Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

It is a positive commandment for a priest1 who serves [in the Temple] to sanctify his hands and feet2 and afterwards perform service,3 as [Exodus 30:19] states: "And Aaron and his sons will wash their hands and their feet from it." A priest who serves4 without having sanctified his hands and feet in the morning5 is liable for death at the hand of heaven,6 as [ibid.:20] states: "They shall wash with water and not die." Their service - whether that of a High Priest or an ordinary priest - is invalid.

Which source teaches that his service is invalid? [Ibid.:21] states: "It will be an eternal statute for him and his generations," and with regard to the Priestly garments [ibid. 25:43] also uses the expression: "An eternal statute."7 Just as [a priest] who is lacking the priestly garments invalidates his service, as we explained,8 so, too, one who did not wash his hands invalidates his service.

A priest does not have to sanctify [himself] between every service [that he performs]. Instead, he consecrates [his hands and feet] once in the morning and may continue serving throughout the day and [the subsequent] night,9 provided he does not: a) depart from the Temple;10 b) sleep;11 c) urinate;12 or divert his attention [from his hands and feet]. If he does any of the above, he must sanctify his hands and feet again.

If a priest departed from the Temple, returned and then performed service without sanctifying [his hands and feet], his service is acceptable13 if he did not divert his attention.14 This general principle was followed in the Temple: No person would enter the Temple Courtyard to perform service15 unless he immersed [in the mikveh] even though he was ritually pure.

Anyone who defecates must immerse himself [in a mikveh].16 Anyone who urinates must sanctify his hands and feet.

[The following rules apply when] one goes outside the walls of the Temple Courtyard. If he departed [with the intent of] staying outside for an extended time, he must immerse [in a mikveh].17 If [his intent] was to return immediately, when he returns, all that is necessary is that he sanctify his hands and feet. If he did not immerse, nor sanctified his hands and feet and carried out [sacrificial] service, his service is acceptable18 since he did not divert his attention, nor did he defecate or urinate. If he merely placed his hands outside the Temple Courtyard, he is not required to sanctify them again.

If [only] a person's hands become ritually impure,19 he may immerse them and they are ritually pure. He need not sanctify them again.

If his body became impure because he partook of impure foods or drank impure beverages and immersed himself, even though he does not have to wait until nightfall [to become ritually pure],20 he must sanctify [his hands and feet] after immersing himself, for everyone who immerses himself must sanctify his hands and feet [before] serving. If he did not sanctify [his hands and feet], his service is not desecrated since he did not divert his attention.

When a High Priest does not immerse himself nor sanctify his hands and feet between his changes of clothes and between his different services on Yom Kippur21 and [continues] serving, his service is acceptable.22 [The rationale is that] since those immersions and sanctifications are not applicable equally to Aaron and his sons,23 as [Exodus 30:19] states: "And Aaron and his sons will wash from it." Only an obligation that is equally applicable to all the priests is an indispensable obligation, i.e., the first sanctification of one's hands.

If a person sanctified his hands on one day, he must sanctify them again on the following day even though he did not sleep at all that night, for the hands are disqualified because of the passage of the night. [Even] if he sanctified his hands at night and offered fats on [the altar's pyre] the entire night,24 he must go back and sanctify [his hands] on the next day25 for that day's service.

If a priest sanctified his hands and his feet for the removal of the altar's ashes,26 even though he sanctifies them before sunrise,27 he does not have to sanctify them again after daybreak, because he sanctified them at the beginning of the day's service.

It is a mitzvah to sanctify [one's hands and feet] from the basin.28 If, however, one sanctifies them from a sacred utensil, the sanctification is effective. Sanctification may not, however, be performed with an ordinary utensil.29 If one sanctified [his hands and feet] with a sacred utensil outside the Temple30 or did so with an ordinary utensil within the Temple and then performed service, his service is disqualified. One does not sanctify his hands and feet inside the basin or a sacred utensil, but from them, as [implied by the verse]: "Aaron and his son's will wash from it;" ["from it"] and not "inside of it." If one sanctified [his hands and feet] in such a utensil and performed service, he did not desecrate it.

If one immerses his hands and feet in the waters of a mikveh31 or even a spring, this is not considered as sanctification. One must wash them from a utensil. One may sanctify them using any sacred utensil whether or not it contains a revi'it.32

All water is acceptable for the sanctification, whether water from a spring or water from a mikveh, provided its appearance has not changed and it is [thus] acceptable for immersion.33 Mud that can be poured, from which a cow would drink,34 can be used to fill the measure of the basin. This is the general rule: Any water that can be used to make up the measure of a mikveh can be used to make up the measure of the basin.35

How much water must there be in the basin? At least enough for four priests to sanctify [their hands and feet] from it, as [indicated by Exodus 30:19 which] mentions "Aaron and his sons." Together with him, there were Elazar, Itamar, and Pinchas, a total of four.36

The water in the basin is disqualified if left [in it] overnight, as we explained.37 What would be done [to prevent the water from being disqualified]? The basin would be submerged in a mikveh38 or a spring and on the following day, it would be raised or it would be filled each day in the morning.

The "sea" fashioned by Solomon39 had the status of a mikveh,40 because a channel of water from the Spring of Aitem41 would pass through it.42 Therefore,43 its waters were not disqualified with the passage of night like the water of the basin and [indeed,] the basin was filled from it.

How is the mitzvah of sanctification performed? [A priest would] put his right hand on his right foot and his left hand on his left foot and bend over and sanctify them.44 All the substances that are considered as intervening with regard to immersion,45 are intervening with regard to the sanctification of hands.

One may not sanctify his hands while sitting, because [the sanctification] is comparable to the Temple service and the Temple service may be performed only when standing, as [Deuteronomy 18:5] states: "To stand and to serve."46

Anyone who performs service while he is seated, desecrates his service and disqualifies it. He does not receive lashes, because the warning against doing so stems from a positive commandment.47

Similarly, anyone involved with one of the Temple services must be standing on the floor.48 If there was anything intervening between himself and the ground,49 e.g., he was standing on a utensil, an animal, or a colleague's foot, [his service] is invalid. Similarly, if there was anything intervening between his hand and the utensil with which he was performing the service, it is invalid.50

The Temple service may be performed only with one's right hand.51 If one performed service with his left hand, it is invalid. He is not liable for lashes.52

[The following laws apply when] one of [a priest's] feet are on a utensil and one is on the floor, one is on a stone [that was not embedded in the floor] and one was on the floor. We evaluate [the situation]. Whenever he would be able to stand on his one foot if the utensil or the stone were taken away, his service is acceptable.53 If not, his service is invalid.54

If he received [blood from a sacrifice] with his right hand and his left hand is supporting it, his service is acceptable, because we do not pay attention to [something that is] a [mere] support.55

When one of the stones of the Temple Courtyard has become loosened, one should not stand upon it during one's Temple service until it is affixed in the ground.56 If he performed service, his service is acceptable,57 since it is located in its place.

Any priest who has a physical blemish - whether a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish1 - should not enter the area of the altar and beyond in the Temple, as [Leviticus 21:21-23] states: "[Any man from among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish...] shall not come near the curtain,2 nor may he approach the altar. If he transgresses and enters [this area],3 he is liable for lashes even if he did not perform any service.

If he performs service in the Temple, he invalidates and desecrates his service. He is worthy of lashes for the service as well,4 as [ibid.:17] states: "One who has a blemish shall not draw near [to offer...]."5 According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this warning means that he shall not draw near to the Temple service.

Similarly, a person with a temporary blemish who performs service in the Temple invalidates [his service] and is liable for lashes,6 as [ibid.:18] states: "Any man who has a blemish shall not draw close...." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that this is a warning against [a priest] with a temporary blemish [serving]. [A priest] with a blemish who serves is not liable for death, only for lashes.

All physical blemishes - whether the priest had them from birth or acquired them afterwards, whether they will heal or they will not heal - disqualify [him] until they heal.

A permanent blemish is a broken leg or a broken arm.7 A temporary blemish is a dry skin eruption or a moist skin eruption also known as a chazizit.8 Not only the blemishes mentioned in the Torah,9 but any apparent bodily blemish disqualifies the priests, as [ibid.:21] states: "Any man who has a blemish," i.e., any type. Those mentioned by the Torah are merely examples.10

There are three types of blemishes [involving humans]:11

a) blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving and an animal from being offered [as a sacrifice];12

b) blemishes that only prevent a man from serving;13

c) blemishes that do not disqualify a priest, but because of the impression that would be created,14 [our Sages] stated that every priest who has such a blemish should not serve.

Whenever [a priest] who has a blemish that disqualifies both a person and animal serves, whether inadvertently or intentionally, his service is invalid. If he served intentionally, he is liable for lashes. Whenever [a priest] who has a blemish that disqualifies only a person serves, even though he is liable for lashes,15 his service is valid.16 If he has one of the blemishes that disqualify him because of the impression that could be created, he is not liable for lashes and his service is valid.

Only blemishes that are apparent17 disqualify a person. Blemishes that are within the cavity of the body, e.g., a person's kidney or his spleen was removed or his intestines were perforated, even though he becomes a treifah,18 his service is acceptable. [This is derived from the mention, Leviticus 21:19, of] "a broken leg or a broken arm." Just as these are apparent, all [disqualifying blemishes] must be apparent.

An uncircumcised person19 is like a foreigner [as Ezekiel 44:9] states: "Any foreigner20 with an uncircumcised heart and uncircumcised flesh." Therefore if an uncircumcised [priest] serves, he disqualifies his service and is liable for lashes21 like a non-priest22 who serves. He is not, however, liable for death.23

A priest who married women sinfully24 may not serve25 until he is compelled by the court to take a vow dependent on the discretion of other people so that it cannot be nullified26 that he will not continue to sin. He may then perform the service, descend [from the altar], and divorce her. Similarly, if he would become impure due to contact with a human corpse,27 he is disqualified until he makes a resolution in court not to contract such impurity. If he transgressed and performed service before taking such a vow or making such a resolution, he does not disqualify his service even though he remains married in sin.28

When a priest performed service and afterwards, his [genealogy] was checked and it was discovered that he was a challal,29 his previous service is acceptable, but he may not serve in the future. If, however, he does [continue] to serve, he does not desecrate the service. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 33:11]: "May God bless His legion and find acceptable the work of his hand." [implied is that] He will find acceptable even the desecrated among them.30

The High Court would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.31 Their primary ongoing activity was sitting and judging the priests, e.g., examining the lineage of the priests32 and inspecting their blemishes. Whenever a disqualifying factor was found in the lineage of a priest, he would put on black clothes and wrap himself in black and leave the Temple Courtyard. Whoever is found to be bodily sound and of acceptable lineage puts on white garments and enters and serves with his priestly brethren.

[A priest] who is discovered to be of acceptable lineage, but was discovered to have a physical blemish should sit in the Chamber of Wood33 and [removes] worm-eaten wood for the [Altar's] pyre.34 He should be included in the division of the sacrifices with the members of his clan and may partake [of the sacrifices],35 as [Leviticus 21:22] states: "He may partake of the food of his God from [the sacrifices of] the most holy order and of the sacred foods."

There are a sum total of 50 physical blemishes that disqualify both humans and animals. In particular, they are:

Five involving the ear: a) one whose ear lobe has been blemished1 to the extent that one's nail would become held back by the blemish.2 There is, however, no concept of a blemish with regard to the skin which surrounds the lobe of the ear, whether it is perforated, marred, or cracked.

b) one whose ear has cracked to the slightest extent even though its substance has not diminished;

c) one whose [ear] lobe has been perforated, [leaving a hole] the size of a carshinah bean.3 Whether the hole is round or long, if its area is the size of a carshinah bean, it is considered a blemish.

d) one whose ear has dried to the extent that if it was perforated, it would not bleed;

e) one whose ear was double.4 [This applies] even to a goat kid whose ears are often extended and appear double, provided it has two lobes. If, however, it has only one lobe and it appears like one entity that is double-sized, it is acceptable.5

There are three involving the eye-lashes:

a) one whose eye-lids are perforated even to the slightest extent;

b) one whose eye-lids are cracked even to the slightest extent;

c) one whose eye-lids are blemished6 even to the slightest extent.

These three blemishes are included in the term cherutz mentioned in the Torah.7

There are eight involving the eye:

a) one who is blind,8 whether in one eye or in both eyes;

b) one who cannot see from both of his eyes or one of them, even though there is no apparent change in them, because he has water continuously descending into his eyes;

c) one who cannot see with both or one of his eyes clearly, because he has continuous nerve deterioration;9

d) one who has a mound like a grape in his eye,10 even though he can still see;

e) one who has cataracts11 in his eyes which cover some of the pupil of the eye;

f) one who has the white of his eyes extended slightly into the pupil until the pupil is interrupted by the white of the eye. This is the meaning of the term tivlul mentioned in the Torah.12 If, however, the pupil is extended and enters the white of the eye, it is not considered a blemish, for there are no blemishes in the white of the eye;

g) one who has a white point in the midst of his pupil. This is the meaning of the term dak mentioned in the Torah.13 [The above applies] provided it appears floating on the pupil. If, however, it is not floating, or if it is submerged in the pupil, it is not a blemish. Similarly, if there was a black mark in the midst of the white, even if it appeared to be floating, it is not considered a blemish, for there are no blemishes in the white. If there was a black mark sunk in the pupil, it is also included in the blemish called dak. If, however, it appears to be floating, since it is black within black, it is not considered as a blemish.

There are three involving the nose:

a) One whose nose is perforated, even from only one side;14

b) one whose nose is split;

c) one whose nose is blemished.

There are six involving the mouth:

a) One whose lip is perforated; this applies even if only one is perforated;

b) one whose lip is blemished;

c) one whose lip is cracked, provided the surface of the lip is split into two sides;

d) one whose lower jawbone extends even the slightest measure further than his upper jawbone;

e) one whose mouth is swollen congenitally, as part of the structure of his body. If, however, it is swollen because of the wind,15 it is not considered a blemish;

f) one from whom the majority of the free portion of the tongue16 was removed.

There are twelve involving the reproductive organs:

a-d) one whose member is crushed,17 mashed, severed, or cut off;

e-h) one whose testicles - or testicle - is crushed, mashed, severed, or cut off;

i) one who has only one testicle even though he has two sacs;18

j) one whose two testicles are in one sac;

k) a person whose sexual organ is covered by flesh and his gender cannot be determined;

j) a hermaphrodite.19

There are six involving the hands and the feet:

a) one who limps;20 b) one whose hip has been displaced. This is the meaning of the term serua used by the Torah;21

c) one who has one hip attached at a higher place than the other;

d) one whose arm-bone is broken,22 provided it is apparent;

e) one whose leg-bone is broken,23 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.

There are four [types of blemishes] that may occur in any place in the body. They are:

a) one who has a dry skin eruption of even the slightest size. This is the meaning of the term gerev mentioned in the Torah;24
b) a growth that has a bone. This is the meaning of the term yabelet mentioned in the Torah;25

c) one who has an Egyptian boil26 of the slightest size. It is a type of boil which is firm and of distasteful appearance. This is the meaning of the term yafelet mentioned in the Torah.27

d) Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent,28 it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah.29 The ribs are not considered as bones that are apparent.

There are also three other types of blemishes:30

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 treifah31 is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.32 Similarly, one born through Caesarian section is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.33

c) One who is foul-smelling. A priest who has a foul-smelling odor because of sweat may wash and rub perfume on his flesh and serve. If he has a foul odor emanating from his mouth, he may put pepper, ginger, or the like in his mouth and serve. If, however, he serves while his body is foul-smelling due to sweat or he had bad breath, he desecrates his service like one who has any of the other blemishes.