Mishneh Torah — The Chosen Temple (Beit HaBechirah) הלכות בית הבחירה, Chapter 6

הַמִּקְדָשׁ כֻּלּוֹ לֹא הָיָה בְּמִישׁוֹר אֶלָּא בְּמַעֲלֵה הָהָר. כְּשֶׁאָדָם נִכְנָס מִשַּׁעַר מִזְרָחִי שֶׁל הַר הַבַּיִת מְהַלֵּךְ עַד סוֹף הַחֵיל בְּשָׁוֶה. וְעוֹלֶה מִן הַחֵיל לְעֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת רוּם כָּל מַעֲלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה:

The entire Temple complex was not built on flat ground, but rather on the incline of Mount [Moriah.] Thus, a person who entered from the Eastern Gate of the Temple Mount would proceed to the end of the chayl on one level. and the exterior wall, and the space between the chayl and the Women's Courtyard, was approximately 3:1. Thus, the distance mentioned here was approximately 51 cubits.He would ascend from the chayl to the Woman's Courtyard on twelve steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.

וּמְהַלֵּךְ כָּל עֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים בְּשָׁוֶה. וְעוֹלֶה מִמֶּנָּה לְעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת הָעֲזָרָה בַּחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת. רוּם כָּל מַעֲלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה:

One proceeded through the entire Women's Courtyard on one level. From it, one ascended to the Courtyard of the Israelites, which is the beginning of the Temple Courtyard, using fifteen steps. 2:5 relates that the steps were semicircular in shape. In the Simchat Beit HaShoevah celebrations, during the holiday of Sukkot, the Levites stood on these steps, sang, and played music. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide.

וּמְהַלֵּךְ כָּל עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁוֶה וְעוֹלֶה מִמֶּנּוּ לְעֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּמַעֲלָה גְּבוֹהָה אַמָּה וְעָלֶיהָ דּוּכָן יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ מַעֲלוֹת. רוּם כָּל מַעְלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה. נִמְצֵאת עֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים גְּבוֹהָה עַל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה:

One would proceed through the entire Israelites' Courtyard on one level and ascend from it to the Priestly Courtyard [using] one step, one cubit high.Above [that step] was a platform of three steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide. Thus, the Priestly Courtyard was two and a half cubits higher than the Courtyard of the Israelites.

וּמְהַלֵּךְ כָּל עֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּבֵין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ בְּשָׁוֶה. וְעוֹלֶה מִשָּׁם לָאוּלָם בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת. רוּם כָּל מַעְלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה וְהָאוּלָם וְהַהֵיכָל כֻּלּוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה:

One would proceed through the entire Priestly Courtyard, [the area of] the Altar, and the space between the Entrance Hall and the Altar on one level. From there, one would ascend to the Entrance Hall using twelve steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit wide. questions this statement. It appears to contradict two explicit statements of the Mishnah. Middot 2:3 states: "All the steps there [in the Temple complex] were half a cubit high and half a cubit wide, except for the steps of the Entrance Hall."Similarly, Middot 2:6 states: "Twelve steps [led to the Entrance Hall]. They were half a cubit high and a cubit wide."However, Yoma 16a quotes the latter mishnah, using the same text as the Rambam uses in this halachah.The Entrance Hall and [the remainder of] the Temple building were both on the same level.

נִמְצָא גֹּבַהּ קַרְקַע הַהֵיכָל עַל קַרְקַע שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁל הַר הַבַּיִת שְׁתַּיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים אַמּוֹת. וְגֹבַהּ שַׁעַר הַר הַבַּיִת עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. לְפִיכָךְ הָעוֹמֵד כְּנֶגֶד שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה פֶּתַח הַהֵיכָל. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה עָשׂוּ כֹּתֶל שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי שַׁעַר זֶה נָמוּךְ. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא כֹּהֵן הָעוֹמֵד בְּהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה רוֹאֶה פֶּתַח הַהֵיכָל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּזֶּה מִדַּם הַפָּרָה נֹכַח הַהֵיכָל:

Thus, the ground [on which] the Temple building [was located] was 22 cubits higher than the ground [on which] the Eastern Gate [was located].The Eastern Gate was twenty cubits high. Accordingly, a person standing opposite the Eastern Gate could not see the Temple building.,the gate to the Women's Courtyard,the gate of Nicanor, andthe gate of the Entrance Hall.Thus, had the Temple been built on flat ground, one would have been able to see through all the gates at once. However, because the person would be looking through the gates on an upward incline, he would only be able to see the steps leading to the Entrance Hall. For this reason, the wall above this gate was low., Middot 2:4). Thus, the priest [who offered the Parah Adumah] could see the opening of the Temple when he sprinkled its blood, [Red Heifer] was necessary to purify those who had come in contact with a human corpse. Regarding its slaughter, Numbers 19:3-4 commands: "He shall take it outside the camp and ... take from the blood of the heifer and sprinkle it opposite the front of the Tent of Meeting." Similarly, in later generations, the Parah Adumah had to be sacrificed outside the Temple premises, but in view of the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives. while standing on the Mount of Olives.

וּלְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם תַּחַת עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּתוּחוֹת לְעֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים. שֶׁשָּׁם הַלְוִיִּם נוֹתְנִין הַכִּנּוֹרוֹת וְהַנְּבָלִים וְהַמְּצִלְתַּיִם וְכָל כְּלֵי הַשִּׁיר. וְעַל הַדּוּכָן הָעוֹלֶה מֵעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ הַלְוִיִּם עוֹמְדִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה עַל הַקָּרְבָּן:

There were chambers under the Courtyard of the Israelites opening up to the Women's Courtyard. There, the Levites stored their harps, lyres, cymbals, and other musical instruments. celebrations, they played music for the people. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 3:2.The Levites stood on the platform which ascends from the Courtyard of the Israelites to the Courtyard of the Priests, when they chanted songs over the sacrifices. noted that in a number of places the Talmud states that this platform was used by the Levites in the manner described above (e.g., Yoma 20a and 53a, Arichin 13b). Nevertheless, the platform was also used for other purposes. Chagigah 16a and Rosh Hashanah 31b relate that the priests stood on this platform when they blessed the people. Indeed, the Hebrew name for the platform, Duchan, has become synonymous with the priestly blessing. (It must be noted that in Hilchot Nesiat Kapaim 14:14, the Rambam writes that the priests would stand on the steps before the Entrance Hall when they blessed the people.)

הַלְּשָׁכוֹת הַבְּנוּיוֹת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּפְתוּחוֹת לַחל אִם הָיוּ גַּגּוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין עִם קַרְקַע הָעֲזָרָה תּוֹכָן חֹל וְגַגּוֹתֵיהֶן קֹדֶשׁ וְאִם אֵינָן שָׁוִין אַף גַּגּוֹתֵיהֶן חֹל שֶׁהַגַּגּוֹת וְהָעֲלִיּוֹת לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. לְפִיכָךְ גַּגִּים אֵלּוּ אֵין אוֹכְלִין שָׁם קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְלֹא שׁוֹחֲטִין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים:

[Regarding] the chambers that were built on consecrated ground, but which opened up to an area that was not consecrated: 3:8. If [their roofs] were on the same level as the earth of the Courtyard, their inner space is not consecrated, but their roofs are consecrated.If they are not on the same level [as the Courtyard], their roofs are also not consecrated, for the roofs and the upper floors [of the structures in the Temple Courtyard] were not consecrated. 86a explains that an exception to the latter principle was made regarding the upper storey of the Temple building itself.I Chronicles 28:11 states: "Then David gave Solomon his son the design of the Entrance Hall, its houses, its treasure stores, its upper storeys, its inner chambers, and the place for the ark," implying that the upper storey shared the same level of holiness as the remainder of the Temple building.Therefore, sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity may not be eaten on these roofs, nor may sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity be slaughtered there. 55a).

הָיוּ בְּנוּיוֹת לַחל וּפְתוּחוֹת לַקֹּדֶשׁ תּוֹכָן קֹדֶשׁ לַאֲכִילַת קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אֲבָל אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְהַנִּכְנָס לְשָׁם בְּטֻמְאָה פָּטוּר. וְגַגּוֹתֵיהֶן חֹל לְכָל דָּבָר:

[Regarding the chambers] which were built on unconsecrated ground, but were open to consecrated ground: Their inner space was considered consecrated when eating sacrifices of the most holy order. 56a explains that these chambers are by nature unconsecrated. However, the Torah made an exception in regard to the consumption of these sacrifices. However, the sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity were not slaughtered there. [Similarly,] a person who enters while ritually impure is not required [to bring a sin offering].The roofs [of these chambers] are considered as unconsecrated ground in all respects.

הַמְּחִלּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת לָעֲזָרָה קֹדֶשׁ וְהַפְּתוּחוֹת לְהַר הַבַּיִת חֹל. הַחַלּוֹנוֹת וָעֳבִי הַחוֹמָה כְּלִפְנִים בֵּין לַאֲכִילַת קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בֵּין לְטֻמְאָה:

The underground passageways which open to the Temple Courtyard are consecrated. Those that open to the Temple Mount [outside the Courtyard] are not consecrated.The windows and the width of the wall are considered within [the Courtyard] in regard to partaking of the sacrifices of the most holy order and [entering while] ritually impure. question these statements. Pesachim 86a states that the wall's upper surface is only considered an extension of the Courtyard when it is on the same level as the Courtyard (as the roofs of the chambers mentioned in Halachah 7.) If the wall is higher than the Courtyard, it is not considered consecrated.The following explanation may be offered for the decision rendered by the Rambam: Rashi (Pesachim, loc. cit.) relates that the chayl was the major wall around the inner Temple complex and the wall of the Courtyard itself was not high. Since the Temple was built on an incline, it was possible that the latter wall would be on the same level as the floor of the Courtyard, even though the Courtyard wall was raised above the ground in front of it.However, the Rambam himself definitely cannot accept such an interpretation. He already stated (Chapter 5, Halachah 3) that the chayl was only 10 cubits high. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it would be the major wall surrounding the inner Temple complex. That likelihood is further reduced by the fact that the chayl was set off from the Temple Courtyard by a considerable distance, especially on the northern and southern sides. See also Tosefot Yom Tov, Middot 2:3.The above three halachot also apply to the city of Jerusalem as a whole. As stated above, the sacrifices of the most holy order could only be eaten within the Temple Courtyard. Similarly, a limitation was placed on where the sacrifices of lesser sanctity could be eaten. One could only partake of those offerings within the confines of the city of Jerusalem, and the definition of the city's limits were therefore of consequence. The particular decisions regarding the Courtyard's chambers, underground passageways, and upper surfaces of the wall, refer to the counterparts of these structures at the city's outer wall.

בֵּית דִּין שֶׁרָצוּ לְהוֹסִיף עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אוֹ לְהוֹסִיף עַל הָעֲזָרָה מוֹסִיפִין. וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם לִמְשֹׁךְ הָעֲזָרָה עַד הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצוּ מֵהַר הַבַּיִת וְלִמְשֹׁךְ חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצוּ:

If the Sanhedrin, the court of 71 judges who were seated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. desires to add to [the city limits of] Jerusalem or the Temple Courtyard, they may. (Zevachim 33a) explains that since the design for the Temple was conveyed by Ruach HaKodesh, Divine inspiration, even the Sanhedrin could not add to the limits of the Courtyard unless they could find a verse in the Tanach to support their decision.The passage cited in Zevachim and similarly, Sukkot 51b, reinforce the position of the Tosafot. However, the Yeriot Shlomo and other commentaries question whether the Rambam accepts that principle They may extend the Temple Courtyard to any place they desire on the Temple Mount. cites allusions from the Tanach which appear to limit the size of the Courtyard to the Temple Mount. Isaiah 2:3, Zechariah 8:3, and other prophets frequently referred to "the mountain of God," implying that the Temple could only be situated on that peak. [Similarly, they may] extend the walls of Jerusalem to any place they desire. relates that in the Messianic age, Jerusalem will encompass all of Eretz Yisrael, extending until Damascus.

אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר אוֹ עַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא עַל פִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְעַל פִּי נָבִיא וּבְאוּרִים וְתֻמִּים וְעַל פִּי סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד זְקֵנִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כה ט) "כְּכל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ" וְכֵן תַּעֲשׂוּ לְדוֹרוֹת. וּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ מֶלֶךְ הָיָה:

We may not expand [the limits] of the city [of Jerusalem] or of the Temple Courtyard first resting place, the Sanctuary in the desert. See Sh'vuot 14a,b. Therefore, the expansion cannot take place unless the conditions mentioned by the Rambam are met. unless receiving the consent of the king, a prophet, the Urim V'Tumim, (Sh'vuot 15a) questions the necessity for the Urim V'Tumim to be used in the establishment of the Courtyard's limits. Aharon, the High Priest, did not don the Urim V'Tumim until after the Sanctuary was constructed and its limits established. Since these requirements were set on the basis of the pattern followed when dedicating the Sanctuary, the Urim V'Tumim should not be required for dedicating future Sanctuaries.Among the answers given to that question are that until Aharon's installation as High Priest, Moses served in that capacity and wore al the priestly garments (Ritbah). and the Sanhedrin of 71 judges, was established before the Sanctuary was built. Other opinions maintain that the Sanhedrin was only established later. Nevertheless, Moses' participation is considered equivalent to that of the Sanhedrin. as [Exodus 25:9] states: "According to all that I show you, [the design of the Sanctuary]...so shall you make it." [The latter phrase was interpreted by our sages to mean that the same conditions should apply in] future generations.[The presence of a king is required] because Moses, our teacher, was a king.

וְכֵיצַד מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר. עוֹשִׂין בֵּית דִּין שְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת וְלוֹקְחִין לֶחֶם חָמֵץ שֶׁבָּהֶם וְהוֹלְכִים בֵּית דִּין אַחַר שְׁתֵּי הַתּוֹדוֹת וּשְׁתֵּי הַתּוֹדוֹת זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ וְעוֹמְדִין בְּכִנּוֹרוֹת וּבִנְבָלִים וּבְצִלְצָל עַל כָּל פִּנָּה וּפִנָּה וְעַל כָּל אֶבֶן (וְאֶבֶן) שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְאוֹמֵר (תהילים ל ב) "אֲרוֹמִמְךָ ה' כִּי דִלִּיתָנִי" וְגוֹ'. עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין לְסוֹף הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁמְּקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ וְעוֹמְדִין שָׁם. וְאוֹכְלִים שָׁם לֶחֶם תּוֹדָה אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי הַתּוֹדוֹת וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה נִשְׂרֶפֶת. וְעַל פִּי הַנָּבִיא שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת זוֹ וְאוֹכְלִין אֶת זוֹ:

How do we extend [the limits of] the city? 15a-16a.The source for these practices is the description of the dedication of Jerusalem in Nechemiah 12:27-44. There, it is related that:At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, they sought Levites...to bring them to Jerusalem to carry out the dedication with joy and thanksgiving, with songs, with cymbals, with harps, and with lyres....Then, I asked the princes of Judah to ascend the wall, and I brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings....They ascended to the wall by the stairs of the city of David....They offered great sacrifices that day, for God had made them rejoice with great joy....and the joy of Jerusalem was heard from far away. The Sanhedrin must offer two thanksgiving offerings., explains that the leavened breads were chosen because Nechemiah's description of Jerusalem's dedication relates that he "brought up the greater portion of two thanksgiving offerings." That phrase alludes to the leavened breads of the thanksgiving offerings which rose, and thus, were more substantial than the unleavened breads. [Then, two priests] 16b. take the leavened breads from these offerings [and proceed]. The Sanhedrin would follow the thanksgiving offerings. relates that the leaders of the people, the Sanhedrin, followed the thanksgiving offerings when Ezra and Nechemiah dedicated the city of Jerusalem.This halachah is taken from the Mishnah, Sh'vuot 2:2. Many versions of that mishnah, including the one quoted in the Talmud, add the phrase: "And all of Israel followed after them." However, the Rambam's version of the text omits that phrase. Hence, it is also not included in this halachah. The thanksgiving offerings [would not proceed together, but] one would follow the other.They would stand on each and every corner and every single stone in Jerusalem, [playing] harps, lyres, and cymbals, and reciting [Psalms 30]: "I exalt you, Lord, for You have uplifted me....", also relates that other Psalms, including 3, 91, and 100, were recited.[They would proceed] until reaching the end of the place [which they desired to] consecrate. There, they would stand and eat one of the two thanksgiving offerings. The other was burnt. A prophet would determine which was eaten and which was burnt.

וְכֵן אִם הוֹסִיפוּ עַל הָעֲזָרָה מְקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַמִּנְחָה. מַה יְּרוּשָׁלַיִם הַתּוֹדָה שֶׁנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בָּהּ מְקַדַּשְׁתָּהּ אַף הָעֲזָרָה שְׁיָרֵי הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא בָּהּ הֵן שֶׁמְּקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתָהּ בָּהֶן. וְאוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן בְּסוֹף הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ:

Similarly, [if the Sages desire] to extend the [limits of the] courtyard, they must consecrate it with the remaining portion of the meal offering. Just as the thanksgiving offering, which must be eaten inside Jerusalem consecrates it, so, too, the remaining portion of the meal offering, which may only be eaten inside the Temple Courtyard, consecrates it. It is to be eaten at the end of the space which they desire to consecrate., emphasizes that eating the offerings are not merely signs that the consecration of the city or the Courtyard had been carried out, but rather, the consecration becomes effective by eating of these offerings. The Rambam's statements here appear to be based on that principle.

כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְכַסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה אֵין קָדוֹשׁ גָּמוּר. וְזֶה שֶׁעָשָׂה עֶזְרָא שְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת זִכָּרוֹן הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה לֹא בְּמַעֲשָׂיו נִתְקַדֵּשׁ הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם לֹא מֶלֶךְ וְלֹא אוּרִים וְתֻמִּים. וּבְמַה נִּתְקַדְּשָׁה בִּקְדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ שְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁהוּא קִדֵּשׁ הָעֲזָרָה וִירוּשָׁלַיִם לִשְׁעָתָן וְקִדְּשָׁן לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא:

Any place which was not [consecrated] with all the above [elements] and according to the above procedure is not thoroughly consecrated.): "[In regard to] any place [in the Temple Courtyard] which was not consecrated with all of these [i.e., a king, a prophet, etc.], one who enters [while ritually impure] is not liable [for a sin offering]."Generally, throughout the Talmud, such an expression implies that though a sin offering is not required, the act is forbidden. Similarly, in this context, a consecration which lacks all the elements listed previously in the Mishnah is not totally effective. Therefore, entering the portion of the Courtyard consecrated in this manner does not obligate an impure individual to bring a sacrifice. Nevertheless, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against entering that area. Though Ezra offered two thanksgiving offerings [to dedicate the city,] he merely carried out a testimonial act. The Sanctuary was not consecrated through his deeds, for neither a King nor the Urim V'Tumim were present there.[If so,] how was [the Second Temple] consecrated? With the first consecration performed by Solomon, for he consecrated the Temple Courtyard and Jerusalem, for that time and for eternity. 16a, Makkot 19a, Megillah 10a) and is discussed by the Rambam in the following two halachot.

לְפִיכָךְ מַקְרִיבִין הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כֻּלָּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בַּיִת בָּנוּי. וְאוֹכְלִין קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בְּכָל הָעֲזָרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא חֲרֵבָה וְאֵינָהּ מֻקֶּפֶת בִּמְחִצָּה וְאוֹכְלִין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּכָל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם חוֹמוֹת שֶׁהַקְּדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קָדְשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא:

Therefore, we may offer all the sacrifices [on the Temple site], even though the Temple itself is not built. and settled in Jerusalem. He was prepared to offer sacrifices on the Temple site and refrained from doing so only after his colleagues explained that sacrifices could not be offered because they were unaware of the proper location, size, and dimensions of the Altar. Similarly, sacrifices of the most holy order can be eaten in the entire [area of the] Courtyard, even though it is in ruin and not surrounded by a divider.We may also eat sacrifices of lesser sanctity and Ma'aser Sheni was brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. See Deuteronomy:22-26, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni. throughout Jerusalem, 2:1, the Rambam himself writes that "Ma'aser Sheni is only eaten in Jerusalem while the Temple is standing." Though some authorities have explained that the statement in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah refers to the time when the Altar is standing, there is no indication in the Rambam's words to that effect. Furthermore, there are other inconsistencies between the Rambam's statements here and in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni.Even according to the Rambam's statements here, we are now prohibited from eating Ma'aser Sheni in Jerusalem. We are all ritually impure, and Ma'aser Sheni must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. even though [it is not surrounded by] a wall, for through its original consecration, it was consecrated for that time and for eternity.

וְלָמָּה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם קְדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. וּבִקְדֻשַּׁת שְׁאָר אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעִנְיַן שְׁבִיעִית וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לֹא קָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. לְפִי שֶׁקְּדֻשַּׁת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וּשְׁכִינָה אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה. וַהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כו לא) "וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִי אֶת מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶם" וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשּׁוֹמְמִין בִּקְדֻשָּׁתָן הֵן עוֹמְדִים אֲבָל חִיּוּב הָאָרֶץ בִּשְׁבִיעִית וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִּבּוּשׁ רַבִּים וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּלְקְחָה הָאָרֶץ מִידֵיהֶם בָּטַל הַכִּבּוּשׁ וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וּמִשְּׁבִיעִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מִן אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עֶזְרָא וְקִדְּשָׁהּ לֹא קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּכִבּוּשׁ אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בָּהּ וּלְפִיכָךְ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בָּהּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל וְנִתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּקְדֻשַּׁת עֶזְרָא הַשְּׁנִיָּה הוּא מְקֻדָּשׁ הַיּוֹם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּלְקַח הָאָרֶץ מִמֶּנּוּ וְחַיָּב בִּשְׁבִיעִית וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמָה:

, the portion of the Mishneh Torah which deals with the agricultural laws to be observed in Eretz Yisrael. There, the Rambam states that the original consecration of Eretz Yisrael was nullified after the Babylonian conquest. When Ezra returned from Babylon, he reconsecrated the Land, causing the various agricultural laws to be in effect again, though only M'd'Rabbanen, according to Rabbinic decree.The portion he consecrated was considerably smaller than the original boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, his consecration remained in effect even after the Gentiles' subsequent conquests. Indeed, on the basis of that consecration, these agricultural laws must be observed in Eretz Yisrael today.To resolve that contradiction, the Rambam explains that the "consecration" of Jerusalem and of the Temple differs from the "consecration" of Eretz Yisrael as a whole. Jerusalem and the Temple were consecrated by the revelation of the Shechinah in the Temple. That Divine act can never be nullified by man's deeds. In contrast, the consecration of Eretz Yisrael as a whole was brought about by the Jewish people. It can thus be nullified by the Gentiles. Why do I say that the original consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for eternity, while in regard to the consecration of the remainder of Eretz Yisrael, in the context of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and other similar [agricultural] laws, [the original consecration] did not sanctify it for eternity? (1:5), the Rambam states:Every [place] which those ascending from Egypt took possession of was consecrated in the initial consecration. When [the Jewish people] were exiled, that sanctity was nullified. The first consecration... sanctified the land for that time, but not for eternity.Because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem stems from the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified. Therefore, [Leviticus 26:31] states: "I will lay waste to your Sanctuaries." The Sages declared: 28a. "Even though they have been devastated, their sanctity remains." 16b states that the Temple was consecrated forever.Nevertheless, that statement is not accepted by all Halachic authorities. Both Rashi and the Tosafot interpret the Talmud's statements in Sh'vuot in a manner which indicates that they do not accept its simple meaning.Similarly, commenting on this and the above halachot, the Ra'avad writes:This is [the Rambam's] opinion. I am not aware of his source... According to the opinion in the Talmud which states that it was not originally consecrated for eternity, no differentiation was made between the Temple, Jerusalem, and the remainder of Eretz Yisrael...Even R. Yossi who maintains that the second consecration consecrated the land for eternity made that statement only in regard to the remainder of Eretz Yisrael and not in regard to the Temple and Jerusalem.Ezra knew that ultimately [the status] of the Temple and Jerusalem would ultimately change and that they would be eternally consecrated by God's glory [in the Messianic age]. Hence, he did not consecrate it when consecrating the remainder of Eretz Yisrael.The above was revealed to me, [as it is said:] "The secrets of God [are conveyed] to those who fear Him."In contrast, the [original] obligation to keep the laws of the Sabbatical year and tithes on the Land stemmed from the fact that it was conquered by the [Jewish people, as a] community. Therefore, when the land was taken from their hands [by the Babylonians,] their [original] conquest was nullified. Thus, according to Torah law, the land was freed from the obligations of the Sabbatical year and of tithes because it was no longer Eretz Yisrael. and exiled the people, the sanctity of the land was nullified. There was no obligation to keep any of the agricultural laws that apply in Eretz Yisrael during the seventy years of the Babylonian exile.When Ezra returned [to Eretz Yisrael] and consecrated it, it was not sanctified by means of conquest, but rather through Chazzakah. is a manifestation of ownership. It is accepted by Torah law as one of the certain formal acts of contract which acknowledge the transfer of property from one person to another. Therefore, every place which was repossessed by the [exiles returning from] Babylon and consecrated when Ezra consecrated [the land] the second time, is sacred today.Thus, as explained in Hilchot Terumah, it is necessary to keep the laws of the Sabbatical years and the tithes [on this land] even though it was taken from [the Jewish people in later years]. finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions:a) On what basis is Chazzakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a Chazzakah. If so, why is Ezra's Chazzakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the Chazzakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?These questions can be explained as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) interprets Genesis 15:18: "I have given this land to your seed to mean that from Abraham's time onward Eretz Yisrael became the property of the Jewish people. Though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See Bava Batra 119b.Despite this claim of ownership, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael came about only after the Jewish people entered the land, after the redemption from Egypt. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (See Numbers 32:29, Deuteronomy 3:21, etc.) Since God made the consecration of the land dependent on its conquest by Israel, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify that holiness.In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over the land which had been given to them as an eternal inheritance. Since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership is also eternal. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 15, 102-109.