Biat Hamikdash - Chapter 3

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

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

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:11 which states:
The [encampment of the Jewish people] in the desert [was divided into] three areas: the camp of Israel… the camp of the Levites about which [Numbers 1:50) states: “They shall camp around the Sanctuary;”, and the camp of the Shechinah [which included the area] beginning at the entrance to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting inwards.
Correspondingly, for [future] generations: [The area] from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is comparable to the camp of Israel. [The area] from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the entrance to the Temple Courtyard, the gate of Nicanor, is comparable to the camp of the Levites. And [the area] from the entrance to the Temple Courtyard inward, is comparable to the camp of the Shechinah.
See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kelim 1:8).

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

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

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

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

Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at 10:12.

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

Women who are impure because of menstrual bleeding.

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

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

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1.

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

See Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 5:14.

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

For that is where Moses had his personal dwelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that even after immersion and the passage of a day, their impurity is not absolved indicates that it is of a more severe nature.
The Sifri brings proof that one who has not yet completed the purification process is in a different category than a person who has immersed himself from the fact that the former is permitted to partake of terumah, while the latter is not.

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

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

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

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

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

Which, as mentioned above, parallels the camp of the Levites. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s interpretation of the verse reverses the order found in Pesachim 68a and the Sifri. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that text.

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

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

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

I.e., he violated two negative commandments: he entered Jerusalem and he entered the Temple Mount. Therefore he is liable for two sets of lashes.
The Kessef Mishneh adds that if the person afflicted with tzara’at enters the Temple Courtyard, he is liable for an addition set of lashes.

As mentioned in Halachot 5-6, this constitutes the violation of a Rabbinical commandment. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s wording.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

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

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

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

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

A person or an object that touches a human corpse becomes a source of impurity that can cause other people or objects to become ritually impure (see Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 5:4-5).
The Ra’avad states, however, that a nazirite is not obligated to shave his head if he touched a utensil or a person that became impure due to contact with a corpse. Hence, he concludes, one should not be liable for entering the Temple after having contracted impurity in this manner. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the simple meaning of the passage in Nazir 54a appears to support the Ra’avad’s understanding. Nevertheless, he cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) which could be interpreted, as supporting the Rambam’s ruling.

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

See Sefer Taharah.

I.e., in a mikveh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And thus serve as a source of impurity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For this also is not the usual way of entry.

I.e., in the Temple Courtyard.

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

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

So that it will not be touched.

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

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

As stated in Halachah 12.

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

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

An adjustable guilt offering.

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

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

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

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