Whenever a priest who is fit to perform Temple service¹, a son born to a priest from a forbidden relationship, and a priest who has a disqualifying physical blemish. They are not liable for this severe punishment. drinks wine, he is forbidden² (negative commandment 73) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 152) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note also the parallels in Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:4. to enter the area of the Altar or [proceed] beyond there.³ If he entered [that area]⁴ and performed service,⁵ 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."⁶ 19:2. The above applies provided one drinks a revi'it⁷ and 150 cc. according to Chazon Ish. [It is reputed that the wines of the Talmudic era were very strong and drinking even this small amount could cause intoxication.] of undiluted wine at one time, provided the wine is over 40 days old.⁸ If, however, one drank less than a revi'it of wine, one drank a revi'it intermittently,⁹ one mixed it with water,¹⁰ 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,¹¹). 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.¹² offer interpretations of Keritot 13b that substantiate the Rambam's position.

footnotes: ¹ This excludes a challal ² Sefer HaMitzvot ³ I.e., ascends the steps to the Temple building or enters that structure. See also Halachah 15 and notes. ⁴ If he entered this area while intoxicated, but did not perform service, he is only liable for lashes, as stated in Halachah 15. Similar concepts apply if he drank intoxicating beverages while in this area (Halachah 16). ⁵ The services for which he is liable are described in Chapter 9, Halachah 2. ⁶ He may, however, be punished by a mortal court with lashes and thus freed from the more severe spiritual punishment. See Hilchot Sanhedrin ⁷ A liquid measure equal to 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah ⁸ And thus has had time to ferment and reach an alcoholic content sufficient enough to cause intoxication. ⁹ Since he paused while drinking it, its intoxicating effect will be less. ¹⁰ Even if one drank the entire quantity, since it was diluted, it will have a lesser effect. ¹¹ Since its alcoholic content will not be that high, one is not liable. There is, nevertheless, a prohibition against serving in the Temple even when having drunk such wine (Kessef Mishneh ¹² The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that although serving in the Temple in such a condition is forbidden, the priest is not liable for such severe punishment, nor is his service disqualified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh

If a person is intoxicated from beverages other than wine, he is forbidden to enter the Temple.¹³ 13b derives this concept from the literal meaning of Leviticus 10:9, translated above as: "Do not drink intoxicating wine," i.e., it interprets the term veseicher according to its simple meaning, i.e., an alcoholic beverage other than wine. There is another opinion in that source that interprets veseicher as an adjective (which we have translated as "intoxicating") describing the manner in which one drinks wine. Apparently, the Rambam does not see the two interpretations as mutually exclusive. See Kessef Mishneh. See also Halachah 15. 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.

footnotes: ¹³ One of the opinions in Keritot

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.¹⁴, where the Rambam links the two prohibitions in the same negative commandment. One is not, however, liable for death for delivering a ruling while intoxicated. Note the discussion of this matter by the Ramban and Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot. 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 sheretz¹⁵ is impure and a frog is pure; [he ruled that] blood is forbidden, or the like.

footnotes: ¹⁴ See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit. ¹⁵ One of the eight forbidden teeming animals mentioned in Leviticus 11:29-30. A frog is not one of those animals.

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.¹⁶ 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.¹⁷ (Choshen Mishpat 7:5) which quotes an opinion stating that it is permitted to rule in cases involving financial law when slightly intoxicated.

footnotes: ¹⁶ I.e., a directive for actual practice. ¹⁷ Note the Shulchan Aruch

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,¹⁸ (Eruvin 64b). 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.

footnotes: ¹⁸ A Talmudic measure equivalent to a kilometer. If he rode rather than walked, he must ride three mil

The men of the priestly watch¹⁹ 4:3, 11. 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 clans²⁰ 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.²¹ 17a (the Rambam's source) is not the night before the priests serve in the Temple, but the night afterwards. They are forbidden because it is possible that they will have to continue offering the limbs and fat-tails of the animals at night if they were not able to offer them during the day. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's interpretation, explaining that there is no need to prohibit the priests from drinking wine the entire night for this reason. It is sufficient that they be restrained until these limbs have been offered.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Who serve in the Temple that week. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash ²⁰ As stated in that source, on each particular day, there was a clan whose members would perform the Temple service for that day. ²¹ The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the intent of Ta'anit

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.²² 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.²³ Nevertheless, his difficulty²⁴ 12:3) and the priests will immediately be called upon to begin their service in the Temple. Instead, the rationale is that because of the length of the exile, we do not expect that the Temple will be built instantaneously. [This is also the view of Rashi (Ta'anit 17a)]. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view, noting that according to the Rambam, we may offer sacrifices even if the Temple is not rebuilt (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) and furthermore, the establishment of the priest's lineage even through the spirit of prophecy will not take only one day. 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.

footnotes: ²² Were it not for the reason mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah, this law would apply even in the present era. This is a decree, enacted lest the Temple be rebuilt and the priests be required to serve at their appointed time. ²³ Lest he be drinking on a day forbidden for him. ²⁴ I.e., his lack of knowledge of his watch and clan.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam with regard to the reason why there is no decree against the priests drinking wine in the present age. He rejects the Rambam's view, because with Mashiach's coming, the lineage of the priests will be established according to the spirit of prophecy (see Hilchot Melachim

A priest who lets his hair grow long²⁵ is forbidden to enter the area of the Altar or [proceed] beyond there.²⁶ (negative commandment 163) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 149) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Note the objections of the Ramban to the inclusion of this charge as one of the mitzvot and the resolutions offered by Megilat Esther in their glosses to Sefer HaMitzvot. If he enters this area and performs service,²⁷ he is liable for death at the hand of Heaven like an intoxicated [priest] who serves,²⁸ 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."²⁹). 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.

footnotes: ²⁵ See Halachah 11 for a definition of this term. ²⁶ Sefer HaMitzvot ²⁷ The law that applies if he does not perform service is explained in Halachah 15. ²⁸ As stated in Halachah 1. ²⁹ The prooftext for this prohibition from the Torah (Leviticus 10:6 , "Do not let [the hair of] your heads grow long," is not sufficient, because that could be interpreted as merely granting license for Aaron's sons to conduct themselves in this manner. Other mourners must rend their garments and let their hair grow and they were not required to. The verse from Ezekiel teaches that the charge applies at all times and is not specific to that situation (Kessef Mishneh; Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.

[Priests who] let their hair grow long do not disqualify their service. Even though they are obligated to die, their service is valid.³⁰.

footnotes: ³⁰ I.e., the equation of their service to that of intoxicated priests is not complete.The Rambam's view is not accepted by all authorities. There are some who maintain that such a priest's service is also disqualified. See the Ramban's gloss to Sefer HaMitzvot

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.³¹ supports the Rambam's position. See the following halachah and notes. 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,³² 5:6 where the Rambam explains the restrictions incumbent on the High Priest in greater detail. As he states there, these prohibitions apply to a High Priest even outside of the Temple and even when he is not in mourning. for he should be in the Temple at all times.³³ 5:7. 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."

footnotes: ³¹ The Ra'avad differs, and from the verse in Ezekiel cited above understands that all priests are prohibited against growing their hair long and must take haircuts once in 30 days. The Kessef Mishneh ³² See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash ³³ See ibid.

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.³⁴ 3:2. Thus we can assume that growing one's hair long encompasses a 30 day period. Therefore an ordinary priest who serves [in the Temple] must cut his hair every 30 days.³⁵).

footnotes: ³⁴ Hilchot Nizirut ³⁵ Implied is that if a priest does not desire to serve, he is not required to cut his hair (Kessef Mishneh

The priests of the watch [serving in the Temple that week] are forbidden to cut their hair and launder their garments during that week,³⁶ 8:5). Instead, the intent is the priest's personal garments. As a mark of respect, he should ascend to the Temple in freshly laundered clothes (Yeri'ot Shlomo). so that they will not enter the Temple when they are unkempt.³⁷ 7:19. See also Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 6:11. Instead, they should cut their hair, wash, and do their laundry before coming [to the Temple].

footnotes: ³⁶ This does not refer to the priestly garments, for the priestly garments are not washed (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash ³⁷ Note a parallel decree in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov

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.³⁸ Here leniency was granted, because he is considered to have been held back from cutting his hair before the festival by forces beyond his If, however, his watch concludes on the day preceding a festival, he should cut his hair only on that day.³⁹

footnotes: ³⁸ Although doing so is usually forbidden, as stated in Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov, loc. cit. ³⁹ And not during the festival.

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."⁴⁰ (negative commandment 164) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 150) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In this instance as well, the Ramban objects to the inclusion of this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot. 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.⁴¹ 8:4 where the Rambam writes: "If [the priestly garments] were muddy, torn, longer than his appropriate measure... and a priest performed service while wearing them, his service is invalid." Among the resolutions offered is that in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash, the Rambam is speaking about clothes that remain torn (therefore, even after the fact, the service is invalid), while here he was speaking about torn garments that were mended. As the Radbaz explains, here the Rambam is speaking about a tear like the tear made when one rends his garments in mourning (which can be mended) as indicated in the following halachah, and there, he is speaking about a garment that was torn in many places.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Sefer HaMitzvot ⁴¹ This ruling appears in direct contradiction to Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash

It appears to me⁴² that any priest who is fit to serve who enters the area of the altar or [proceeds] beyond there⁴³ offers an explanation that justifies the Rambam's ruling. 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.

footnotes: ⁴² This expression indicates a conclusion which the Rambam reached through the process of deduction and not derived from any specific source. ⁴³ The Ra'avad agrees that this law applies to a priest that ascends the altar in these unkept states, but differs with regard to a priest who proceeds further and ascend the steps of the Temple. He maintains that entering that area in these unkept states is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. The Kessef Mishneh

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 drank⁴⁴ a revi'it of wine between the Ulam and the altar or tore his garments there and departed, he is liable for lashes.⁴⁵ to Parshat Shemini. The Kessef Mishneh and others offer support for the Rambam's interpretation. Similarly, if he performed service as he departed, he is liable for death.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ I.e., as a conscious transgression. ⁴⁵ The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of the Rambam's source, the Sifra

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 onward⁴⁶, ch. 7, the other areas of the Temple Mount have a lesser degree of holiness. 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 reverence⁴⁷, which speaks of the command to fear the Temple. to the great and holy house to enter it unkept. If, however, an Israelite⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹ gives the example of the prophet Samuel who was a Nazirite and hence, allowed his hair to grow long. Nevertheless, he combed it until it was attractive and hence, he was allowed to remain in the Sanctuary of Shiloh.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ As explained in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah ⁴⁷ See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit. ⁴⁸ Or a Levite as will be explained. ⁴⁹ Rambam LeAm