Admission into the Sanctuary

Whenever a priest who is fit to perform Temple service drinks wine, he is forbidden to enter the area of the Altar or [proceed] beyond there. If he entered [that area] and performed service, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Leviticus 10:9] states: "[Do not drink intoxicating wine...] so that you do not die." The above applies provided one drinks a revi'it of undiluted wine at one time, provided the wine is over 40 days old. If, however, one drank less than a revi'it of wine, one drank a revi'it intermittently, one mixed it with water, or one drank even more than a revi'it of wine from the vat, i.e., within 40 days of its being brought into being, he is exempt and his service is not profaned. If he drank more than a revi'it of wine, even though it was diluted and even though he drank it intermittently, he is liable for death and his service is invalidated.

If a person is intoxicated from beverages other than wine, he is forbidden to enter the Temple. If he enters and performs service while intoxicated from other beverages - even if he is intoxicated from milk or figs - he is liable for lashes, but his service is valid, for one is liable for death only when drinking wine at the time of service and one does not invalidate service unless he is intoxicated from wine.

Just as a priest is forbidden to enter the Temple while intoxicated, so too, it is forbidden for any person, whether priest or Israelite, to render a halachic ruling when he is intoxicated. Even if he ate dates or drank milk and his mind became somewhat confused, he should not issue a ruling, as [the above passage (ibid.:11)] continues: "And to give instruction to the children of Israel." If he gave a ruling concerning a matter that is explicitly stated in the Torah to the extent that it is known by the Sadducees, he is permitted. For example, he ruled that a sheretz is impure and a frog is pure; [he ruled that] blood is forbidden, or the like.

It is permitted for a person who is intoxicated to teach Torah, even Torah law and the interpretation of verses, provided he does not deliver a ruling. If he was a sage who delivers rulings on a regular basis, he should not teach, for his teaching constitutes the delivery of a ruling.

When a person drank precisely a revi'it and it was diluted with the slightest amount of water, he slept a bit, or he walked a mil, the effects of the wine will have worn off and he is permitted to serve [in the Temple]. If, however, he drank more than a revi'it even if it was diluted, sleeping slightly or journeying adds to his drunkenness. Depending on how intoxicated he was, he must wait until there is no trace of his drunkenness whatsoever.

The men of the priestly watch are permitted to drink wine at night, but not during the day, during the week [they serve in the Temple]. Even the members of the other clans who were not scheduled to work on a particular day [are forbidden], lest the Temple service overburden the members of the clan who serve that day and they require other members of the watch to help them. The members of the clan of a particular day are forbidden to drink both during the day and night of that day, lest they drink at night and arise to their service in the morning without the effects of the wine having worn off.

Whenever a priest knows the watch from which he descends and the clan from which he descends, and he knows the day on which the members of his clan were scheduled to serve [in the Temple], he is forbidden to drink wine that entire day. If one knows from which watch he is descended, but does not know his clan, he is forbidden to drink wine the entire week during which his clan worked. If [a priest] does not know [the identity of] his watch or his clan, the law would dictate that he should never be allowed to drink wine. Nevertheless, his difficulty leads to his solution and he is permitted to drink wine at all times, for he is not allowed to serve [in the Temple] until his clan and watch are established.

A priest who lets his hair grow long is forbidden to enter the area of the Altar or [proceed] beyond there. If he enters this area and performs service, he is liable for death at the hand of Heaven like an intoxicated [priest] who serves, as [indicated by Ezekiel 44:20-21]: "None of the priests shall drink wine. They shall not shave their heads, nor allow their hair to grow long." Just as [priests who serve] intoxicated from wine are liable to die, so too, those who allow their hair to grow long are liable to die.

[Priests who] let their hair grow long do not disqualify their service. Even though they are obligated to die, their service is valid.

Just as the priests are not warned against drinking wine except at the time they enter the Temple, so too, they are forbidden to grow their hair long only at the time they enter the Temple. To whom does the above apply? To an ordinary priest. A High Priest, by contrast, is forbidden to let his hair grow long and rend his garments forever, for he should be in the Temple at all times. Therefore with regard to him, [Leviticus 21:10] states: "He should not let [the hair of] his head grow long, nor should he rend his garments."

What is meant by growing one's hair long? [Leaving it uncut for] 30 days like a Nazirite, concerning whom [Numbers 6:5] states: "He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow long" and a nazirite vow is not less than 30 days. Therefore an ordinary priest who serves [in the Temple] must cut his hair every 30 days.

The priests of the watch [serving in the Temple that week] are forbidden to cut their hair and launder their garments during that week, so that they will not enter the Temple when they are unkempt. Instead, they should cut their hair, wash, and do their laundry before coming [to the Temple].

When a priest's watch is concluded in the midst of a festival, he is permitted to cut his hair in the midst of the festival. If, however, his watch concludes on the day preceding a festival, he should cut his hair only on that day.

The laws [applying to a priest who enters the Temple with] torn garments are the same as those [applying to one with] long hair, as [Leviticus 10:6] states: "Do not let [the hair on] your heads grow long or rend your garments lest you die." Thus if [a priest] served with torn garments, he is liable for death at the hand of Heaven although his service is valid and was not profaned.

It appears to me that any priest who is fit to serve who enters the area of the altar or [proceeds] beyond there while intoxicated due to wine, drunk due to other alcoholic beverages, with long hair, or with torn garments as one tears because of a person's death, he is liable for lashes, even if he did not perform service. [The rationale is that] he is fit for service and entered [the Temple] at the time of service in such an unkept manner although he was warned not to enter.

The laws that apply to someone who enters beyond the altar and the laws that apply to ones who depart from there are the same. What is implied? One drank a revi'it of wine between the Ulam and the altar or tore his garments there and departed, he is liable for lashes. Similarly, if he performed service as he departed, he is liable for death.

Similarly, it is forbidden for any person, whether a priest or an Israelite, to enter the entire Temple area, from the Courtyard of the Israelites and onward when he is intoxicated from wine, drunk [from other beverages], with unkept long hair or with torn garments. Although there is no explicit warning [against this in the Torah], it is not a sign of honor or reverence to the great and holy house to enter it unkept. If, however, an Israelite lets his hair grow until it is formed into a weave and it was not unkept, he is permitted to enter the Courtyard of the Israelites.

The High Priest enters the Holy of Holies each year only on Yom Kippur. An ordinary priest may enter the Sanctuary for service every day.

The priests were all warned not to enter the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies when they are not in the midst of the service, as [Leviticus 16:2] states: "He shall not come to the Holy Chamber at all time" - this refers to the Holy of Holies. "...Within the curtain" - this warns [the priests against unwarranted entry] into the entire Temple.

A priest - whether an ordinary priest or a High Priest - who enters the Holy of Holies on any of the other days of the year, or a High Priest who enters there on Yom Kippur outside the time of service, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.] states: "And he shall not die." How many times does he enter on Yom Kippur? Four, as will be explained in the appropriate place. If he enters a fifth time, he is liable for death at the hand of heaven.

One - whether an ordinary priest or a High priest - who enters the Sacred Chamber outside the Holy of Holies, not for the sake of service, nor prostrating oneself, is liable for lashes, but is not liable for death. [This is derived from the above verse which states:] "Before the covering [that is upon the Ark] so that he will not die." [Implied is that] for [unauthorized entry into] the Holy of Holies, he is liable for death, but [entering] the remainder of the Sanctuary is merely the violation of a negative commandment and is punishable by lashes.

A priest - whether an ordinary priest or a High priest - who departs from the Temple is liable for death [at the hand of heaven] only in the midst of his service, as [ibid 10:7] states: "From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, you shall not depart, lest you die." Implied is that you should not abandon the service and leave hastily and in panic because of this decree. Similarly, the charge [issued to] the High Priest [ibid. 21:12]: "He shall not depart from the Temple," applies only in the midst of his service, i.e., that he should not abandon his service and depart.

If so, why was this warning repeated for the High Priest? [Because there is a difference between the laws that apply to him and those which apply to an ordinary priest]. When an ordinary priest was in the midst of his service in the Temple and he heard that a person for whom he is obligated to mourn has died, he should not perform sacrificial service, even though he does not leave the Temple, because he is in an acute state of mourning. if he performed service while in an acute state of mourning, he profanes his service, whether he is offering an individual sacrifice or a communal offering. A High Priest, by contrast, performs sacrificial service while he is in a state of acute mourning, as [implied by ibid.]: "From the Temple, he should not depart and not profane." Implied is that he should remain [in the Temple] and perform the service with which he was involved and it does not become profaned.

What is the source that teaches that the service of one in an acute state of mourning is invalid? [It is derived from] an inference from a less severe situation to a more severe one. A priest disqualified because of a physical deformity may partake of sacrificial foods. Nevertheless, if he performs service, he profanes it. How much more so should one who is in acute mourning and thus forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods - as [Deuteronomy 26:14] states: "I did not eat from it in a state of acute morning" - profane his service [if he performs it].

Although a High Priest may perform service while he is in a state of acute mourning, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food, as [Leviticus 10:19] states: "If I had partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have found favor in G-d's eyes." Similarly, he does not participate in the division of the sacrificial foods so that he could partake of the food in the evening. When a person in an acute state of mourning performs sacrificial service, he is not liable for lashes. He is permitted to touch sacrificial foods even though he did not immerse himself [in a mikveh], for this safeguard was enforced only with regard to eating. With regard to touching [objects], he is considered as pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.

What is meant by a person in an acute state of mourning? One who lost one of the relatives for whom he is required to mourn. On the day of the person's death, he is considered in acute mourning according to Scriptural Law. And at night, he is in acute mourning according to Rabbinic Law.

When [it was necessary] to wait several days and [only] afterwards, a corpse was buried, for all those days after the day of the deceased's passing, [his relative] is considered in an acute state of mourning according to Rabbinic Law. This also [applies] with regard to the day of burial, but not the following night. Therefore if [a close relative of a priest] dies and he buries him after the day of his death, throughout the day of the burial, he may not offer or partake of sacrifices according to Rabbinic Law. He should then immerse himself and partake of sacrifices at night. The day on which a person hears a report that a relative of his died within 30 days and the day on which he gathers his bones is considered as the day of one's burial, but [the restrictions] do not apply at night. On the day of [a close relative's] death, by contrast, just as it is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods during the day according to Scriptural Law, so too, it is forbidden for him to partake of them that night according to Rabbinic Law. [The only] exception is the Paschal sacrifice which he may eat at night, as will be explained in the appropriate place.

Throughout the seven days of mourning, a mourner should not send sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple]. [Indeed, he should not send] even wine, wood, or frankincense. Similarly, a person afflicted with tzara'at should not send his sacrifices [to be offered in the Temple]. For as long as he is not fit to enter the camp [of the Levites], he is not fit for his sacrifices to be offered. There is an unresolved question whether a person under a ban of ostracism may send his sacrifices [to be offered] or not. Hence, if they were offered on his behalf, [his obligation] is satisfied.

A person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard or the like and an uncircumcised person may send their sacrifices and they are offered with the exception of the Paschal sacrifice. That sacrifice may not be offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a dead lizard. Nor may a Paschal sacrifice be offered for an uncircumcised person, as will be explained. No sacrifices at all are offered for a person who is impure because of contact with a corpse until he becomes ritually pure.

It is a positive commandment to send all impure persons away from the Temple, as [Numbers 5:2] states: "And they shall send away from the camp all those with tzara'at and zav [afflictions] and all those who are impure because of contact with a corpse.

"The camp" cited refers to "the camp of the Divine presence," i.e., from the entrance to the Courtyard of the Israelites onward. Should one infer that a person with tzaraat or zav ailments and one impure due to contact with a corpse are all three sent to the same place? With regard to one inflicted with tzara'at, [Leviticus 13:46] states: "He shall abide alone outside the camp where he dwells." [The camp from which he is sent] refers to the camp of the Israelites which parallels the area from the entrance to Jerusalem and beyond. [From this we conclude,] just like a person who is afflicted with tzara'at, because his impurity is more severe, is sent away in a more severe manner than others, so too, any individuals whose state of impurity is more severe than others should be sent out in a more severe manner. Therefore a person afflicted with tzara'at is sent outside of all three camps, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [His impurity is considered more severe,] because he causes [a house] to be considered impure when he enters it. This does not apply with regard to a zav.

Men with a zav condition, women with a zavah condition, niddot, and women who gave birth are sent outside two camps, i.e., outside the Temple Mount. [The rationale for this severity is that] they cause an entity upon which they are seated or upon which they are lying to become ritually impure, even if it is under a stone. [This does not apply] with regard to impurity [contracted] from a corpse.

A person who is impure because of contact with a human corpse - and even a corpse itself - is permitted to enter the Temple Mount. [This is derived from Exodus 13:19]: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him." "With him" [implies] into the camp of the Levites.

From the chayl, gentiles, those who contracted impurity from a human corpse, and those who had relations with a niddah are sent away. A person who immersed that day may enter there, for he has already immersed.

From the Women's Courtyard, one who immersed himself that day is sent away, but not one who has not completed the purification process. For [the day on which] a person who has not completed the purification process [immersed himself] has already passed. The prohibition against a person who has immersed himself entering [this portion of] the camp of the Levites is Rabbinic in origin.

From the Courtyard of the Israelites and onward even one who has not completed his process of purification should not enter, because his process of purification is not yet consummated. [This is evident from Leviticus 12:8 which, with regard to a woman who seeks purification after childbirth,] states: "And the priest will bring atonement for her and she will become pure." One can infer that until then, she was not pure.

An impure person who [must be] sent away from the Temple Mount, violates a negative commandment if he enters there, as [can be inferred from Deuteronomy 23:11 which] states: "And he shall go outside the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Shechinah - "and he shall not enter the midst of the camp" - this refers to the camp of the Levites. Similarly, a person afflicted by tzara'at who enters Jerusalem is liable for lashes. If, however, he enters any of the other walled cities [in Eretz Yisrael], although he is not allowed to, as [implied by the verse]: "He shall abide alone," he is not liable for lashes.

If one afflicted with tzara'at entered the Temple Mount, he is liable for 80 lashes. If, however, one who is impure because of contact with a human corpse or one who immersed himself that day entered the Women's Courtyard, or one who has not completed his process of purification entered the Israelites' Courtyard, he is not given lashes. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.

Just as there is a positive commandment to send impure persons out from the Temple, so too, if they enter, they violate a negative commandment, as [Numbers 5:3] states: "They shall not make your camp impure." This refers to the camp of the Shechinah.

What source teaches that one does not violate the prohibition unless he enters [the Temple], but that he is exempt if he touches the Temple Courtyard from the outside? [Leviticus 12:4] states with regard to a woman who gives birth: "She shall not enter the Sanctuary."

When an impure person willfully enters the Temple, he is punishable by karet, as [Leviticus 17:16] states: "If he will not clean [his garments] or wash his flesh, he will bear his iniquity." [If he enters] unknowingly, he is liable for an adjustable guilt offering, as [ibid. 5:2] states: "Or a soul that will touch any impure entity." One is liable for karet or a sacrifice only when one enters from the Israelites' Courtyard or onward or into an addition to the Courtyard that was sanctified in a consummate manner, as we explained.

What are the types of impurity for which one is liable [for entering] the Temple [while impure]? a) Anyone who became impure through contact with a human corpse in a manner which would require a nazirite to shave [his head] because of them; these are explained in [Hilchot] Nizirut; b) one who touched a person or a utensil that became impure through those types of impurity for which a nazirite must shave [his head]; for such a person is considered as a second level of impurity to a primary object of impurity that touched a corpse; c) one who became impure through contact with another primary source of impurity as mandated by Scriptural Law, as will be explained in their appropriate places.

The general principle is: Anyone who is required to immerse himself in water according to Scriptural Law is liable for karet for entering the Temple [while impure] even after he immersed himself until nightfall [that day]. If, however, one became impure due to impurity stemming from a human corpse that does not require a nazirite to shave [his head], he is exempt for entering the Temple, even though his impurity lasts for seven days.

Similarly, if one touches utensils that touched a human corpse or touches a person who is touching utensils that touch a corpse, even though he is considered as impure to the first degree with regard to terumah and with regard to imparting impurity to sacrificial foods, he is exempt for entering the Temple. For these matters are laws received through the Oral Tradition. Although he is exempt, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

A person who brings a dead teeming animal or the like into the Temple or when he brings an impure person into the Temple, he is liable for karet, because he made G-d's sanctuary impure. If, however, he threw impure utensils into the Temple - even if they were utensils that touched a corpse - he is exempt from karet, but liable for lashes, as [implied by the prooftext cited above]: "If he will not clean [his garments]...." According to the Oral Tradition, [for entering the Temple without] washing his body, he is liable for karet. [For entering without] cleaning his garments, he receives 40 lashes.

It appears to me that he is liable for lashes only for his clothes that are a source of ritual impurity, i.e., clothes that were touched by a person who became impure through contact with a corpse that themselves become a source for ritual impurity, as will be explained. If, by contrast, one brings a garment which is of first degree impurity into the Temple, he is not liable for lashes. He does, however, receive stripes for rebellious conduct.

Similarly, when an impure person inserts his hand [alone] into the Temple, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. Similarly, anyone who purposely enters the Temple before immersing himself while he is impure because of contact with objects that are sources of ritual impurity by virtue of Rabbinic decree, because he ate impure foods, or because he drank impure beverages is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

When an impure person enters the Temple through the rooftops, he is exempt. [This is derived from the prooftext cited above:] "He shall not enter the Temple." [Implied is that] the Torah held him liable [only when he entered in] the way one usually enters. Although he is exempt for karet, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. [This exemption applies] even if he enters in a compartment flying in the air, whether he entered the Temple in this compartment through the roofs or through the entrances.

In all places where one is liable for karet for a willful transgression or a sacrifice for an unknowing transgression, should an impure object be found there on the Sabbath, it should be removed. In other places, it should be covered with a utensil until after the Sabbath. When it is removed, it should be removed only with flat wooden utensils which do not contract ritual impurity, so that there should not be an increase in ritual impurity.

Both an impure person who entered the Temple when it was pure and a pure person who entered the Temple when there was impurity within it - e.g., a corpse was lying under a shelter in the Temple and he entered under that shelter - are liable for karet. [In the latter situation,] his entrance and his impurity occur at one time. If one enters the Temple and becomes impure there after he enters, even if he purposely made himself impure, he should hurry, and depart in the shortest way possible.

It is forbidden for him to tarry, to bow, or to depart via a longer way. If he tarried or departed via a longer way even though he did not tarry, or he turned his face to the Sanctuary and bowed even if he did not tarry, he is liable for karet. If he acted unknowingly, he must bring a sacrifice.

If he did not turn his face [toward the Sanctuary], but bowed as he was departing toward the outside area, he is not liable unless he tarrys. How long a delay [creates a liability]? Enough time to read the verse: "And they bowed with their faces to the ground on the floor, prostrating themselves and giving thanks to G-d who is good and whose kindness is everlasting." This is the measure of the delay [for which one is liable].

What is meant by [departing] via longer way? Any way for which it is possible to depart from the Temple via a shorter way. If one departed via a shorter way, even if he did not run, but instead walked [slowly], positioning his heel by his toes, although it takes the entire day, he is exempt. If he took a longer path, even though he ran and pressed himself with all of his power and thus the amount of time it took for him to leave in this manner was less than it would take other men via the shorter way, he is liable, because he departed via the longer path. If he departed via the shorter path, but walked some, then stood, tarried some, [and continued this pattern] until all of his delays together amount to the time it takes to bow, he is not liable for lashes if he acted willfully, nor is he liable for a sacrifice if he acted unknowingly, because there is an unresolved question concerning the matter. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.

When an impure person serves in the Temple, he desecrates his service and is liable for death at the hand of heaven for [performing] this service even if he did not tarry there, as [indicated by Leviticus 22:2]: "so that they draw back for the sanctified objects of the children of Israel and not desecrate My holy name." This is a warning for a person who serves while ritually impure. Further on, [ibid.:9] states: "They will die because of it, because they desecrated it." Just as in the latter instance, desecration makes one liable for death at the hands of heaven, so too, with regard to [offering sacrifices while impure, desecration] makes one liable for death at the hand of heaven. Lashes are given for [the violation of] all negative commandments punishable by death at the hand of heaven.

Although one who serves in a state of impurity is liable only for lashes in court, his priestly brethren would not bring him to the court. Instead, they would take him outside [the Temple] and split open his brain. They would not be rebuked for this.

How is it possible for a priest to perform service without tarrying so that he will be liable only for death at the hand of heaven and not karet? For example, he contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard and departed in the shortest way possible, but as he was leaving, he used a cylinder in his hand to turn over a limb [from a sacrifice] on the fire of the altar and thus hasten its consumption by the flames. [The rationale is that] any contribution to the Temple service is considered as equivalent to that service.

Similarly, if one who was impure immersed in the mikveh and then performed service before nightfall of that day, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid 21:6] states: "They shall not desecrate the name of their G-d." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to a person who [was impure, but] immersed himself that day who performs service [in the Temple], for he is still impure. [This is derived from ibid. 22:7]: "And the sun sets and he will become pure." Implied is that until then, he was not pure. A person whose atonement process was not completed who performs service [in the Temple] is exempt [from punishment] even though his service is invalid and it desecrates [the sacrifice].

What is the source that teaches that such service is impure? [With regard to a woman impure due to childbirth, Leviticus 12:8] states: "And the priest shall atone for her and she shall become pure." Implied is that until now, she was not pure. The same applies to all others whose atonement process is not complete.

[The following laws apply if] a priest performed service and afterwards, it became known that he was impure. If the source of impurity was known, all of the sacrifices that he offered are invalid, for his work is defiled. If, however, he became impure due to the impurity [likened to] the depths, the forehead plate brings about appeasement and all the sacrifices he offered are accepted. Even if he became aware of the fact that he was impure before the blood was sprinkled on the altar and then he sprinkled the blood, it brings about appeasement. For the forehead plate brings about appeasement for the impurity [likened to] the depths even though he [transgresses] intentionally. We have already explained the impurity [likened to] the depths in Hilchot Nizirut.

Similarly, the forehead plate brings atonement if the objects being sacrificed are impure, as [Exodus 28:38] states: "And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron will bear the sins of the sacred objects." It does not, however, bring about appeasement if the portions of the sacrifices that are eaten are impure or if the one [offering the sacrifice] is impure when he became impure because of a known source of impurity unless the impurity was superseded by a communal obligation, in which instance the forehead plate generates appeasement for it.

The forehead plate does not bring about appeasement unless it is on the High Priest's forehead, as [the above verse] continues: "It will be on his forehead at all times, for appeasement before G-d."

[The offering of] any sacrifice that does not have a set time does not supersede [the observance of] the Sabbath or [the laws of] ritual impurity. [The rationale is that] if it is not sacrificed today, it will be sacrificed tomorrow or afterwards. [The offering of] any sacrifice that does have a set time, whether it be a communal offering or an individual offering, supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity. It does not supersede all types of ritual impurity, however, only those stemming from contact with a human corpse.

All of the communal sacrifices have a fixed time when they must be offered. Hence [offering them] supersedes [the observance of] the Sabbath and [the laws of] ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.

All of the sacrifices that were brought in a state of ritual impurity are not eaten. Instead, the elements of the sacrifice that are fit to be consumed by fire are offered on the fire [of the altar]. The remaining portions that would [ordinarily] be eaten are burnt in the same manner as are other sacrifices that became impure.

What is meant by saying it supersedes [the laws of] ritual impurity? If the time when that sacrifice is to be offered arrives and the majority of the people offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse, or the people at large were pure, but the priests offering it were impure due to contact with a human corpse, or both of these were pure, but the Temple utensils were impure due to contact with a human corpse, [the sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity. Both the impure and the pure should be involved in its offering together and enter the Temple Courtyard. Those who are impure because of other reasons, zavim, zavot, women in their menstrual state, those after childbirth, those who came in contact with the corpse of a teeming animal or large animal, or the like should not be involved [in the sacrifice] and should not enter the Temple Courtyard even though sacrifices are being offered in a state of impurity. If they transgressed and took part [in the sacrifice] or entered the Temple Courtyard, they are liable for karet for entering [the Courtyard] or death [at the hand of Heaven] for [carrying out] the service. For only the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse was superseded [by the obligation to offer these sacrifices].

When a Paschal sacrifice is offered in a state of impurity and those who were impure due to contact with a human corpse pressed on and entered the Sanctuary, they are exempt even though they were only permitted to enter the Temple Courtyard. Since the charge [Numbers 5:3]: "Send them beyond the camp" does not apply to them, they are exempt.

If a portion of the priests of the clan scheduled to serve in the Temple that day were impure and a portion were pure, even if the majority were impure due to contact with a human corpse, only those who are pure should offer the sacrifices. If all the priests of that clan were impure, the priests of another clan should be brought [to serve]. If all the priests of that watch were impure due to contact with a human corpse, we look for [those of] another watch. If most of the priests who entered Jerusalem at a given time were impure, [the appropriate sacrifice] should be offered in a state of impurity.

Why do we search for a priest who is pure from another clan? Because [the prohibition against serving while] impure was not released entirely [in order to offer] the communal [sacrifices]. Instead, the prohibition is still standing, it is merely superseded temporarily, because of the pressing situation. We do not override any prohibitions that may be superseded except in a situation where there is no alternative. For this reason, the forehead plate is required to bring about appeasement.

What is the source that teaches that [the prohibitions against] ritual impurity are superseded [to bring] communal [offerings]? [Numbers 9:6] speaks of: "Men who were impure because of a [deceased] human soul." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Particular individuals are deferred to Pesach Sheni if they were impure. If, however, the community at large is impure due to contact with a human corpse, it is not deferred. Instead, [the prohibition against] ritual impurity is superseded and the Paschal sacrifice should be offered in a state of impurity. The same applies to every sacrifice that has a fixed time like the Paschal sacrifice: [the obligation to offer it] supersedes [the prohibition against] ritual impurity.

This concept is explicitly stated in Scripture [II Chronicles 30:17-18]: "For a multitude of the congregation had not sanctified themselves and the Levites presided over the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice for all who were not pure.... For many of the people, many from Ephraim, Menasheh, Issachar, and Zevulon had not purified themselves." What then is meant by the statement (ibid.): "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written"? Because they made that year a leap year because of ritual impurity, as [ibid.:2-3] states: "And the king, his officers, and all the congregation in Jerusalem had conferred [and decided] to offer the Pesach... in the second month, because they were not able to offer it at its time because there were not enough priests who had sanctified themselves." As we explained already in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodeh, as an initial preference, we do not declare a leap year because of ritual impurity.

There was another [difficulty] that year. King Chizkiya made the year a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar which was fit to be Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Instead, he made it the thirtieth of Adar. The Sages did not agree with him, for a leap year should not be declared on this day, as we explained in [Hilchot] Kiddush HaChodesh. Because of these two matters which were not done as prescribed by Jewish Law, it was said: "They partook of the Paschal sacrifice not in accordance with what was written."[ Chizkiya] entreated for mercy for himself and for the Sages who concurred with his actions, as [ibid.:18] states: "For Yichezkiyahu prayed for them, saying: 'May G-d Who is good atone for those....' [ibid.:20] states: 'G-d heeded Yichezkiyahu and healed the people.'[ Implied is that] their sacrifice was accepted.

It is a positive commandment for the serving priest to sanctify his hands and legs, and [only] then should he serve, as it says (Exodus 30:19) "And Aaron and his sons washed their hands and legs." And the priest who served in the morning without sanctifying his hands and legs is liable for death by Heaven, as it says (Exodus 30:20) "They shall wash with water and shall not die." And his service is invalid, whether he is the High Priest or a regular priest.

What is the source that his service is invalid? As it says (Exodus 28:43) "It is an eternal law for him and his descendants." And it is regarding the priestly vestments that it is saying "an eternal law." [Therefore] just as a lack of the [proper] vestments desecrates the service [and invalidates it] as we have made clear, so too someone who does not wash his hands and feet desecrates [and invalidates] the service.

The priest does not need to sanctify between each and every service. Rather, once a day he sanctifies, in the morning, and he serves continually the entire day and night. This is so long as he does not leave the Temple, and he does not go to sleep, and he does not become wet [as water transfers impurity], and he does not become distracted. If he does one of these four things, he needs to sanctify again.

[If] he leaves the Temple and returns and serves without sanctifying - if he did not become distracted [from the service], his service is valid. This was the rule in the Temple that no one should enter the courtyard to do the service, even should he be pure, until he dips.

Anyone who defecates must immerse himself [in a mikveh]. 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]. 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 acceptable 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, 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], 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 Kippur and [continues] serving, his service is acceptable. [The rationale is that] since those immersions and sanctifications are not applicable equally to Aaron and his sons, 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, he must go back and sanctify [his hands] on the next day for that day's service.

If a priest sanctified his hands and his feet for the removal of the altar's ashes, even though he sanctifies them before sunrise, 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. If, however, one sanctifies them from a sacred utensil, the sanctification is effective. Sanctification may not, however, be performed with an ordinary utensil. If one sanctified [his hands and feet] with a sacred utensil outside the Temple 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 mikveh 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.

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. Mud that can be poured, from which a cow would drink, 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.

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.

The water in the basin is disqualified if left [in it] overnight, as we explained. What would be done [to prevent the water from being disqualified]? The basin would be submerged in a mikveh 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 Solomon had the status of a mikveh, because a channel of water from the Spring of Aitem would pass through it. Therefore, 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. All the substances that are considered as intervening with regard to immersion, 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."

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. Similarly, anyone involved with one of the Temple services must be standing on the floor. If there was anything intervening between himself and the ground, 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.

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

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. If he performed service, his service is acceptable, since it is located in its place.

Any priest who has a physical blemish - whether a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish - 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, nor may he approach the altar. If he transgresses and enters [this area], 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, as [ibid.:17] states: "One who has a blemish shall not draw near [to offer...]." 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, 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. A temporary blemish is a dry skin eruption or a moist skin eruption also known as a chazizit. Not only the blemishes mentioned in the Torah, 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.

There are three types of blemishes [involving humans]: a) blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving and an animal from being offered [as a sacrifice]; b) blemishes that only prevent a man from serving; c) blemishes that do not disqualify a priest, but because of the impression that would be created, [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, his service is valid. 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 apparent 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, 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 person is like a foreigner [as Ezekiel 44:9] states: "Any foreigner with an uncircumcised heart and uncircumcised flesh." Therefore if an uncircumcised [priest] serves, he disqualifies his service and is liable for lashes like a non-priest who serves. He is not, however, liable for death.

A priest who married women sinfully may not serve until he is compelled by the court to take a vow dependent on the discretion of other people so that it cannot be nullified 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, 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.

When a priest performed service and afterwards, his [genealogy] was checked and it was discovered that he was a challal, 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 G-d bless His legion and find acceptable the work of his hand." [implied is that] He will find acceptable even the desecrated among them.

The High Court would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Their primary ongoing activity was sitting and judging the priests, e.g., examining the lineage of the priests 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 Wood and [removes] worm-eaten wood for the [Altar's] pyre. He should be included in the division of the sacrifices with the members of his clan and may partake [of the sacrifices], as [Leviticus 21:22] states: "He may partake of the food of his G-d 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 blemished to the extent that one's nail would become held back by the blemish. 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. 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. [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.

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 blemished even to the slightest extent. These three blemishes are included in the term cherutz mentioned in the Torah.

There are eight involving the eye: a) one who is blind, 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; d) one who has a mound like a grape in his eye, even though he can still see; e) one who has cataracts 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. 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. [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; 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, it is not considered a blemish; f) one from whom the majority of the free portion of the tongue was removed.

There are twelve involving the reproductive organs: a-d) one whose member is crushed, 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; 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.

There are six involving the hands and the feet: a) one who limps; b) one whose hip has been displaced. This is the meaning of the term serua used by the Torah; c) one who has one hip attached at a higher place than the other; d) one whose arm-bone is broken, provided it is apparent; e) one whose leg-bone is broken, 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; b) a growth that has a bone. This is the meaning of the term yabelet mentioned in the Torah; c) one who has an Egyptian boil of the slightest size. It is a type of boil which is firm and of distasteful appearance. This is the meaning of the term yalefet mentioned in the Torah.

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

There are also three other types of blemishes: 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 treifah is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals. Similarly, one born through Caesarian section is acceptable among humans, but is disqualified among animals.

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.

There are a total of 90 physical blemishes that [disqualify] humans alone. In particular, they are: There are eight involving the head: a) one who has the center of his forehead depressed below as if it was pushed down with one's hand; b) one who has the center of his forehead raised up above, like an egg; c) one who has the sides of his head emerge toward his face like a hammer; d) one whose head projects outward abnormally from his neck; e) one whose head is abnormally large to the extent that it sits on his neck like a turnip on top of its leaves; f) one who is bald and has no hair whatsoever on his head. If, however, he has a row of hair extending across the back of his head from ear to ear, it is acceptable. g) a person's whose hair extends from ear to ear on the front of his head, but he is bald on the remainder of his head, he is unacceptable; h) a person whose hair extends around his entire head from the front and the back, but he has no hair on the top of his head. He also is deemed bald and is unacceptable.

There are two involving the neck. They are: a) one whose neck is sunk [into his trunk] so much that it appears to be placed on his shoulders; b) one whose neck is so long that it appears unconnected with his shoulders.

There are four involving the ears. They are: a) one whose two ears are very small; b) one whose two ears are very swollen like sponges; c) one whose ears hang down low; d) one who has one ear differ from another in appearance.

There are five involving the eyebrows. They are: a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyebrows. This is the meaning of the term gibein mentioned in the Torah; b) one whose eyebrows hang low; c) one who has only one eyebrow; d) one who has more than two eyebrows; e) one who has one eyebrow that is different in appearance than the other, whether the hair on one is long and on the other, short, or the hair on one is black and, on the other, white or red, since there is a difference in appearance, he is unacceptable.

There are four involving the eyelids. They are: a) one who does not have any hair at all on his eyelids; b) one who has very thick hair on his eyelids; c) one who has an eyelid whose hair is different from that of the other eyelid, e.g., one is black and the other white, one is thin and the other is thick; d) one whose eyelids are closed slightly and do not open wide like those of other people.

There are eleven involving the eyes. They are: a) one whose two eyes are positioned above their appropriate place, close to his forehead; b) one whose two eyes are positioned below their appropriate place; c) one whose two eyes are round and are not extended slightly as other eyes are; d) one whose eyes pop out like the eyes of a tiger and like the eyes of a person who looks at someone when he is very angry; e) one whose eyes are very large, like those of a calf; f) one whose eyes are small, like those of a duck; g) one who is continuously tearing; h) one who has fluid [continuously] dripping from the tip of his eyes near his nose or the ends of his eyes near his temples; i) one who contracts his eyelids and squints slightly when he sees light or when he wishes to look at something carefully; j) a person who is cross-eyed to the extent that he sees two storeys of the same building as one. This defect can be noticed when such a person is speaking with one person and it appears that he is speaking with another; k) one who has one eye that is different than the other, whether in place, in appearance, e.g., one is black and the other is of mixed color, or one is small and one is large. Since there is a difference between them, he is unacceptable.

There are six involving the nose. They are: a) one whose bridge of the nose is sunken, even [if it is not sunken] to the extent that he can apply ointment to both of his eyes at once. This is the meaning of the term charum mentioned in the Torah; b) one whose middle of the nose projects upward; c) one whose tip of the nose points downward; d) one whose tip of the nose is crooked; e) one whose nose is disproportionately large; f) one whose nose is disproportionately small. How is this measured? With one's pinky. If one's nose is larger or smaller than his pinky, it is considered a blemish.

There are three involving the lips. They are: a) one whose upper lip extends beyond his lower lip; b) one whose lower lip extends beyond his upper lip; c) one whose mouth [hangs] loosely and [hence,] spittle is continually descending from his mouth.

There are three involving the belly. They are: a) one whose belly is swollen; b) one whose navel projects outward, rather that being concave like that of other people; c) one whose breasts are extended and lie on his stomach like the breasts of a woman.

There are three involving the back. They are: a) one whose spine is crooked; b) one who has a vertebra that slipped out of the spinal column, regardless of whether it projected outward, penetrated inward, or slipped to the side. This is included in the term baal chatoteret; c) a person with a hunchback. Even though a vertebra has not slipped from its place, this is still considered a blemish.

There are six involving the hands. They are: a) one who has an extra finger on his hands, even if he has six on each hand. If he cuts the extra finger off, he is acceptable. If, however, it had a bone, he is unacceptable, even if he cuts it off; b) one who is lacking one of the fingers of his hand; c) one who has two fingers webbed and connected until below the joint. If he cut and separated them to the joint, he is acceptable. Which joint is implied? The first joint that is next to the palm of one's hand; d) one whose fingers are bent over each other; e) one who has a projection emerging from his thumb; f) a left-handed person. If he is ambidextrous, he is acceptable.

There are four involving the reproductive organs. They are: a) one who has a very large and long scrotum that reaches his knees; b) one whose organ is so long it reaches his knees; c) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles were crushed; d) one whose membranes surrounding his testicles are inflated. This is the meaning of the term miruach ashech mentioned in the Torah;

There are fifteen involving the thighs and the legs. They are: a) one who is bow-legged to the extent that even when he stands with his feet together, his knees will not touch each other; b) one whose ankle-bone projects outward. The ankle bone is the round bone that is above the heel, toward the inside of the body. It resembles the weaving needle with which women weave; c) one whose heel juts outward to the extent that his shin appears to be in the center of his foot; d) some whose feet are wide like a duck's even though they are not webbed like a duck's; e) one who has a projection emerging from his large toe; f) one who has an extra toe on his feet, even if he has six on each foot. If he cuts the extra toe off, he is acceptable, provided it does not have a bone; g) one who is lacking one of the toes of his foot; h) one whose toes are bent over each other; j) one whose toes are webbed until below the joint. If they were connected and he cut and separated them, he is acceptable; k) one whose foot is entirely straight; i.e., the width of his forefoot and his toes is the same as the width of his heels, and they appear as one straight unit; l) one whose foot is curved so that his forefoot and toes and his heel appears as the two ends of a bow; m) one whose foot is hollow; i.e., his mid-foot is upraised above the earth and it is as if he is standing on his heel and his toes; n) one whose ankles click with each other when he walks; o) one whose knees click with each other when he walks; p) one who is left-footed.

There are four that involve the entire body: a) one whose trunk is disproportionately larger than his limbs; b) one whose trunk is disproportionately smaller than his limbs; c) one who is extremely tall; d) a dwarf, i.e., one who is extremely short, so that they are distinguished from people at large.

There are eight involving the skin. They are: a) a Kushite; b) an albino whose skin is white like cheese; c) one who is red-skinned like scarlet; d) one who has pure blotches on his skin, i.e., [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an internal factor, like a bohak; e) [the appearance of] the skin changed because of an external factor, like the scarring of a burn; this is also one of the distinguishing marks that are pure [with regard to tzara'at]; f) one who has a facial mole that has hair, even if it is not the size of an isar, but rather of the smallest size; g) one who has a facial mole the size of an isar or more; h) one afflicted with warts, [when] a person's flesh or skin should distend or the fluids in the skin should distend to any part throughout the body, this is a blemish.

There are four other blemishes possible for a human: a) one who is deaf; b) one who is intellectually or emotionally unstable; c) an epileptic, even if his seizures come at far intervals; d) one who suffers from severe depression, whether on a consistent basis or from time to time.

Thus there are a total of 140 blemishes that may disqualify a priest. They are: eight involving the head, two involving the neck, nine involving the ears, five involving the eyebrows, seven involving the eyelids, nineteen involving the eyes, nine involving the nose, nine involving the mouth, three involving the belly, three involving the back, seven involving the hands, sixteen involving the reproductive organs, twenty involving the legs, eight involving the entire body, eight involving the skin, seven involving the body's strength and odor. They have all been outlined one by one. The following disqualify [a priest] because of the impression they may create: a) one who has lost the hair of his eyelids even though the roots remain; b) one whose teeth have been removed.

When a non-priest serves in the Temple, his service is invalid and he is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [Numbers 18:7] states: "A non-priest who draws close will die." According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that one does not become liable unless he draws close to perform service. Where is the warning concerning this? [Ibid.:4] states: "A non-priest shall not draw close to you." What is meant by a non-priest? Anyone who is not a male descendant of Aaron, as [Leviticus 1:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall arrange" and [Leviticus 3:8] states: "And the sons of Aaron shall set afire." [These service are performed by] "the sons of Aaron" and not the daughters of Aaron.

Although non-priests are warned not to perform any of the services associated with offering sacrifices, they are liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] only for performing "complete service," not on service that is followed by other service. [Thus] a non-priest is liable for death only for four services: a) sprinkling; b) setting afire [sacrifices on the altar]; c) pouring water [on the altar] on Sukkot, and d) pouring wine on the altar at all times.

How is one liable for sprinkling? Whether he dashed [blood] inside [the Temple building] or outside, [in the Temple Courtyard], performed one of the sprinklings of blood or performed one of the sprinklings of the sacrifices brought by a person afflicted with tzara'at, he is liable for death.

How is one liable for setting afire [sacrifices on the altar]? Whether he set afire limbs [of animal sacrifices], a handful of flour, or of frankincense on the altar - or even if he turned over limbs that had not been consumed by fire and hastened their being burnt, he is liable for death, provided he set afire an olive-sized portion of these entities. Similarly, if one sets afire incense on the golden altar, when he sets afire an olive-sized portion, he is liable. In contrast, one who sets fire to incense on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies is not liable for death for this until he sets fire to a handful, for that is the measure explicitly [required] by the Torah.

[A non-priest] who arranges two logs of wood on the altar's pyre is considered comparable to one who set [sacrificial] limbs afire and he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven for doing so]. For the wood is also considered as a sacrifice. In contrast, [a non-priest] who pours [oil onto the flour offerings], one who mixes [the flour offerings with oil], one who breaks [the wafers of meal offerings] into pieces, one who salts [the sacrifices], one who waves [the sacrifices], one who brings [a meal offering] close to the altar, one who arranges the showbread or the bowls of incense on the [golden] table, one who prepares the lamps [of the Menorah], one who kindles light on the altar, one who takes a fistful [of flour or incense], and one who receives the blood [of a sacrifice], even though he disqualifies his service, he is warned against doing so and is liable for lashes for doing so, he is not liable for death at the hand [of Heaven]. [The rationale is that] all of these services are followed by another service and they do not represent the completion of the offering [of a given sacrifice].

The slaughter of sacrificial animals is acceptable if performed by non-priests. [This applies even to] sacrifices of the most holy order, both individual sacrifices and communal sacrifices, as [Leviticus 1:5] states: "And he shall slaughter the bull before G-d and the sons of Aaron shall offer it." Implied is that from receiving [the blood], the mitzvah belongs to the priesthood. Similarly, skinning an animal, cutting it up, and bringing wood to the altar are acceptable when performed by non-priests, for with regard to the limbs, [ibid.:9] states: "And the priest shall set afire everything on the altar," this refers to bringing limbs [from sacrificial animals] to the [altar's] ramp. [We may infer that] bringing such limbs requires a priest, but not bringing wood.

Similarly, the kindling of the lamps [of the Menorah] is acceptable if performed by a non-priest. Therefore, if a priest cleaned the lamps and brought them outside, a non-priest is permitted to kindle them.

The removal of the ashes [from the altar] must be performed by a priest, as [Leviticus 6:3] states: "And the priest will put on his linen fit tunic...." If an Israelite removes [the ash], he is liable for lashes. He is not liable for death [at the hand of Heaven] even though this is a service that is not followed by another service. [This is derived as follows. The verse that speaks of the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, Numbers 18:7,] speaks of "work of giving." [Implied is that] the work of giving must be performed by a priest alone. If a non-priest offered [a sacrifice], he is liable for death. The service of removal does not make a non-priest liable for death. Similarly, if a non-priest cleaned the inner altar or the Menorah, he is not liable for death.

[If a non-priest] arranged the wood on the altar, the arrangement should be taken apart and rearranged by a priest, because the [initial] arrangement is unacceptable.

An impure [priest], one with a disqualifying physical blemish, and one who did not wash his hands or feet are not liable except for services that a non-priest is liable for death. For other services, he [violates merely] a warning.

A priest who immersed that day who is lacking atonement, who became impure, who did not wash his hands and feet and yet served [in the Temple] is liable for each transgression. If he was a non-priest, he is liable for lashes only for serving as a non-priest.

When a non-priest performs [Temple] service on the Sabbath, he is liable for violating the Sabbath laws and for serving as a non-priest. Similarly, when a priest with a physical blemish serves while ritually impure, he is liable [both] for [serving] while impure and for serving with a blemish.

Any priest who served a false deity, whether willingly or inadvertently - even if he repented completely - may never serve in the Temple, as [Ezekiel 44:13] states: "They shall not draw near to Me, to serve Me." [This prohibition applies] whether [a priest] serves the false deity in its rites, e.g., he became a priest to the false deity, he bowed down to it, or acknowledged its [divinity] and accepted it as god. [In all these instances,] he is disqualified [to serve in the Temple] forever. If [such a priest] transgressed and performed service, his sacrifice is not considered as a pleasing fragrance even if he acted inadvertently when he served, bowed down to, or acknowledged [the false deity]. If, by contrast, one slaughtered an animal for a false deity inadvertently and then transgressed and offered a sacrifice [in the Temple], the sacrifice is considered a pleasing fragrance and is accepted, for he did not perform service for the false deity or become its priest; all he did was slaughter an animal for it and that was performed inadvertently. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, he should not perform service [in the Temple].

If one transgressed and built a shrine outside the Temple and offered a sacrifice to G-d there, it is not considered as a Temple to a false deity. Nevertheless, any priest who serves in such a shrine should never serve in the Temple. Similarly, utensils that were used there should never be used in the Temple. Instead, they should be entombed. It appears to me that if a priest who served in such [a shrine] performs service in the Temple, it does not invalidate it.

Thus there are eighteen factors that disqualify [a person] from serving [in the Temple]. They are: a) one who served a false deity; b) a non-priest; c) one with a disqualifying physical blemish; d) one who is uncircumcised; e) one who is impure; f) one who immersed that day [and must wait until nightfall to become pure]; g) one who is lacking atonement; h) one who is in a state of acute mourning; i) one who is intoxicated; j) one who is lacking the priestly garments; k) one who is wearing extra garments; l) one whose garments were torn; m) one whose hair has grown long; n) one who did not wash his hands and feet; o) one who sits; p) one who had an entity intervening between his hand and the sacred utensil [he is using]; q) one who had an entity intervening between his foot and the earth; r) one who served with his left hand. All of the above are disqualified from serving and if they serve, they invalidate their service with the exception of those with long hair, those with torn garments, and one who slaughtered for a false deity inadvertently. If these individuals serve, their service is acceptable.