter 6, law 17, a person who has already immersed himself in the mikveh, but must wait for the day to pass before becoming ritually pure, may remain on the Temple Mount and proceed until the Women’s Courtyard.

Though there was no prohibition against him remaining in the Chamber of the Hearth, it was proper for him to leave so that no one would think that he was prepared to participate in the Temple services (Tifferet Yisrael, Tamid 1:1).

This halachah is based on Middot 1:1.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2, for a description of the gates to the Temple Mount.

See the commentary to Halachah 4.

See the commentary to Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

Tifferet Yisrael (Middot 1:1) explains that this refers to the Chamber of the Lambs, one of the four smaller chambers in the Chamber of the Hearth. See Chapter 5, Halachah 10.

This chamber is not mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 17, as one of the chambers within the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, Tifferet Yisrael (op. cit.) states: “I do not know where it was located.”

As a sign of respect for the Shechinah.

He was given the keys to all the gates of the Temple complex.

Tifferet Yisrael (Middot 1:2) explains that the torches were not carried before him, but positioned as lights at the guard stations. Although there is no evidence that the Rambam accepts this view, a comparison with the following halachah indicates this possibility.

Chapter 7, Halachah 2, states that it was forbidden to enter the Temple Mount with a staff. Nevertheless, an exception was made to allow “the officer of the Temple Mount” to perform his task (Yeriot Shlomo).

Although generally, one may not destroy things of value (bal tashchit), an exception is made in this case to allow the Temple to be guarded properly.
The “officer of the Temple Mount” could be authorized to destroy private property on the basis of the principle: Hefker Beit Din, Hefker, i.e., a Jewish court may forfeit a person’s ownership over an article (Rabbenu Asher, Commentary to Middot 1:l).
The Ezrat Kohanim does not accept this explanation because the prohibition against destroying things of value applies even in regard to ownerless articles.
Another possible explanation is that this step is taken for the watchmen’s own good. A father or a teacher is allowed to hit a student to shape his character. Similarly, in this instance, “the officer of the Temple Mount” was entitled to burn a watchman’s clothing so that he will perform his task more effectively (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p.465).

As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 6, there is a debate among the Rabbis if the priests were allowed to sleep on their watch or not. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura (Shekalim 5:1) states that both priests and Levites would be beaten for sleeping. However, the Tosafot Yom Tov argues that this punishment was only administered to Levites. It would appear that the Rambam subscribe to the latter view. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash (7:4), he writes: “The officer of the Temple Mount walked around, [checking on] the Levites…”

The Temple services began with the removal of the ashes from the Altar. Generally, this was done at dawn.
The term dawn, alot hashachar, refers to the time before sunrise when the first rays of the sun begin to illuminate the horizon. This is more than an hour before sunrise.

This does not refer to the “officer of the Temple Mount” mentioned above.
In Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 6:1, the Rambam describes this entire procedure a second time.
There, he ascribes the waking of the priests to the priest responsible for delegating different sacrificial functions. See also Tamid 26a.

From the chayl.

On the external gate of the Chamber of the Hearth,

As explained in Halachot 5 and 6.

Middot 1:7 mentions that the keys to the Courtyard were hung on a ring in the Chamber of the Hearth. See also the notes to Halachah 5.

Tamid 28a relates that there was a small wicket next to the large gate leading from the Chamber of the Hearth to the Temple Courtyard. The large gate would not be opened until dawn. Therefore, the priests entered through the wicket to prepare the Courtyard for the service of the coming day.

As explained in Chapter 5, the Chamber of the Hearth was positioned on the north side of the Temple Courtyard, slightly beyond the entrance of the Temple building. From this point, one group would proceed westward, towards the western end of the Courtyard. The other group walked towards the east, in the direction of the Gate of Nicanor, the major entrance to the Courtyard. Both groups walked near the walls, so that they would make a complete circuit around the Courtyard.

To make sure all of the sacred utensils were in their proper places.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, where this chamber is described.
The Chamber of the Bakers of the Chavitin was located on the southern side of the Courtyard’s eastern wall. Thus, the group of priests who turned westward had a much longer route than those who proceeded to the east.

The Ra’avad in his commentary to Tamid 28a explains that each group would greet the other in this manner.

The Chavitin was offered each day by the High Priest shortly after the morning sacrifice.
A general question may be asked concerning this and the following halachah: Why did the Rambam include them in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah which describes the construction of the Temple? It would appear more appropriate to mention them in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim, where the laws governing the daily service in the Temple are described. Indeed, we find that these laws are repeated there.
The reason is based on the explanation of Halachah 1. There, the Rambam states that the watch kept over the Temple was an act of deference, enhancing the glory of the Temple. Thus, maintaining that watch is part of the responsibility of the entire Jewish people to construct and maintain the Temple in the most fitting manner.
A similar principle can be explained in regard to this inspection of the Courtyard. Over and above the need for checking to see that all the sacred utensils were in there appropriate positions, this inspection was an act of deference and honor which enhanced the importance of the Temple (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 18, p. 244-249).

This is the final halachah of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah.
There are a total of 137 halachot in the text. The latter figure matches the age of Levi when he passed away. Levi was the ancestor of the priests and the Levites who served in the Temple.

Because it is forbidden to carry a flame on the Sabbath.

The Kessef Mishnah, Tosafot Yom Tov, and other commentaries, question why they were not permitted to carry the torches with them. Although carrying fire is prohibited on the Sabbath, the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin in the category of shvut. The Rambam states (Hilchot Shabbat 21:27) that all Rabbinic prohibitions of this nature were suspended in the Temple.
Among the explanations offered are: Since it was possible to use candles which were lit before the Sabbath, there is no need to violate even a Rabbinic prohibition. Alternatively, this inspection was carried out in preparation for the service of the entire day to follow and, as above, it was an act of deference to the Temple. Therefore, to emphasize the holiness of the Temple, it was proper that it be carried out without violating any prohibition whatsoever.
The structure of the final chapter of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah can be explained homiletically: It begins with the obligation to guard the Temple at night, and concludes with the preparations for the Temple services at dawn.
As mentioned above (Halachah 2), the commentaries explain that the mitzvah of guarding the Temple was instituted so that the Temple would be prominent in our minds at all times. Thus, during the day, there was no necessity to stand guard, for that purpose was accomplished by the Temple service. However, at night, when there was no service, we were required to keep a watch around the Temple.
The period of exile is often described as night and the advent of the Messianic era, as dawn. By guarding the Temple at night, and studying the laws of its construction during the exile, we will merit the coming of the dawn, the coming of Mashiach.
A similar idea can be seen in the last halachah, which deals with the priests’ procedure on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is described as me’ein olam haba’ah, a microcosm of the world to come, and the time of the coming of the Mashiach. On the Sabbath, in the Messianic age, the preparations for the Temple service will be carried out with the light kindled on the Sabbath eve, representing the present age - and before the coming of the Mashiach.
Our service at generates spiritual light. We will use that light to prepare for the sacrifices to be in the Third Temple.
May we merit the Messianic redemption and the rebuilding of the Temple speedily, and in our days. “Then, shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasing to God, as in days of old and former years” (Malachi 3:4).

The Rambam’s wording here represents a change from his wording in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 35) where he describes the mitzvah in passive terms: “having the oil made in a unique fashion available for anointing.” Perhaps he chose that wording for, as explained in Halachah 5, after the oil was made at Moses’ command, no other such oil was ever made and the mitzvah was merely “to have it.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 107) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that anointing the kings and the High Priest is not considered one of the mitzvot, for there were times when this anointment was not practiced.

The mixture of spices mentioned in the previous verses.

This addition is necessary, for as indicated by Exodus 37:29, Moses himself did not prepare the anointment oil. It was prepared by Betzalel and the other craftsmen working with him.

According to Scriptural Law, based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:8), in modern measure a shekel of the Torah is equivalent to 16 grams of pure silver. (Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Shekalim 1:2, in the era of the Second Temple, our Sages increased its measure by almost a fourth.)

The Rambam describes these spices in the following halachah.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the obligation to grind the herbs is derived from a comparison to the incense offering. The order in which they are ground and then mixed is a logical deduction. If they are ground first, they will be mixed more thoroughly and more effectively.

A common halachic measure equivalent to approximately 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount.

For the oil will float above the water.

Otherwise, the amount of oil used would not be sufficient to soak all the herbs (Rashi, in his commentary to Exodus 30:24).

The Rambam is referring to a secretion of the abdominal gland of the male musk deer, a large animal that roams the mountains of Nepal and Tibet. The secretion is reddish-brown, with a honeylike consistency and a strong fragrance. After the gland is cut open, the secretion hardens, assumes a blackish-brown color, and becomes granular when dry.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s definition, stating that it is improper that the blood of a beast and certainly, a non-kosher beast be used in the Sanctuary. He interprets the term mor as referring to the fragrant herb, myrrh. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s view, explaining that the loathsome quality one would associate with the blood of a beast departs from it when the secretion dries and becomes granular. See also the Ramban’s commentary to Exodus 30:23, where he discusses both positions.

It is the root of a tall herb, whose botanical name is Saussurea lappa, which even today grows only in the highlands of Kashmir.

In Rav Kapach’s notes to his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1), he identifies this as the acorns calamus plant. In his Living Torah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan identifies this as the cymbopogon martini or palmarosa plant.

Premature death in this world and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (See Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 83) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 109) includes the prohibition against making such oil among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The term “fixed sin-offering” is used to differentiate between this offering and “an adjustable guilt offering” in which instance, the offering the person brings changes according to his financial capacity. See Hilchot Shegagot 1:4.

Even if those people desire to use it for anointment. As long as he personally does not intend to use it for anointment, he is not liable (Radbaz).

I.e., the act is forbidden, but he is not liable.

For to be liable, one must benefit from a minimum measure and that minimum measure is, as is true with regard to partaking of forbidden substances, an olive-sized portion.

I.e., someone other than a High Priest, a king, and the priest who lead the people in war, as stated in Halachah 7.

And not a copy, even if it was made in the exact same manner.

That oil remained throughout the majority of the First Temple period until it was entombed by King Josiah together with the ark, as the Rambam relates in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1. From that point onward, neither the High Priests, nor kings were anointed.
On the surface, one might ask: Since no other oil was ever made, why is making the oil considered one of the 613 mitzvot? For as the Rambam clarifies several times in Sefer HaMitzvot, if an obligation is not ongoing, it is not appropriate to consider it as a mitzvah. On that basis, a number of commands, for example, the command to wage war against Midian (Numbers 7:2), were excluded from this reckoning.
The Minchat Chinuch (positive mitzvah 107) notes that the prooftext quoted by the Rambam concludes “for your generations,” i.e., for all time. The mitzvah was to have the oil made by Moses available at all times. After the oil was entombed by King Josiah, new oil was not made, because the oil which Moses made is still available. At the coming of Mashiach, that oil will surface and again be used.

The Radbaz maintains that if the others willfully allow the oil to be applied to their flesh, they are also liable. The Tosefta, Makkot, ch. 3, also rules in this manner.

See Kiddushin 68a; Hilchot Eruvin 2:9.

And none of the above are halachicly equivalent to a man.

I.e., in contrast to the era of Moses when this oil was also used to anoint the priestly garments and the vessels of the Sanctuary, as stated in Halachah 12.

See Hilchot Melachim, ch. 7, which states that a priest is appointed to speak before the nation and inspire them in war.

The kings of the ten tribes, by contrast, were not anointed with this anointing oil, only balsam oil, as stated in Hilchot Melachim 1:10. According to the Rambam (ibid.:7), King Saul was also anointed with this oil. He is not mentioned, because his regal line did not continue for posterity.

In contrast, the kings were anointed only when there was a dispute over the inheritance or during a civil war (ibid.:12 and Halachah 11 of this chapter).

As mentioned above, the anointing oil was entombed toward the conclusion of the First Temple Era.

Our text follows the manuscript versions of the Mishneh Torah and the manuscript versions of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 6:3). Most of the later printings of the Mishneh Torah replace the C with an X, for in fact, this is the form of the Greek letter. Kin’at Eliyahu suggests that although the Rambam speaks about the Greek letter, perhaps his intent was the Roman letter.

The translation of rosh as “forehead” rather than “head,” is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1).

For we are obligated to apply it to them.

Including a High Priest or king.

Even though the oil was placed on his flesh, since it should not have been applied to this portion of the body, doing so is included in the above prohibition.

The Ra’avad objects to this qualification, maintaining that once he places an olive-sized portion of the oil on his skin, he is liable even if he spreads a smaller measure. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the simple meaning of Keritot 6b appears to support the Ra’avad’s position. Nevertheless, they also provide interpretations that support the Rambam’s understanding.

Horiot 12a explains that the king was anointed there as an sign that his dynasty should be perpetuated, just as a stream continues in a never-ending flow. This symbolism is only appropriate for kings of the Davidic dynasty, whose dynasty will continue forever. In contrast, the dynasties of the kings of Israel will eventually be interrupted [see Hilchot Melachim 1:9 (Kessef Mishneh)].
Accordingly, King David ordered that Solomon be anointed at the Gichon Stream (I Kings 1:33).

When mentioning this law, Hilchot Melachim 1:7 continues: “Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one’s children and grandchildren as inheritances forever.” The order of inheritance of the crown follows the order of inheritance of property as explained in Hilchot Nachalot, ch. 1. The first in line for the monarchy are the deceased king’s sons, in order of age. Should none of his sons be alive, the right is passed to his grandchildren. The children of the elder son are granted preference. If the king has no male descendants, the monarchy is given to his brothers. If they are not alive, it is granted to their sons. From them, the right to the throne passes to the deceased king’s nephews (his sister’s sons), then to his uncles, then to his first cousins.

1 Kings, Chapter l, describes Adoniyahu’s abortive attempt to declare himself as David’s successor.

II Kings, Chapter 11, describes Atal’ya’s murder of the children of King Achazyahu, her assumption of the throne, and the revolt which established Yoash as king.

Yehoachaz was younger than Yehoyakim. Nevertheless, he was given the throne, because he was more capable than his brother, and better suited to serve in his father’s position. See the commentaries to II Kings, ch. 23.

See II Kings, ch.9

The Radbaz uses this concept to reinforce his thesis that the Rambam does not consider applying the anointing oil as a mitzvah, because it did not apply for all time.

Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:18-19. There the Rambam explains that it is preferable to make them from precious metals. Nevertheless, if this is beyond the financial capacity of the community, they can be made from base metals. Indeed, when the Hasmoneans conquered Jerusalem, it is said that they first made a Menorah of iron coated with tin.

Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 8:21.

For patchwork is not becoming to the Temple.

This portion of the Temple was called Beit HaChalafot, “the Chamber of the Knives,” for this reason (Middot 4:7).

An isaron is the size of 43.2 eggs. According to modern measure, the size of an egg is considered to be 57.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

For as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:5, the meal offerings were measured out using an isaron as the basic measure.

As stated in ibid. 12:4, 13:2, each day the High Priest would bring a meal offering and he would divide it in half. Half was offered in the morning, and half in the afternoon.

See Halachah 2.

As mentioned above, a revi’it, a fourth of a log, is a common halachic measure equivalent to approximately 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

As Numbers 28:14 states, the wine libation for a bull was half a hin, for a ram, one third of a hin, and for a ewe, one fourth of a hin. See also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:4.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:7, a log of oil is poured over all the different meal offerings.

For as stated in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:11, this quantity of oil was placed in the lamps every day of the year.

For as indicated by Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:3, a fourth of a log of oil is poured on each of the cakes the High Priest brings.

As stated in Halachah 2 above.

A sotah, a woman accused of adultery, was forced to drink water in which a scroll containing a curse with God's name had been blotted out. See Hilchot Sotah 3:9.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:20, a log of oil was used in the baking processes of the different types of wafers used for this offering. Kin’at Eliyahu asks: Since there were specific measures employed in making each type of wafer, why weren’t smaller measures used to measure out this oil?

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:23, a fourth of a log of oil was used in the preparation of this bread.

A person with a physical affliction similar to—but not identical with—leprosy. As related in Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1, as part of such a person's purification process, a bird was slaughtered and its blood poured over water.

I.e., receiving the blood of a sacrificial animal is an act of service. Therefore it consecrates the container. Preparing the meal offerings, by contrast, is not an act of service. Therefore it does not sanctify the container.

Because it had touched a sacred utensil, the outside of the measure. These liquids were collected and used as libations or sold and the proceeds used to bring sacrifices for the altar. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbonot 2:9-11.

Because it never touched a sacred utensil.

As the Radbaz states, the Rambam does not consider the preparation of the incense offering as a separate mitzvah. Indeed, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 10, he explains that preparing the incense offering should not be considered as a separate mitzvah, for until it is actually offered it is an incomplete act The mitzvah of bringing the incense offering is mentioned in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:1.

The Rambam defines the terms mentioned here in Halachah 4.

I.e., through the principles of Biblical exegesis, our Sages (Keritot 8b) derived that the incense offering contained this number of spices.

Although a measure of volume was mentioned for Salt of Sodom (see the following halachah), a measure of weight was not.

Amber is the fossilized resin from ancient forests. The resin becomes buried and fossilized through a natural polymerization of the original organic compounds. Heating amber will soften it and eventually it will bum, producing a pleasant fragrance. Others identify kipat hayardein with roses. Living Torah refers to it as cyclamen, an attractive flower that grows in the Mediterranean region.

A dinar is 76.8 grams (81.6 grams according to a more stringent view) in modern measure.

A measure of volume equal to 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

Half a maneh in the morning and half in the afternoon.

In the Holy of Holies. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 4:1.

365 portions of incense were prepared although an ordinary lunar year has 353, 354, or 355 days. Hence, at the end of the year, there was a certain amount left over. In Hilchot Shekalim 4:12, the Rambam writes that on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the remainder of the incense was redeemed and then given to the craftsmen who prepared it. Afterwards, it was repurchased from them. Thus when a leap year was declared, there was enough incense.

Balsam is an evergreen tree whose sap has a very pleasant fragrance.

The claw or nail of the strombus or wing-shell, a shell-fish common in the Red Sea. When burned, they emit a strong fragrance.

These terms refer to balsam, onycha, and storax.

Frankincense is the gum resin of a tree found growing in tropical regions, a member of the Burseraceae family. This resin exudes as a milky liquid and hardens into yellowish droplets, known as frankincense tears. It gives off a warm, slightly citrine perfume.

Musk, see Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 1:1), the Rambam states that this is an herb that he cannot identify. Some have identified it with cassia, an aromatic bark, similar to cinnamon, but differing in strength and quality.

Spikenard is obtained from an Indian plant, found in the Himalaya mountains, the Nardostachys jatamansi.

Costus, see Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

Cinnamon.

Ceylonese cinnamon.

Jordanian amber.

This cleanses it thoroughly and improves its appearance.

Alternatively, wine from Cyprus.

For the chanting improves the spices (Keritot 6b).

Keritot 6b derives this concept from the description of the anointment oil in Exodus 30:32: “It is holy; it shall be holy for you.” The repetition of the term “holy” implies that all of the activity to prepare it must be performed with entities that are consecrated. An equation is established between that oil and the incense offering.

To grind it again, lest it have solidified.

Although this would have greatly improved its fragrance, there is an explicit Biblical prohibition (Leviticus 2:11; Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 5:2) against burning any such incense.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 85) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 110) consider the prohibition against preparing incense for its fragrance as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.

This is speaking about a person who smells the fragrance of the communal incense offering. A person who smells the incense of a private individual who copied the formula of the incense offering is not liable.
See Hilchot Meilah 1:2 for the details of one's liability. See also ibid. 5:16 which states that this applies only when the column of smoke from the incense is rising. Once it has already risen, the prohibition no longer applies.

But not to the community as a whole.
The Radbaz quotes Rashi (Keritot 6a) who states that one is liable for death at the hand of heaven for bringing such an incense offering. (The death of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, are cited as proof for this thesis.)

The blood of certain sacrifices is, however, sprinkled on it, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:13; Hilchot Avodat Yam HaKippurim 4:2.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 82) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 104) consider the prohibition against making such offerings on this altar as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 34) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 379) consider this mitzvah as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.
The prooftext cited by the Rambam refers to the ark being carried by the Levites, the descendants of the family of Kehot. In Sefer HaMitzvot, however, the Rambam writes that the mitzvah for all time was to have the ark carried by the priests and not the Levites. Indeed, the narrative of the ark being carried in Joshua 3:6 and II Samuel 15:25 corroborates this thesis. (The Ramban explains that this does not contradict the Biblical command, because the priests are also descendants of Kehot.) The reason the mitzvah was fulfilled by the Levites while the Jews journeyed through the desert is because there were not enough priests to carry the ark at that time.

As the Bible relates, II Samuel, ch. 6, God vented His anger for the transgression on Uzzah, causing his death.

Thus those in the front will be walking backwards. This is necessary so that they will not be turning their backs to the ark (Bamidbar Rabbah, ch. 5).

Although the prooftext quoted by the Rambam speaks of the staves, using the plural term, he understands the prohibition as applying even to one of them. See the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 96) which discusses this issue.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 86) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 96) consider the prohibition against removing the staves as one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.