Daily Rambam Accelerated · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard

Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1

StandardExpert – Beit Midrash AnalysisJuly 5, 2026

Sugya Map

The halachic matrix of Biat Mikdash (Admission into the Sanctuary) under the influence of wine or other physical/existential deviations presents a dual-track system of prohibitions: one governing the gavra (the status of the person entering the sacred space) and the other governing the cheftza (the validity of the sacrificial act itself).

Primary Issue: Under what conditions does physical/mental unfitness—specifically intoxication (shichrut), unkempt hair (giddul pera), or torn garments (keru'e begadim)—transgress the structural boundaries of the Temple? Furthermore, when does such unfitness merely prohibit entry (issur biah), when does it incur the metaphysical capital sanction of death by the hands of Heaven (mita bi-yedei Shamayim), and when does it retroactively desecrate and invalidate the sacrificial service (chillum avodah)?
The Nafka Minas (Practical/Conceptual Ramifications):
1. Gavra vs. Cheftza: Does the invalidation of the service (chillum) stem from a lack of intentionality (da'at) of the priest, or does it stem from an objective blemish in the aesthetic-structural presentation of the Temple service?
2. Wine (Yayin) vs. Other Intoxicants (She'ar Mashkin): Is the disqualification of the intoxicated priest an ontological state of mental incompetence, or is it a specific, formal scriptural decree (gzerat ha-katuv) limited to the chemical properties of fermented grape juice?
3. The Boundaries of Sacred Space: Is the threshold of "from the Altar and inward" (min ha-mizbe'ach va-lifnim) a quantitative spatial boundary that triggers independent liability for entry, or is it merely the functional arena of sacrificial performance?
Primary Sources:
- Leviticus 10:9-11 – The foundational biblical prohibition of wine and intoxicating drink (sechar) juxtaposed with the mandate of halachic instruction (hora'ah).
- Ezekiel 44:20-21 – The prophetic source equating long hair and wine consumption for priests.
- Keritot 13b – The talmudic locus classicus defining the parameters of intoxication, dilution, and alternative beverages.
- Eruvin 64b – The mechanics of neutralizing alcohol through sleep and walking.
- Sifra, Shemini 1:2 – The halachic midrash establishing the spatial parameters of the prohibition.

Full Experience in the App

Listen. Chat. Go deeper.

Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.

Text Snapshot

כל כהן הראוי לעבודה--אם שתה יין, אסור לו להיכנס מן המזבח ולפנים; ואם נכנס ועבד, עבודתו חלולה והוא בחנק, שנאמר "יין ושכר אל תשת . . . ולא תמותו" (ויקרא י,ט).

"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 (profaned) 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.'"[^1]

Critical Philological & Halachic Nuances:

"הראוי לעבודה" (Fit to perform service): This opening limitation is highly precise. The Rambam excludes a challal (a priest of desecrated lineage) or a ba'al mum (a blemished priest). Why? Because they are already excluded from the baseline status of avodah. This sets up a profound conceptual rule: the prohibition of shichrut (intoxication) is not a general prohibition of entering the Temple while drunk; it is a specific prohibition binding upon qualified priests who are currently candidates for active service.
"מן המזבח ולפנים" (From the Altar and inward): As defined by the Steinsaltz commentary, this means "towards the Sanctuary" (klpei ha-heichal).[^2] The Rambam's spatial designation is highly specific. He does not say "into the Courtyard" (Azarah), but rather "from the Altar and inward." This indicates that the biblical prohibition of entry while intoxicated does not apply to the entirety of the Temple courtyard, but only to the highly sanctified zone starting from the outer Altar and extending into the Heichal itself.
"יין חי" (Undiluted wine): The Talmudic standard of wine assumed by the Rambam is raw, potent, unmixed wine (yayin chay).[^3] In antiquity, such wine was highly concentrated, and its raw consumption had an immediate, disorienting effect on the cognitive facilities of the priest.
"שעברו עליו ארבעים יום" (Over which forty days have passed): Freshly pressed grape juice (yayin mi-gito) within forty days of pressing does not contain sufficient alcoholic fermentation to trigger capital liability, even though it is rabbinically restricted.^4 This distinction highlights that shichrut in halacha is not merely a semantic label ("wine"), but a functional, physiological state of cognitive impairment.

Readings

The conceptual structure of Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1 divides into three distinct debates between the Rishonim and Acharonim. These debates reveal the underlying mechanics of how the Torah governs the physical and mental state of the priest.

                  ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │   Intoxication & Unkemptness in the    │
                  │           Temple Service               │
                  └────────────────────────────────────────┘
                                       │
         ┌─────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────┐
         ▼                                                           ▼
┌────────────────────────────────┐                          ┌────────────────────────────────┐
│      THE GAVRA TRACK           │                          │       THE CHEFTZA TRACK        │
│  (The State of the Priest)     │                          │   (The Status of the Service)  │
├────────────────────────────────┤                          ├────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Controls permission to enter │                          │ • Controls validity of the act │
│ • Standard: Mental/Aesthetic   │                          │ • Standard: Intrinsic fitness  │
│ • Triggers: Mita / Malkut      │                          │ • Triggers: Chillum (Profane)  │
└────────────────────────────────┘                          └────────────────────────────────┘
         │                                                           │
         ├─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┤
         ▼                             ▼                             ▼
┌──────────────────┐         ┌──────────────────┐          ┌──────────────────┐
│   Wine (Yayin)   │         │ Other Intoxicate │          │ Long Hair/Tears  │
├──────────────────┤         ├──────────────────┤          ├──────────────────┤
│ • Gavra: Forbidden │         │ • Gavra: Forbidden │          │ • Gavra: Forbidden │
│ • Cheftza: Chillum│         │ • Cheftza: Valid │          │ • Cheftza: Valid │
│ • Penalty: Mita  │         │ • Penalty: Lashes│          │ • Penalty: Mita  │
└──────────────────┘         └──────────────────┘          └──────────────────┘

1. The Mechanics of Dilution: Rambam vs. Ra'avad on "More than a Revi'it"

The first major conceptual debate centers on the Rambam’s ruling regarding a priest who drinks more than a revi'it of wine. The Rambam writes:

"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."[^5]

The Ra'avad immediately objects:

"This is not correct. If he diluted it or drank it intermittently, there is no death penalty, nor is his service disqualified. It is merely a prohibition."[^6]

To understand this dispute, we must turn to the sugya in Keritot 13b. The Gemara states that if one drinks a revi'it of wine that is diluted (mazug) or drank it in multiple intervals (perakim), he is exempt. The dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad lies in how to interpret a case where the priest consumed more than a revi'it under these same mitigating conditions (dilution or intervals).

The Ra'avad's View: Dilution (mizigah) and intermittent drinking (perakim) are objective, absolute disqualifiers of the state of shichrut. If wine is diluted or drunk slowly, it loses its halachic status as an "intoxicating beverage" (sechar). It does not matter if the priest drank a gallon of it; once the chemistry is altered or the consumption is fragmented, the biblical state of shichrut that triggers capital punishment (mita) and disqualification of service (chillum) cannot be achieved. It remains a minor prohibition because his mind may still be slightly unsettled, but it cannot cross the threshold of capital liability.
The Rambam's View (as explained by the Kessef Mishneh and Radbaz): The primary factor in shichrut is the absolute quantity of alcohol entering the body. If a priest drinks exactly one revi'it, the mitigating factors of dilution or slowness are sufficient to prevent intoxication. However, if he drinks more than a revi'it, the cumulative volume of alcohol is so large that it will inevitably cause intoxication, regardless of dilution or delay.

In the language of lomdus (conceptual analysis), we can frame this as a classic inquiry: Is shichrut defined by the act of drinking (ma'aseh shtiyah) or by the physiological state of the person (metziut ha-shachor)?

According to the Ra'avad, the Torah defines shichrut through formal parameters of the ma'aseh shtiyah—drinking must be concentrated and undiluted.
According to the Rambam, the formal parameters of dilution and intervals are only relevant when the quantity is borderline (exactly a revi'it). Once the quantity is large, we look solely at the metziut (the reality of the priest's cognitive impairment). If his mind is altered by a large volume of alcohol, he is biblically intoxicated, and the formal definitions of "undiluted" fall away.

2. The Nature of the Entry Prohibition: Tziunei Maharan, Sifra, and the Brisker Rav

The second major conceptual debate concerns the prohibition against merely entering the Sanctuary while intoxicated, even without performing any service. The Rambam states that a priest who drinks wine is forbidden to enter from the Altar and inward; if he does so, he is liable for lashes (malkut), though he only incurs the death penalty if he actually performs service (avodah).[^7]

The Kessef Mishneh notes that while the Rambam's ruling is clear, the source for this distinction is not immediately obvious in the Talmud.^8 The Tziunei Maharan solves this mystery by pointing to the Sifra (the halachic midrash on Leviticus), which is cited by Tosafot in Keritot 13b (s.v. "ונכנס"):

"The Sifra states: 'One might think that if he merely enters [the Sanctuary while intoxicated], he should be liable for death. Therefore, the Torah states: "Do not drink wine... so that you do not die"—implying that death is only incurred when he performs service. But how do we know there is a prohibition against entry? The verse states: "Do not drink... when you enter."'"[^9]

This midrash establishes a dual-track prohibition:

The Entry Track (Issur Biah): A negative commandment (lo ta'aseh) carrying the penalty of lashes (malkut) for entering the sacred space while intoxicated.
The Service Track (Issur Avodah): A capital prohibition carrying the penalty of death by Heaven (mita) and invalidating the sacrifice (chillum) if he actually performs service.

The Brisker Rav (Chidushi HaGriz al HaRambam, Biat HaMikdash) analyzes this dual-track system. He asks: Is the prohibition of entry (issur biah) an independent violation of the sanctity of the Temple (kedushat heichal), or is it merely a preventative measure to ensure that a priest does not end up performing service while drunk?

The Griz proves that the Rambam views the issur biah as an independent violation of the Temple's honor. This is evident from the Rambam's ruling in Halacha 15:

"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... Although there is no explicit warning, it is not a sign of honor or reverence to the great and holy house."[^10]

If the prohibition were merely a preventative measure to protect the avodah, it would only apply to priests who are eligible to perform the service. The fact that the Rambam extends a version of this prohibition to Israelites (who can never perform sacrificial service) proves that entering the Temple in an unkempt or intoxicated state is an independent violation of Mora Mikdash (reverence for the Sanctuary).

This yields a vital conceptual distinction:

Priests (from the Altar inward): Transgress a specific, biblical negative commandment (lo ta'aseh) derived from "אל תבוא" and "בבואכם," which carries the penalty of lashes. This is a violation of the specialized sanctity of the inner Sanctuary (kedushat bifnim).
All Jews (from the Israelite Courtyard inward): Transgress a general obligation of Mora Mikdash (reverence for the Sanctuary). This is a violation of the general sanctity of the Temple grounds (kedushat machaneh shechinah).

3. Cognitive Impairment vs. Aesthetic Unfitness: The Chiddush of the Or Sameach

A third major conceptual debate emerges when we compare the laws of the intoxicated priest (shechur yayin) with those of the priest with long hair (giddul pera) or torn garments (keru'e begadim).

The Rambam rules:

If an intoxicated priest performs service, his service is invalid (chillum avodah) and he is liable for death.^11
If a priest with long hair or torn garments performs service, he is liable for death, but his service is valid (keshera).[^12]

This asymmetry is striking. All three states—intoxication, long hair, and torn garments—are juxtaposed in the biblical text and are derived from the same warning given to the sons of Aaron in Leviticus 10:6. Why, then, does only wine invalidate the service post facto, while long hair and torn garments do not?

The Or Sameach (Hilchot Biat HaMikdash 1:1) offers a brilliant conceptual resolution. He distinguishes between two types of disqualifications in the Temple:

Disqualification of the Gavra (Personal Unfitness): Long hair and torn garments are aesthetic defects of the person (nivul). They violate the dignity required of a representative of the King. The Torah demands that the priest appear in a state of glory and beauty (le-chavod u-le-tif'aret). If he serves while unkempt, he has personally rebelled against the royal protocol, incurring the death penalty (mita). However, the physical action of the sacrificial service (ma'aseh avodah) was executed perfectly. Since the act itself was unblemished, the sacrifice is valid post facto.
Disqualification of the Da'at (Cognitive Competence): Wine, by contrast, does not merely make the priest look unkempt; it alters his mind (shichrut ha-da'at). A sacrifice in the Temple is not a mechanical performance; it requires deep, conscious intentionality (da'at and kavanah). The priest must intend the sacrifice for its specific owner, its specific type, and within its proper spatial and temporal boundaries. An intoxicated priest lacks the cognitive capacity to form halachic intentionality.

Thus, the Or Sameach argues, the invalidation of an intoxicated priest's service is not a formal punishment for his sin. Rather, it is a logical consequence of his lack of da'at. Because he is drunk, his actions are legally equivalent to those of a shoteh (a mentally incompetent person), whose halachic actions are null and void.

This conceptual framework explains why other intoxicating beverages (like milk or fig juice) do not invalidate the service:

"If he enters and performs service while intoxicated from other beverages... his service is valid, for one does not invalidate service unless he is intoxicated from wine."[^13]

Why? Because wine is the only beverage that has a formal, scriptural definition of shichrut that completely strips a person of their legal da'at for Temple service. Other beverages may cause physical sluggishness or mild confusion (which is why entering under their influence is rabbinically forbidden and carries lashes), but they do not possess the unique metaphysical capacity to legally dissolve the priest’s da'at and profane the avodah.

Friction

1. The Great Contradiction: Torn Garments in Biat HaMikdash vs. Klei HaMikdash

The most famous and difficult contradiction in the Rambam's codification of these laws lies in his treatment of torn garments (keru'e begadim).

In our chapter, Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:14, the Rambam writes:

וכן העובד בבגדים קרועים--חייב מיתה בידי שמים, אע"פ שעבודתו כשרה ולא חילל.

"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."[^14]

However, in Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary 8:4, the Rambam rules:

בגדים... המטופלים, או הקרועים... ועבד בהן--עבודתו פסולה.

"If [the priestly garments] were muddy, torn, longer than his appropriate measure... and a priest performed service while wearing them, his service is invalid (פסולה)."[^15]

How can the Rambam rule in one place that serving in torn garments leaves the service valid (keshera), and in another place rule that it renders the service invalid (psula)?

Terutz A: The Aesthetic Tear vs. The Structural Tear (The Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh)

The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz resolve this contradiction by distinguishing between two types of tears:

The Tear of Mourning (Keriah): In Biat HaMikdash, the Rambam is speaking of a priest who intentionally tore his garment as an act of mourning (keriah), or a tear that mimics such an act. This is a localized, linear tear (typically near the neck) that does not structurally compromise the integrity of the garment as a wearable vestment. The garment is still fully functional as a "priestly garment" (beged kehunah). However, the priest has violated the personal prohibition against appearing in the Temple in a state of mourning and unkemptness. Therefore, he incurs the death penalty for his personal state (gavra), but since he was wearing structurally complete garments, the service (cheftza) remains valid.
The Ruined Garment (Karu'a): In Klei HaMikdash, the Rambam is speaking of garments that are physically shredded, worn out, or torn in a way that they no longer meet the halachic definition of a "garment" (shem beged). If a priest serves in such garments, he is missing one of the required priestly vestments. He is classified as a mechussar begadim (a priest lacking the required vestments). The invalidation of the service here has nothing to do with the sin of being unkempt; it is because the service was performed without the necessary physical instruments.

This distinction can be summarized in a table:

Characteristic	Tear of Mourning (Biat HaMikdash 1:14)	Ruined Garment (Klei HaMikdash 8:4)
Halachic Mechanism	Violation of personal dignity (nivul)	Lacking required vestments (mechussar begadim)
Status of Garment	Retains its structural status as a beged	Loses its halachic status as a beged
Service Validity	Valid (keshera)	Invalid (psula)
Punishment	Death by Heaven (mita)	Lashes (malkut)

Terutz B: The Brisker Rav's Conceptual Distinction (Cheftza vs. Gavra)

The Brisker Rav offers an alternative, highly elegant conceptual resolution. He argues that there are two distinct requirements regarding priestly garments:

The Obligation of Vestments (Din Begadim): The priest must wear the four specific garments. This is a requirement on the service itself—the avodah must be performed through the medium of the vestments. If the garments are physically ruined (as in Klei HaMikdash), this requirement is unfulfilled, and the avodah is invalid.
The Prohibition of Unkemptness (Issur Keru'e Begadim): This is a personal prohibition on the priest against being in a state of disarray.

The Griz explains that even if a garment is structurally perfect (satisfying the Din Begadim), if the priest makes a small tear to express mourning, he has entered the state of keru'e begadim. He is personally liable for death, but the avodah remains valid because the physical requirement of wearing garments was fully satisfied. Conversely, if a garment is torn in a way that disqualifies it from being a beged, but the priest did not do it for mourning and does not look unkempt, he does not violate the personal prohibition of keru'e begadim, but his service is invalid because he is mechussar begadim.

2. The Source for "From the Altar and Inward"

Another major area of friction is the spatial boundary of the prohibition. The Rambam rules that the biblical prohibition against entering while intoxicated begins "from the Altar and inward."

The Ra'avad strongly objects to this spatial definition:

"He has extended the biblical prohibition too far. The biblical prohibition only applies to entering the Heichal (the Sanctuary building) itself. Entering the Courtyard up to the Altar is only a Rabbinic prohibition."[^16]

The Terutz: Resolving the Midrashic Ambiguity

The debate hinges on the interpretation of the biblical phrase "בבואכם אל אהל מועד" ("when you enter the Tent of Meeting") in Leviticus 10:9.

The Ra'avad's Literal Reading: "Tent of Meeting" (Ohel Moed) refers strictly to the covered structure of the Tabernacle (and later, the Heichal). The open courtyard (Azarah) is not part of the "Tent." Therefore, entering the courtyard while intoxicated cannot carry a biblical prohibition or the penalty of lashes.
The Rambam's Derivation (based on the Sifra): The Rambam reads the spatial geography of the Temple through the lens of functional sanctification. In Sifra, Shemini 1:2, the sages expound:

"I only know that this applies to the Tent of Meeting. How do we know it includes the area between the Ulam and the Altar? The verse states: 'and when they approach the Altar.'"Leviticus 10:9

The Rambam understands that the "Altar" serves as the physical and conceptual gateway to the inner Sanctuary. Once a priest crosses the threshold of the Altar moving inward, he is functionally "entering" the domain of the Ohel Moed. The area from the outer edge of the Altar and inward shares the same elevated level of holiness as the interior of the Heichal regarding the personal fitness of the priests. Therefore, crossing this line while intoxicated is a biblical violation of biah (entry), carrying the penalty of lashes.

Intertext

1. Halachic Rulings (Hora'ah) while Intoxicated

The Rambam transitions from the laws of the Temple to the laws of daily intellectual life, drawing a direct parallel between the priest serving in the Sanctuary and the scholar issuing halachic rulings:

"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."[^17]

This transition is directly rooted in the biblical text. Leviticus 10:9 warns the priests not to drink wine, and Leviticus 10:11 immediately follows with the explanation: "And to give instruction (u-le-horot) to the children of Israel."

The Talmudic Source: Eruvin 64b

The Gemara in Eruvin establishes the strict boundaries of this prohibition:

"One who has drunk a revi'it of wine may not render a halachic decision."[^18]

The Talmud recounts several incidents where great sages refused to rule on mundane questions (such as the status of a vow or a simple dietary query) because they had consumed a small amount of wine.

The Halachic Development in the Shulchan Aruch

The Shulchan Aruch codifies this prohibition in two distinct contexts:

Judicial Law: In Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 7:5, the Rama notes that a judge may not render financial decisions while intoxicated. However, he brings a lenient opinion stating that if the law is simple and absolutely clear, he may rule.^19
Ritual Law: In Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 242:13, the Mechaber rules that a rabbi may not issue decisions on ritual purity or dietary laws while under the influence.

The Conceptual Core: Hora'ah vs. Teaching (Talmud Torah)

The Rambam makes a critical distinction between Hora'ah (rendering a practical, binding ruling) and Talmud Torah (teaching or analyzing Torah concepts):

"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."[^20]

Why is teaching permitted while ruling is strictly forbidden?

Hora'ah is an act of creation and application. It requires absolute cognitive balance to weigh competing values and apply them to a concrete, real-world scenario. It is a form of spiritual "judgment" (din), which parallel's the priest's service in the Temple. Both Avodah and Hora'ah bring the Divine presence down into the physical world; therefore, both require absolute clarity of mind (da'at).
Talmud Torah is an act of study and exploration. When a scholar is merely teaching the theoretical mechanics of a law, he is not binding the physical world to a specific halachic reality. Even if he makes an intellectual error in the heat of a debate, it can be corrected through the collaborative process of study.

2. The Priestly Blessing (Nesiat Kapayim)

Another key parallel to the prohibition of serving while intoxicated is the Priestly Blessing (Nesiat Kapayim).

The Rambam rules in Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 15:4:

"A priest who has drunk a revi'it of wine may not lift his hands [to bless the congregation]... because the Priestly Blessing is equated to the Temple service."[^21]

This equation is derived in Sotah 38a from the juxtaposition of two verses:

Deuteronomy 10:8: "To stand before the Lord to minister to Him and to bless in His name." Just as the "ministry" (avodah) must be performed only by those who are fit and sober, so too, the "blessing" (Nesiat Kapayim) can only be performed in a state of absolute sobriety.

Psak/Practice

How do these ancient Temple dynamics manifest in contemporary halachic practice and meta-psak heuristics?

1. The Contemporary Rabbi and Kiddush

A highly practical application of this sugya arises during Shabbat and Yom Tov mornings. After the synagogue service, it is customary to attend a Kiddush where wine, whiskey, or other alcoholic beverages are served. Often, congregants will approach the rabbi at this time with practical halachic questions (e.g., "Rabbi, my wife found a drop of blood on an egg," or "Can we use this hot water urn on Shabbat?").

Based on the Rambam’s ruling, the modern consensus is codified as follows:

Explicit Law: If the question concerns a matter that is explicitly stated in the Shulchan Aruch and is widely known (such as "Is a mixture of milk and meat biblically forbidden?"), the rabbi is permitted to answer immediately, even if he has consumed alcohol.^22 The Rambam calls this "a matter known to the Sadducees."[^23]
Complex Rulings: If the question requires any degree of analytical reasoning (shikul ha-da'at) or the application of competing principles, the rabbi must politely decline to answer until the effects of the alcohol have worn off.

2. The Metaphor of the "Sober Judge"

In modern rabbinic jurisprudence, this sugya serves as a meta-psak heuristic for the emotional and mental state required of a posek (halachic decisor). A rabbi is forbidden to issue rulings when he is:

Extremely tired or sleep-deprived.
Angry, agitated, or emotionally compromised.
In a noisy or distracting environment that prevents deep concentration.

The physical state of shichrut (intoxication) is treated by modern authorities as a paradigm for any internal or external disruption of cognitive clarity. A psak issued in a state of mental agitation lacks the necessary da'at and is structurally deficient, just like the Temple service of an intoxicated priest.

Takeaway

The Temple service demands a perfect alignment of the subjective mind and the objective act. While aesthetic unfitness (long hair or torn garments) violates the dignity of the Sanctuary and incurs personal liability, cognitive impairment (intoxication) dissolves the essential intentionality (da'at) of the priest, rendering the sacred act void.

[^1]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1. [^2]: Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1:1. [^3]: Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1:3. [^4]: Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1:4 and Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1:6. [^5]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1. [^6]: Ra'avad's Gloss, ad loc. [^7]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:15. [^8]: Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1. [^9]: Tziunei Maharan on Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1:1. [^10]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:15. [^11]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1. [^12]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:11. [^13]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:1. [^14]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:14. [^15]: Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary 8:4. [^16]: Ra'avad's Gloss on Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:15. [^17]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:2. [^18]: Eruvin 64b. [^19]: Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 7:5. [^20]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:2. [^21]: Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 15:4. [^22]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 242:13. [^23]: Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1:2.

Back to lesson library

derekhlearning.com