Beit Habechirah - Chapter 7

Sefer HaMitzvot(Positive Commandment 21) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot, incumbent on both men and women.

As explained in Halachot 7-9, the fulfillment of this Mitzvah is not limited to the time when the Temple stood, but is applicable even at present.

This clause is quoted from Yevamot 6a,b. Tosefot explain that such a clarification is necessary, lest the Jewish people worship the Temple per se, bowing down to the physical building or showing it other signs of reverence.

The source for these statements is the Mishnah (Berachot 9:6). The Talmud accepts these as signs of reverence without even questioning the source for these practices.

When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, He told him (Exodus 3:5): "Remove your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy." Similarly, on the Temple Mount, shoes had to be removed.

The Minchat Chinuch states that one may wear shoes on the Temple Mount if they are not made of leather.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot, loc. cit.), the Rambam defines the word, afundaso, as "a garment which one will wear against his flesh to collect sweat, so that his sweat will not spoil his dress clothing."

Tosafot, in Bava Metzia 26a, explain that only the public display of money is prohibited. One may carry money discreetly in his pockets.

Berachot 62b explains that this concept may be inferred from the prohibition against wearing shoes. If wearing shoes which generally is not considered an act of disrespect is forbidden, then surely spitting is not allowed.

The Har HaMoriah explains that this law was derived from Berachot 24b, which recommended this course of action to someone who has to spit in the midst of the Amidah prayers.

Berachot, loc. cit., also considers this as a lack of respect.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the latter concept is derived from Megillah 28b, where a similar statement is made in reference to a person's entering a synagogue.

The Rambam's statements are based on Middot 2:2. By quoting that mishnah here, he implies that these practices are also an expression of deference to the Temple (Rambam LeAm).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes: "For example, one who enters through the gate of Shushan, [the eastern gate,] should not turn toward the Chuldah gates, [the southern gates,] but rather toward the Tadi gate, [the northern gate]."

Tosafot Yom Tov explains that this does not necessarily mean that one would exit from the gate in the opposite direction. Rather, one would continue circling towards the right, even though it would be shorter to leave by turning towards the left.

Tifferet Yisrael (Middot, loc. cit.) explains that this distinction was made so that all who see him would be aroused to pray for his welfare. See also Shabbat 67a.

Magen Avraham 651:21 states that from these statements, it appears that only a person who suffered one of the fates listed would circle to the left. Generally, a left-handed person must give his left hand prominence, as others do the right. In this instance, however, he would circle to the right even though it is his weaker side.

Under certain circumstances, the court would place a person who did not follow its directives under a ban of ostracism, restricting the business and social relations he could have with other Jews. See Hilchot Talmud Torah, chs. 6-7.

The Mishnah (Middot, loc. cit.) relates that Rabbi Meir maintained that the people would answer: "May the One Who dwells in this House cause them to have a change of heart and accept you." Rabbi Yossi explained that such an expression makes it appear that the court was unfair in its judgment and suggests the phrase quoted by the Rambam.

Yoma 53a explains that one must leave the Temple service facing in the same direction as when he entered.

One need not walk backwards the entire way. However, it is also improper to turn one's back to the Temple.

At which point he may walk in an ordinary manner.

In order to allow the priests to serve in the Temple throughout the year in an organized manner, the prophets organized a rotation system, dividing the entire priestly family into 24 watches. Each watch would serve for a week and perform all the sacrificial functions required. The following week they would be replaced by a new watch according to the order of rotation. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, Chapter 4, Halachah 3.

This refers to the Anshei Ma'amaad, who represented the entire Jewish people. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam describes their function as follows:

It is impossible for a person's offering to be sacrificed unless he is present. The communal offerings are the sacrifices of the entire Jewish people, [and hence, their presence should be required. Nevertheless,] since it is impossible for the entire Jewish people to be present in the Temple Courtyard while sacrifices are being offered, the first prophets established a practice of choosing worthy and God-fearing men....to serve as the representatives of all of Israel, and to be present at the sacrifices...They were divided into 24 watches.

See also Ta'anit 4:2.

After accompanying the sacrifices with songs and music.

After the conclusion of the Amidah prayer, one retreats backwards three steps as "a servant departs from his master's presence." (Yoma 53b. See also Hilchot Tefillah 5:10.

The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 123:1) explain that since the prayers were instituted to replace the sacrifices, one should conclude his prayers in the same manner as the priests departed from their service.

Rashi, commenting on Berachot 54a, explains that this also applies to someone standing outside the Temple Mount. See also Halachah 8.

On this statement, the Ra'avad comments: "And not as common people conduct themselves."

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and in Chapter 5, Halachah 12, there were divisions in the Temple Courtyard for the priests and for the Israelites.

The Targum Yonatan renders Leviticus 19:30: "And you shall revere My Sanctuary" as "Walk to My Sanctuary with fear." See also Ecclesiastics 4:17: "Guard your feet when you walk to the House of God."

See Rashi, Avot 6:3.

The Mishneh LiMelech states that this prohibition appears to have its source in the Torah itself.

Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 21, the Rambam includes this prohibition as one expression of reverence for the Temple.

Rashi (Yoma 25a) explains that this prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 18:5: "For the Lord has chosen him...to stand and to serve in the name of the Lord."

Tosafot (Yoma, ibid.) question whether the priests are permitted to sit in the courtyard when they partake of the sacrifices of the most holy order. From the Rambam's statements, it appears that he does not permit such leniency.

The narrative in II Samuel relates that after sitting, David stated: "Who am I, O Lord, God, and what is my house that You have brought me this far." At the moment when he was granted this great honor, he displayed humility.

Who sat.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 17, and Chapter 6, Halachah 7.

The Rambam uses the expressions "our sins," rather than "the sins of our ancestors," for all Israel, in every generation and every place, is one communal body.

The usage of the term "our" also implies a deeper concept. Our Sages declared: "Whoever does not witness the rebuilding of the Temple in his days must consider as if it was destroyed in his days."

The exile and the Temple's destruction were caused by the sins of the Jewish people. As soon as sin, the cause for the exile, is eradicated, the effect, the exile, will cease. Similarly, our Sages declared: "If Israel repents, she will immediately be redeemed."

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayikra 6.

As stated above, even when the Temple is destroyed, one may not act frivolously directly opposite the gate to the Courtyard. However, when the Temple was standing, that prohibition was extended, and included any place within sight of Jerusalem. (Meiri, Berachot 61b.)

Berachot, loc. cit., explains that Mt. Scopus is the most distant point from which one can see the Temple site.

I.e., even at present, when the Temple is destroyed. It must be noted that with slight emendations, the following laws are all quoted as Halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 3.

Most of the Rabbis explain that there is no prohibition if the toilet is surrounded by a wall. However, the Rambam's phraseology does not imply such license. Therefore, some authorities recommend that, if possible, one should construct his home with the toilet facing the north or south.

Most authorities follow the opinion of the Tosafot (Berachot 5b) who explain that this prohibition only applies when sleeping with one's wife. However, Rav Yosef Caro emphasizes that according to the Rambam, the prohibition applies even when sleeping alone and strongly urges that this ruling be accepted.

The Halachic authorities question whether the Rambam's intention is to stress the directions of east and west or the direction of the Temple itself. The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:5) states that, regardless of where one is located, one should not face the west, because "the Shechinah is in the west." On the other hand, certain authorities emphasize that according to the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 61b), the location of Jerusalem is the determining factor.

The Rabbis explain that although it is preferable to follow the Rambam's view, one may position his bed between the east and the west if there is no other alternative.

Less severe restrictions are placed on urinating than on defecating. However, from the point where one can see the Temple site, Mt. Scopus, one should also control oneself in this regard.

The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 254), explains that this prohibition also stems from the command to revere the Sanctuary. A building or utensil that cannot be copied is obviously unique and special, and emphasis on its uniqueness will lead to reverence.

Based on Avodah Zarah 43a, it would appear that the prohibition forbids constructing a building following the Temple's measurements exactly, but making a model in miniature would be permitted.

The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 254) analyzes this prohibition in depth and raises a number of issues, including the following:

a) The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 43a) explains that the source for this prohibition is the command against making images, as the Torah commands (Exodus 20:20): "Do not make with Me gods of silver..." If so, on the surface, it would have been more appropriate for the Rambam to mention this concept within the laws of Avodah Zarah (worship of false gods) rather than in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah. Indeed, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:8, discuss these prohibitions in that context.

b) As explained above, the structure of the Second Temple differed from the First and the dimensions of the Third Temple will not resemble those of the Second in their entirety. Thus, we must understand: Which structure are we forbidden to copy, that of the First or the Second Temple? Does the prohibition apply only when the Temple is standing, or does it apply to all three structures?

The Minchat Chinuch himself, tends towards the opinion that at present there is no prohibition to duplicate the previous structures of the Temple. Only in the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, will this prohibition apply.

The text, Ma'asai LiMelech, explains that the Rambam's source for this prohibition is not the abovementioned Talmudic portion, but rather the obligation of awe and reverence referred to previously. It is not respectful to duplicate the Temple or its structures and use them for mundane purposes.

Despite the fact that the Entrance Hall had walls on all four sides. Nevertheless, since its gate was large, 40 cubits high and 20 cubits wide, and open at all times, it resembled a porch.

The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) states that this prohibition does not extend beyond the Temple Courtyard. One may make a copy of the chayl, the rampart surrounding the Courtyard, or another similar structure.

The Minchat Chinuch questions if these two utensils were mentioned only as examples, and the same prohibition applies to the other sacred utensils, or if the Rambam meant them exclusively. He concludes that we may not make a replica of any utensil whose exact dimensions are known to us.

He also emphasizes that the prohibition against making a replica of the Menorah applies even if the goblets, bulbs, and flowers are omitted, since the Menorah is acceptable without them when made from other metals (Chapter 3, Halachah 4).

Indeed, it is customary to make Chanukah lamps in the shape of the Menorah.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 18, the sacred utensils must be made of metal. Hence, there is no prohibition against making a replica from other substances.

With these statements, the Rambam introduces the following twelve Halachot, which discuss various gradations of holiness. These statements are based on the Tosafta, Kelim 1:10 and Zevachim 116b.

See Numbers 2:1-31, which describes the division of the twelve tribes into the camps of Judah, Reuven, Ephraim, and Dan.

The Levites would dwell in a separate encampment, between the camp of Israel and the Courtyard of the Sanctuary. The particular encampment of each Levite family is described in Numbers, Chapter 3.

No one was permitted to dwell in this region. People would enter only to participate in the service of the Sanctuary.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 14.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 15.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 18.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 16.

The strictures to be observed because of its sanctity are described in Halachah 17.

Parallels to these divisions did not exist in the encampment in the desert. They were instituted when the First Temple was constructed.

As mentioned in the commentary to Chapter 6, Halachah 4, the physical height of the different regions of the Temple Mount corresponded to the difference in spiritual level. There was a marked distinction between the Temple Courtyard and the preceding regions. Until this point, there was no Scriptural prohibition against entering when ritually impure. Correspondingly, the greatest rise in height between the different levels occurred at this point.

In Hilchot Michusrei Kapporah (1:1), the Rambam writes:

There are four who are considered "lacking in purification:"

a) a zavah,

b) a woman who has just given birth,

c) a zav,

d) one afflicted with tzara'at.

Why are they called "lacking in purification?" Because in each of these cases, even though the individual has:

a) been purified from [the cause of] his impurity,

b) immersed [in a Mikveh,] and

c) waited until the day has passed,

he is still lacking. His purification process is not complete enough to entitle him to partake of the sacrifices until he brings the offering [required of] him.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Kelim 1:8), the Rambam writes:

We have prevented a person from entering the Women's Courtyard though he has immersed himself in a mikveh, because he must wait until the sun sets to become ritually pure. However, we need not force away a person who has purified himself, but who has not brought the required sacrifices.

[Why is there a distinction between the two?] Because the former is prohibited from eating Terumah, while the latter is permitted to partake of Terumah. The above is based on the principle mentioned above: "All those whose state of impurity is more severe will be banished in a more severe manner."

Premature death by the hand of God.

To clarify this distinction, the step between the two was a cubit high (See Chapter 6, Halachah 3) and marking posts were placed at either side.

In connection with the peace-offerings, Leviticus 3:2 declares: "He shall lay his hands on the head of his offering." See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:6-13.

A person who brings a sacrifice is not required to slaughter it. However, the slaughtering of a sacrifice need not be performed by a priest. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:1.

In Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:14-15, the Rambam relates that a person offering a sacrifice is required to confess his sins while laying his hands on his sacrifice.

It must be noted that the source for this Halachah, Kelim 1:8, does not mention these confessional prayers. Note the commentary of the Har HaMoriah.

With regard to the peace offerings, Leviticus 7:30-31 states: "With his own hands, he must bring the choice parts.... He shall wave the chest with the prescribed motions...." The waving of these offerings had to be performed by the person bringing the sacrifice himself. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:6-10.

Leviticus 21:16-23 describes the various physical deformities which disqualify a priest from service in the Temple. The concluding verse of that passage reads: "He shall not come near the Parochet or approach the Altar." In Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (6:1) and in Sefer HaMitzvot (neg. command 69), the Rambam explains that entering this area constitutes a violation of a Torah prohibition.

It must be noted that Nachmanides does not accept the Rambam's opinion and views this prohibition as Rabbinic in origin (Hasagot L'Sefer HaMitzvot).

In Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (1:8), the Rambam writes:

A priest who has grown long hair is forbidden to enter [the area] beyond the Altar. If he transgresses [this command] and enters, he is liable to die by the hand of God, as a drunkard who participates in the Temple service, as it is said (Ezekiel 44:20-21): "All the priests shall not drink wine...nor shall they grow long hair."

In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 1:14, the Rambam explains that the Torah established an analogy between priests who have long hair and those whose priestly garments are torn, as Leviticus 10:6 states: "Do not let the hair of your heads grow long, nor rend your clothes." Therefore, the same prohibitions apply in both cases.

Kelim 1:9, which is the source for this Halachah, does not mention the prohibition against entering this region with torn garments. Also, it is significant to mention that in Hilchot Biat HaMikdash (1:1), the Rambam explains that a priest who has drunk wine is bound by the same prohibitions.

The priests were obligated to sanctify their hands and feet before taking part in the Temple service. Thus, with this terminology, the Mishnah (Kelim, loc. cit., and the Rambam are referring to a priest involved in the Temple service.

The above statement can be compared with Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:2, where the Rambam writes:

All the priests were warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies except when involved in the Temple service as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "Let him not enter the Sanctuary at all times, [to] the chamber of the Parochet." ["The Sanctuary"] refers to the Holy of Holies, "the chamber of the Parochet," to the entire Temple building.

The above-mentioned verse in Leviticus continues: "In this manner, shall Aaron enter the Holy place" and proceeds to describe the details of the Yom Kippur service.

The High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies four times on Yom Kippur:

a) to bring the incense offering;

b) to sprinkle the blood of the bull offered as atonement for himself;

c) to sprinkle the blood of the goat sacrificed as atonement for the Jewish people;

d) to remove the incense holder.

We recite a description of the High Priest's service on Yom Kippur in the Avodah portion of the Musaf prayers on Yom Kippur. See also Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.

The Tosefta (Kelim 1:7) states:

Abba Saul declares: "[The status of] the upper storey of the Holy of Holies is more strict [than that of] the Holy of Holies. In regard to the Holy of Holies, the High Priest enters four times each year, on Yom Kippur...[In contrast,] they would only enter the upper storey of the Holy of Holies once in seven years..."

They replied to him: "That is not considered a distinguishing quality."

Certain commentaries explain that the Rambam placed this Halachah here to indicate his acceptance of Abba Saul's view. Although there are other reasons to support this argument, it would appear that the Rambam subscribes to the other view mentioned in the Tosefta. In Halachah 13, he stated that there are ten levels of holiness and proceeded to enumerate them, concluding with the highest level in Halachah 22.

Furthermore, the opening phrase of each of those halachot, states: "... is holier than it..." and this halachah does not begin in that fashion.

Pesachim 86a mentions three opinions concerning the frequency in which this chamber was entered: twice in seven years, once in fifty years, and once every seven years as quoted above. See Tosafot Yom Tov, Middot 4:5.

Eruvin 104b and 105a explain that this impurity could be either the body of one of the eight crawling species (sheratzim) which convey ritual impurity, or alternatively, sacraments belonging to idol worship that were placed in the Temple. II Chronicles (Chapter 29) explains that the Temple was cleansed of idol worship by King Chezekiah, and that narrative serves as a source from which these laws were derived.

As mentioned in Halachah 20, priests with disqualifying physical deformities were generally forbidden to proceed beyond the Priestly Courtyard.

Eruvin, loc. cit., explains that the prohibition against these priests entering the more sanctified portions of the Temple implies the permission to enter should they be required for their craftmanship.

The Levites are granted precedence, since they are allowed to proceed beyond the Israelites and to stand on the steps within the Priestly Courtyard.

This leniency is allowed because the restrictions stemming from the laws of ritual purity do not apply to cases involving communal offerings for the entire Jewish people.

This statement has stirred much controversy among the commentaries. See the Kessef Mishneh and the Mishneh LiMelech.

Although the Sages all agreed that the restrictions stemming from ritual impurity did not apply to cases involving communal offerings for the entire Jewish people, they debated (Yoma 6b) the nature of the leniency. Rav Nachman maintains that once a need arises, all the restrictions governing ritual impurity are relaxed entirely. Rav Sheshet argues that these restrictions are only "put aside" when there is no alternative, and wherever possible, the restrictions should be maintained. In Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:15, the Rambam rules according to Rav Sheshet's opinion.

In our mishnah, both a craftsman who is impure, and a priest with a disqualifying physical deformity, are prohibited from entering the Temple. The prohibition against entering while impure is more severe. Thus, Rav Sheshet's opinion would explain that although the restrictions against entering while impure are "put aside" to repair the Temple, total license is not granted. Hence, in this instance, since an alternative exists, it should be employed, and the priests with the deformities should be allowed to enter.

Middot 4:5 mentions this practice only in regard to the Holy of Holies. However, Eruvin (loc. cit.) and the Tosefta (loc. cit.) apply the concept to the entire Temple building.

Middot 4:5, and Rambam (Chapter 4, Halachah 13) explain that this practice was instituted "so that they would not satiate their eyes, [gazing at] the chamber of the Holy of Holies."