Avodat Yom haKippurim - Chapter 5

In contrast, after the fact, if he performs the services that must be performed while wearing his golden gannents in an improper sequence, they are not disqualified.

In contrast, after the fact, the service of the High Priest is not disqualified if he performs the tasks performed outside the Temple Building - e.g., the lottery for the goats, the confessions, and the like in an improper order.
Based on Rashi’s commentary to Yoma 60a, there are some who suggest that the text of the Mishneh Torah should be amended to read “further within than the Temple Building” i.e., referring to the tasks performed within the Holy of Holies alone. The Meiri, the Tosafot Yom Tov (in his gloss to Yoma 5:6), and others, however, understand the Rambam as speaking about both the tasks performed in the Sanctuary and those performed in the Holy of Holies. This interpretation is borne out by the later halachot in this chapter.

And he must perform all the services again.
In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 49), the Rambam uses this law as a proof of his contention that all of the special services performed by the High Priest on Yorn Kippur are considered as a single positive commandment.

And new incense must be taken afterwards.

And thus based on the statements of the previous halachah, one might assume that the fact that these two tasks were not performed in the proper order is not significant.

And another goat must be slaughtered after the presentation of the blood of the bull.

And another ram and goat must be sacrificed afterwards. Although the ram and the goat are sacrificed in the Temple Courtyard, since they should be sacrificed after the special services of the day, they are unacceptable if sacrificed beforehand.

Based on Halachah 2, we must interpret this as referring to a situation where the High Priest already started presenting the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, stopped, slaughtered the goat, and then began presenting its blood.

I.e., he should not complete presenting the blood of the goat.

Completing the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies.

Since the blood of the bull was already sprinkled in the Holy of Holies, the blood of the goat is not disqualified entirely. The first sprinklings of its blood on the parochet are, however, unacceptable.

With regard to the blood of the bull, see Halachah 8.

I.e., slaughter another goat and bring its blood. There is no need to slaughter another bull and offer its blood again (Rav Yosef Corcus).

None of the original sprinklings are acceptable.

He does not, however, have to reenter the Holy of Holies and perform the sprinklings there again. For as explained in the conclusion of the following halachah, each set of sprinklings represents a separate phase of atonement.

I.e., on the Parochet.
The bracketed additions are necessary for the Golden Altar is also located in the Sanctuary.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 2, for these applications, the blood of the bull had already been mixed with the blood of the goat.

Slaughtering another bull and another goat; see Halachah 2.

For Leviticus 16:20 states: “When he finished atoning for the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting, and the Altar,” indicating that each of these represents a separate phase (Yoma 61a).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaK.orbanot 19:4.

Including those on the outer altar.

The commentaries have questioned the wording of this phrase based on Halachah 2, which states that if the incense offering is offered before the slaughter of the bull it is of no consequence. Rabbenu Y ehoshua, one of the Rambam’s descendants, explains that since the first bull was slaughtered before the offering of the incense, the incense should be offered before the slaughter of the second bull. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus differ and maintain that “before” is simply a printing mistake and the text should read “after.”

Beginning with the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies.

As Leviticus 16:28 states: “The one who bums it [the bull] must wash his clothes and immerse his flesh in the water.” See also Hilchot Parah Adumah 5:4.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 8. The body of the bull whose blood was spilled is burnt in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 7:3).

This is speaking about a situation where the High Priest completed the sprinkling of the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, but before he completed the sprinklings on the Parochet, the blood of the goat became mixed with it. For, as stated in Halachah 2, if the goat was slaughtered before the presentation of the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, the entire procedure is disqualified (Kessef Mishneh, quoting Rav Yosef Corcus).

We assume that in every sprinkling there will be some of the blood of the bull. The fact that the blood of the goat is also mixed together with it is not significant (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Conversely, we assume that in every sprinkling there will be some of the blood of the goat. The fact that the blood of the bull is also mixed together with it is not significant.

I.e., he had already sprinkled the blood of the bull once upward and six times downward.

This is also speaking about an instance where the blood of the bull was already sprinkled in the Holy of Holies for the same reason mentioned in note 26.

If the first cup contains the blood of the bull, the first two sprinklings will have been carried out in order. The fact that he sprinkled the blood of the bull again is not significant. And if the second cup contained the blood of the bull, the last two sprinklings will have been carried out in order, the fact that he sprinkled the blood of the goat first is not significant.

Although the previous halachot gave us means to correct the situation when the cups of blood became mixed together, in those instances, there was no alternative to perform the sprinklings as required. In this instance, however, there is a way to perform the sprinklings properly.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 2:21.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

As stated in Hilchot Shegagot 11:9, this sacrifice enables the priests to receive atonement for the willful violation of the prohibitions against entering the Temple in a state of impurity and partaking of sacrificial foods in a state of impurity.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1.

I.e., the goats for which the lottery was made.

Yoma 62b notes that the Torah (Leviticus 16:5,7,8) uses the phrase “the two goats” three times and on that basis, infers that the goats should be alike in these three matters.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 6:1), the Rambam writes that the fact that afterwards, the Torah uses the term “the goat,” instead of” the one,” implies that any goat is acceptable.

I.e., the one that remains from the first pair is used, together with the one chosen in the second lottery. Although there is an opinion in the Talmud (Yoma, foe. cit.), which maintains that both goats in the new pair should be used, the Rambam does not accept it. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yoma 6:1), he explains that his decision is based on the principle that “Living animals are never permanently disqualified” (Zevachim 59a). See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 15:4; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:23, 6:1; Hilchat Shegagot 3:8, et al, where this principle is mentioned.
Significantly, in his original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (which forms the body of the standard published text of that work), the Rambam favored the view that animals can be permanently disqualified. According to that view, once the remaining goat of the first pair was disqualified because its pair died - it can never become acceptable again.
In his notes to that mishnah, Rav Kappach explained that originally the Rambam accepted the opinion of Rabbi Y ochanan, because usually, in differences of opinion between him and Rav (who follows the opposing view), Rabbi Yochanan’s view is followed. Nevertheless, his final opinion follows that of Rav, because this case is considered exceptional, because the Talmud considers Rav’s view as substantiated by the wording of the mishnah. See also the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot, loc.cit.

Since it was consecrated it can no longer be used for ordinary purposes until it is redeemed. Nevertheless, it cannot be offered for the purpose for which it was consecrated since the goat from the original pair will be used instead. Hence, the advice offered by the Rambam is followed.

In contrast, sin-offerings brought by private persons can be consigned to death, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1-3.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:2.

Since they were originally designated for the offering, they should be given priority.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, chs. 1-2.

I.e., as stated in Leviticus 21:28 and Hilchot Shechitah 12: 1-2, it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. No matter which is slaughtered first, one must wait until the following day to sacrifice the other. Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:8 explains that accordingly, if an animal was slaughtered on a particular day, it is forbidden to offer its mother or its offspring as a sacrifice on that day. Now how could an animal other than a sacrifice be slaughtered on Yom Kippur? When a person was sick and required meat, as the Rambam explains.

An animal that will die within twelve months.

And an animal that is treifah is not considered as alive in a halachic sense. The commentaries note that the Rambam’s interpretation of the Biblical phrase does not have an apparent source in prior Rabbinic literature. The law the Rambam mentions is found in Chullin 11 b, but another reason is given. The Mishneh LiMelech explains that the rationale given by the Rambam is more inclusive than that given by the Talmud. For according to the rationale given by the Talmud, the goat would be disqualified only if it was treifah at the time of the lottery, while according to the Rambam, even if the animal becomes treifah after the lottery, it is disqualified.

Generally, we follow the principle (Shabbat 94a; Hilchot Shabbat 20:4): “A living animal carries itself.” Hence there would be no prohibition in carrying the goat. Nevertheless, if the goat is so sick that it cannot walk, that prohibition would apply. Although the prohibitions against carrying and transferring an object from one domain to another are the same on Yorn Kippur as on the Sabbath, the Sabbath is mentioned, for one might think that the license is granted only on Yorn Kippur - because it is one of the services of that day and not on the Sabbath (Keritot 14a).

Although as mentioned in the following halachah (and in Chapter 3, Halachah 7), the person who takes the goat to Azazel should be designated on the previous day, if that is not possible, anyone can take his place. We do not designate a replacement beforehand (as is done for the High Priest), because this is an unlikely occurrence.

Even though, generally, it is forbidden to enter the Temple in a state of ritual impurity.

Yoma 67b states that the Torah would not have sent the goat out to be a spiritual obstacle for others. For a traveler through the desert might encounter one of its limbs and desire to benefit from it.

And a tent must have a roof (Zevachim 40a).

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:1 which state that it must be dedicated by the afternoon incense offering.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 2:2-4 for a description of the different herbs and spices included in the incense offering.

At the hand of heaven for not offering the incense offering.

At the hand of heaven. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:1-4.

I.e., he did not know that it was forbidden to enter without service.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this is an extension of the law stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 19:8.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13: for a description of the improper thoughts that can disqualify sacrificial service.

This is a question that is left unresolved by Yoma 48b. Hence the Rambam rules stringently. He does not state that there is doubt regarding the ruling as he does in the instances mentioned in the following halachot, because it is preferable for him to scoop out new coals (Kessef Mishneh).

All of these are questions left unresolved by Yoma 47b-49a.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the manner in which the handful of incense is taken parallels the manner in which a handful of flour is taken for the meal offerings (see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:13. Thus the proper manner for the High Priest to gather the incense is for him to stretch out his hand and his fingers, laying the back of his hand against the incense. He should press down so his hand sinks into the incense. He should then clo.se his fingers so the incense is collected in his palms.