Klei Hamikdash - Chapter 4

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 32) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 269) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., to receive the first aliyah in the public reading of the Torah. In the Talmudic era (and so is the practice in some communities today), the person receiving the aliyah would himself read from the Torah.

I.e., to recite the blessing HaMotzi and to lead the Grace (Rashi, Gittin 59b).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin 5:8), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies only when there are no sages present whose knowledge surpasses that of the priest. If such sages are present, they are given priority.

More particularly, Samuel divided them into 16 watches and David, into 24 (Ta'anit 27a).

The changing of the watches was marked by the division of the showbread. The entering watch would receive six loaves and the departing watch, six loaves. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 36) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 509) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

There is, however, a difference between the definition of the mitzvah here and that of Sefer HaMitzvot. In that source, the Rambam describes the mitzvah as creating the watches, while here he defines it as allowing all of the watches to serve during the festivals.

All the commentaries agree that this verse is referring to a priest, who is a descendant of the tribe of Levi. See the conclusion of Halachah 6.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this refers both to the communal offerings required to be offered on the festivals and the individual offerings which people would bring as part of their pilgrimage obligations.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:12.

See ibid. 8:11.

A pledge to bring a particular type of sacrifice (see Hilchot Nedarim 1:2).

A pledge to bring a designated animal as a sacrifice (ibid.).

I.e., although all the priests had license to come and serve in the Temple during the pilgrimage festivals, there was also one watch which was designated to serve at that time, and that watch was entrusted with offering these sacrifices.

The difference between the two is that the showbread is not offered because of the festival (but is instead, an ongoing obligation for every Sabbath), while the two loaves are (Radbaz).

We have translated the word sha'arecha figuratively as "your cities," even though it literally means "your gates." The implication is that the verse is speaking about a time when all of Israel come to one city, Jerusalem, for the pilgrimage festivals.

For it mentions Levites.

I.e., even if it is not the time when his watch was designated to serve.

The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the priest who brought the sacrifice has the right to partake of it and benefit from its hide, even if he did not offer it. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh debate these two perspectives based on Bava Kama 110a.

In which instance, he is forbidden to bring his own sacrifice.

This follows the version of Bava Kama 109b cited by Rashi. The standard published text follows a different version. Since he is unable to offer the sacrifice, he may not appoint an agent to offer it, but instead, must give it to the members of the watch. Since they offer it, they are entitled to its hide. The owner of the sacrifice may, however, receive a portion of the meat of the sacrifice since he is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat.

Since it is possible for him to serve, he may appoint an agent to act as the owner of the sacrifice.

According to Rashi (ibid. 110a), it appears that the intent is the priests of the watch are given the right to partake of the sacrifice. Since the owner could not partake of it himself, he cannot appoint an agent to do so.

Since he cannot serve himself, he cannot appoint an agent to serve in his place.

I.e., all the priests found in Jerusalem at that time, including those of other watches.

In which instance, the communal sacrifices may be offered by the priests while in a state of impurity, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 4:12. Individual sacrifices may not be offered by impure priests even under these circumstances.

In such a situation, the sacrifice should be brought in a state of ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the sacrificial meat itself was ritually pure and it should be eaten by a priest who is ritually pure. Since the priest who is physically blemished is ritually pure and is part of the watch which is serving, he should be given the meat to eat.

A blemished priest cannot perform service in the Temple even in such a situation.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and states that the sacrifice should be given to any priest to offer even though that priest is impure and the right to partake of the sacrifice and use the hide should be given to the priests of that watch who have physical blemishes. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's intent is that a priest with physical blemishes should receive the meat. The hide, however, belongs to the priests who offered it.

His mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, or wife died that day.

Hence he can appoint an agent.

Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6. The High Priest may offer sacrifices while in a state of acute mourning, but may not partake of them. Other priests are not allowed to offer sacrifices in this state.

The Radbaz implies that the division was a creative one and that each week, the head of the watch would make a division according to his perception of the needs of the Temple service for that week.

By the High Court of 71 judges as stated in Halachah 15.

Described in Chapter 1, in particular, Halchot 7 and 9.

The eight garments described in Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2. An ordinary priest wears four priestly garments and the High Priest, eight.

As was the case in the latter years of the First Temple and throughout the Second Temple period (see Chapter 1, Halachah 8).

The term marbeh begadim, literally, "increased [his] garments," is used to described this initiation, because he is garbed with the eight garments of the High Priest as opposed to the four of an ordinary priest.

The Radbaz explains that the paradigm for this was set by the initiation of Aaron in the High Priesthood at the time of the dedication of the Sanctuary. Although Aaron was anointed on the first day, Moses served as a High Priest for the first seven days (Radbaz).

Implied is that the initial preference is for him not to perform service. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the obligation to be initiated for seven days before serving applies only with regard to the Yom Kippur service, but not with regard to other matters.

Thus including only a High Priest who was anointed.

See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 15, for a description of the details of this sacrifice.

Sanhedrin 16a derives this from the advice Yisro gives to Moses (Exodus 18:22): "Any great matter (hadavar hagadol) will be brought to you." Implied is that matters that involve gadlus (greatness) - including the appointment of the kohen gadol (the High Priest) - should be judged by a court with authority equal to that of Moses, i.e., the Sanhedrin of 71 judges.

See Chapter 5, Halachot 4-5, 13.

A Greek term meaning "general officer."

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 5:2), the Rambam states that there should never be less than two people appointed to take care of communal matters.

Horiot 13a interprets this as a composite of two Aramaic terms meaning "appointed over all." See also the Targum to Numbers 3:32 which uses this term to translate nasi, "prince." The Radbaz notes that the word emir in Arabic means "officer."

I.e., there were seven keys to the Temple Courtyard and each one had one key (Tosefta, Shekalim). In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 8:5, the Rambam states that the keys to the Sanctuary were entrusted to the elders of the clan. Perhaps the intent is that the elders of the clan were in fact the amerkalin (Ma'aseh Rokeach). Based on the following halachah, that would seem unlikely (Kin'at Eliyahu). See also Chapter 7, Halachah 3, which speaks about a priest appointed to lock the gates of the Temple. Perhaps the intent is that the keys belonged to the amerkalin and each night, they would entrust them.

I.e., those that could be used for the Temple or its service itself should be used for that purpose and not redeemed.

Horiot 13a states that he is given precedence with regard to providing him with his livelihood (and by extension, redeeming him from captivity and returning his lost article). Seemingly, this order also applies - albeit with certain exceptions - with regard to establishing a hierarchy of honor.

The Ritba (in his gloss to Makkot 11a) questions the source of the Rambam's ruling, Horiot, loc. cit. For seemingly, until the oil of anointment was entombed, there were only anointed High Priests and there were none initiated by wearing the priestly garments. And after it was entombed, there were no longer any anointed High Priests. And yet, the passage in Horiot appears to imply that they were contemporaries.

The Ritba offers a resolution, explaining that, in the era of the First Temple, if a High Priest that was anointed was forced to be absent from the Temple for an extended period, e.g., he became ill or was taken captive, a substitute was appointed to serve as a High Priest in his place. He was not anointed, because there may never be two anointed High Priests at the same time, but instead, was initiated in his office by wearing the garments of the High Priesthood.

A priest who experiences a seminal emission becomes impure and is therefore disqualified from offering sacrifices or performing any other service in the Temple until he regains ritual purity.

For the one disqualified because of a seminal emission is fit for service after he becomes pure, while a blemished priest will never become fit. Even if the blemished can be healed, until it is healed, he is unfit.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

Nazir 47b states that with regard to providing one with his livelihood, the priest appointed to lead the nation in war receives precedence over the segen, because the nation as a whole is dependent on him.

The priest appointed to lead the nation in war is not counted, because he is not involved in the Temple service. Nor are those disqualified because of blemishes or impurity counted, because they do not exist at all times. Similarly, only one level of High Priest is counted, because generally, there was either an anointed High Priest or one installed through wearing the garments. Usually, both did not exist together. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., any male. Although females are fit to inherit in certain circumstances, they should not be given any positions of authority among the Jewish people. See Hilchot Melachim 1:5.

The order of inheritance is listed in Hilchot Nachalot, ch. 1.

Hilchot Melachim 1:7 states that he must be equivalent to his predecessor in both wisdom and the fear of God in order to inherit the position. The commentaries suggest emending the text here to follow that reading, because the fear of God is the very foundation of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people. Anyone who lacks that quality can never be a competent leader, as the Rambam states there: "[However,] under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge."

In the above source, the Rambam states: "He should be granted his father's position and given instruction." In that vein, Ketubot 103b describes how Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi instructed that his son Gamliel be given his position, even though his knowledge was not as great as his father's.

If, however, a son is not comparable to his father in the fear of heaven, he should not be given his position at all. The Kessef Mishneh cites the interpretation of Leviticus 16:32 which describes the High Priest as one "who was anointed to fill the place of his ancestor." Torat Kohanim (Tzav) comments: "Should he be anointed even though he does not 'fill the place' [i.e., does not equal the level of his] ancestors? No, the Torah states 'fill the place.' If he is not equal to his father, the position should be granted to someone else."

See Sifri, Shoftim.

This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam's decision has frequently been challenged.

Maharshdam (Yoreh De'ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states "Torah cannot be inherited."

However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov 6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to rabbinical positions.

The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer's lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted the son his father's position by inheritance.

In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father's position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father's position at all, it may be given to another person.

The Radbaz maintains that this ruling has to do with the unique function this priest serves. Since he leads the nation in war, it is a life or death question and the most capable person is chosen whether he is the heir or not.

In a responsum (Orach Chayim 12), the Chatam Sofer takes the opposite perspective, explaining the distinction between this and other positions which are inherited as follows: The kingship and other similar positions are appointments associated with leadership. Hence if the heir is fundamentally capable, he inherits his father's position. The priest who leads the nation in war, by contrast, is an appointment based on holiness. That is not transferred by inheritance. Indeed, the High Priesthood would not be transferred by inheritance were there not a specific verse commanding us to do so.

There is no obligation either way.

While he leads them in war, he wears the eight garments of the High Priest (see Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Although he was anointed, he is not given the status of a High Priest and wears the garments of an ordinary priest.

This is a principle applied in several contexts of Torah law. See Menachot 11:7; Hilchot Tefilah 3:16; Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16.

Once he is removed from his position, he should not be reinstated. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:9.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:4. Although a case involving a question of capital punishment for a High Priest is judged by a court of 71 judges [rather than the usual 23 (ibid.:1)], we do not say that as a measure of respect for his position, he should be judged by a court of 23 judges. For if he is held liable, he will be lashed in their presence and this will be a public dishonor [Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:1)].

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that this comes as a result of the holiness with which the High Priest is endowed. It is a microcosm of God's holiness and hence, like His holiness cannot be nullified.